I enjoy ambiguity as much as anyone, but I think that an author also has an obligation to the reader not to make his or her writing so dense as to be incomprehensible, which is what I found in Santiago’s text. The mixture of at times indecipherable images and text is daunting. If a text is unintelligible, the reader looses interest. After several attempts at trying to wrestle meaning from Darkest Hour I decided that the easiest path would be to admit defeat, write about what I understand and see what others have to offer at the next class meeting.
As the twitter exchanges indicate, there is some confusion about the chronology of the book. “The actual story of the book is Omar getting up in the morning, going to work then he goes home and falls asleep watching TV” according to Santiago, who says that the book is not a “story line” (http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?threadid=26002).
This may be what Santiago had in mind, but he doesn’t pull if off. If Omar is asleep, then what we are witnessing is his dreams/nightmares, reflecting somewhat the conditions of his life as many of our dreams/nightmare do. Santiago’s novel replicates Omar’s thoughts/dreams and in effect, is portraying Omar’s disorientation. But without something to ground the narrative it is unsatisfying to the reader. Did he rape the suicide girl, or just dream it? Was he abused as a child, or is it only a nightmare?
Ultimately we are left watching the actions (or dreams?) of this very messed up young man. His sexual abuse as a child, his mother’s practice of santeria animal sacrifice, etc. may have helped him on his way to his current state, but his acts seem organic; the result of hay wired thought processes. Many have seen/experienced worse and not turned out the same. But if it’s only a dream, why are we supposed to care?
The question of whether of not to sympathize with Omar is difficult. As his story begins, he’s on the edge. Then he becomes a homeless vagrant, one of the crazies we occasionally cross paths with pushing shopping carts and mutter to themselves. He takes no personal responsibility for his actions, but personal responsibility can only be questioned when a person is responsible. In Omar’s case responsibility goes out the window when he looses his mental balance.
I would have gotten more out of Omar’s story if Santiago had given us more to go on. As it is, guessing about the nature of his fall, the chronology of his story and his character makes the book incomplete. There is not enough here to make a judgment. Maybe Santiago’s message is that we should not judge Omar, but that is not a satisfying one.