At first perusal, it may appear that Peter Brooks, author of Reading for the Plot is criticizing post-modern fiction, the genre in which The Third Lie, the final installment of the trilogy, by Agota Kristof is written. What Brooks is doing, in fact, is describing how the writing of story endings are effected by post-modern literary theory – e.g.: lack of a master plot, “tie up” through retribution or “marriage” (Brooks, Reading for the Plot (1985)). Brooks states that fictional conclusions written by post-modern authors have the capacity to leave readers unsatisfied and required to construct their own ending. Brook’s assertions do not fully apply to The Third Lie. Kristof does bring her story of Claus and Lucas to a close, …show more content…
That along with him ultimately meeting the brother he has been searching for is in definite contrast with Brook’s assertion that “Ends in narratives, it seems, have become difficult to achieve” (Brooks, Reading for the Plot (1985)). Lucas’ inability to reunite with his brother and the remembrance of their inseparability in their youth drives him to suicide, bringing about the closure that Brooks states eludes writers and readers of stories written during this time period. This may not be the happy ending that the reader desires, but it is an ending, never the less. After this pivotal event Kristof chooses to allow Lucas no other options. The story could have continued as Lucas was certain to be repatriated (Kristof 477), giving him the opportunity to revisit his brother, Claus, and obtain the answers that he sought, but Kristof chooses to have the main character in her story die. Claus’ actions, his being in the process of “completing the manuscript” he and Lucas have been writing since they were children, alludes to the coming end (Kristof 477). That along with Lucas’ request to be buried in the family plot concludes the account of Claus and Lucas (Kristof 477 & 478) and the story. There is no “stalemate” here (Brooks Reading for the Plot (1985)), nothing being as final as