...but I'm not nearly as wise or evolved as the average dog, so I just keep on tapping away here for reasons that may have more to do with compulsion than purpose. And though I hesitated to post the following due to misgivings about pursuing a train of thought (with no Caboose in sight) that is unlikely to appeal to any but those who have both read the book and emerged with a similar urge to obsess about it, I ultimately chose to hit PUBLISH because: 

a. I had nothing else ready 

b. I really do have a personal compulsion to think and write about such silly matters and there's not much sense in trying to pretend otherwise. 

If you haven’t read it, skip the following. 
And I'm not recommending that you should or shouldn't read it.   But, if you have read it, and don’t think the ending was meant to be taken at face value and that the author was playing some kind of game of hide and seek with the reader—then I would  appreciate any light you might shed on the matter--cause frankly, I’m kind of mystified.  But first, I have to say that I was rooting  for this celebrated* book to work. Early on our narrator says: 

“Again, I must stress that this is my reading now of what happened then. Or rather, my memory now of my reading then of what was happening at the time. ” 
And our narrator's tragic friend at a very young age notes that: “History is that certainty produced at the point where the imperfections of memory meet the inadequacies of documentation.”
And since  I'm kind of obsessed with all things related to subjective memory and the unreliability of "history",  where better than in imaginative fiction to explore and discover new insights.  But alas, I lost my way as I approached the end of this book and was left with little more than a lot of nagging questions.

True or false? Veronica is irrational** and therefore her "You don’t get it!  And you never will! " accusations should be ignored.   If false, then what is she talking about?  And/or, why doesn't she just tell him?  

Veronica's reference to Blood Money.  What  blood money?  Sarah's?  How was that blood money?  I certainly bloody well don't know.  

Tony’s letter to Adrian and Veronica.  Angry? Of course. Cruel?  Okay, maybe.  A major cause of Veronica’s cultivation of a lifetime of hate & resentment, and a contributing factor in Adrian’s suicide?  C'mon. Really?  It’s  sophomoric to a degree that makes the narrator sound like a 13 year old girl hooked on reality TV. 

Sarah and Adrian?  Sure, fine, so what? And regardless-- what’s that got to do with Tony?  And why is Tony feeling remorse about his role in it?  He played no role. 

Sarah and Tony?  Did something happen there?  Did I miss something?

 Oh, yes, that mysterious horizontal gesture that Sarah makes, which was what?  Is that a British thing?  All I could think of was a baseball umpire calling the play "Safe". 

The caregiver's comment:  " Especially now..."  Which is prefaced by  mention of the fact that it was mentioned earlier.  So I went back and couldn't find it.  Was it there?  And if so, it was referring to what? 

Is Tony suppressing more of  his memory than we're aware of ?  Is that what the book is all about? Well, yes that is what the book is all about, but  if  Tony is completely unreliable as a narrator, maybe none of it happened as he said and Tony is as wacky as Veronica .  Maybe I didn't even read the book, and just dreamed all of this.  

 And  the most important event in the entire story (and the one that would answer many questions) is missing from the account, because it’s missing from the memory of the one telling the tale.   Holy “Kick Me” sign on my back Batman!  The joke was on me.  And there was no punch line.  Just a 150 page "No soap, radio" routine. 

Do you (you who have read the book) see what I mean?  Is Julian Barnes mocking us for suspending our disbelief?  Is he saying that because life is a fiction, then Fiction is ...I don't know, what?  Useless? Worthless?  Wow.  Heavy. 

And is that why, hard as you may look, you will not find (I challenge you) the author answering any of these questions in interviews or even on his own website.  He is not saying a word, and that in itself tells me that something's happenin'  and we don't know what it is...do we Mr. Barnes?  

Lest you think I'm being harsh on the distinguished author -for whom I had nothing but high praise in my post about his very effective " Arthur and George" last month--I can only say that the first 30 or 40 pages of this book had me  alert and involved .  It's just that I have absolutely no clue as to what all the "clues" were about and therefore have no idea where I was when I reached the end.   Wait a minute...OMG!  That's it.  The Title!  It's right there.  There is no ending...only the "Sense" of one. Just like life!  Stuff  happens, you don't know why, and then you die.  

I feel like Roseanne Rosanneadanna:  "Never Mind."  

*Won The Man Booker prize--which I should know by now is a guarantee of bewildered exasperation.
**Bro-in-Law Stuart (who gave me the book) made good point--the author provides little or no insight into female characters.  The men are complex,  the women are all one dimensional. 

I must now take refuge in the wordless wonderfulness of music…

Joy Spring.  My favorite track on one of  my favorite albums with my favorite trumpeter playing one of my favorite solos.  

My (co-favorite) son Will was so taken with this song when he was about 12 years old, that he asked his guitar instructor to help him learn it.   And I was so thrilled that I worked hard to learn the chords so he could play lead while I comped the changes.   Now if he would only play it again with me…