Launching into part 2 of the text I was somewhat worried about the ending given Professor Sample’s characterization of it being “anti-climactic,” and while after finishing the novel I feel that certainly holds true, I think it holds up in light of some of the novel’s themes. The idea of author’s being replaced as shapers of public or societal narrative is well served in Bill’s unceremonious death, and particularly Brita’s decision by the novel’s photograph “the interesting things” (229) instead of photographers – who are distinct from the former subject – is the culmination of this theme. Terrorists don’t literally replace authors, but figuratively, in the context of our understanding of the narrative of our world. If this is the case, I can better understand why the author chose Mao II as the title for this novel, especially considering the many allusions to that man.
In fact this idea is made explicitly clear during Bill’s discussions with George Haddad. As George states, “In China the narrative belonged to Mao. People memorized it, and recited it to assert the destiny of their revolution.” (162). When we think of narrative, we may instantly think of a story in a book or something of the like, but DeLillo and George use it discuss how revolutionaries use it to shape their own ideal culture. This theme is reinforced by DeLillo’s recurrent allusions to Ayatollah Kohmeni, who in the middle east could be seen as a figure analogous to Mao. Kohmeini and the terrorists however do not frame the narrative as Mao did with his Little Red Book of Quotations. Instead, they use the media. Abu Rashid had originally planned to release the captured author after Bill attended a press conference where he affirmed the goals and ideals of Rashid’s group. And we see that Karen’s whole outlook on the world is informed by what she watches on television, from the football riot earlier in the novel to the televised burial of Kohmeini. Where are the authors, meanwhile? The two writers of Mao II meanwhile? Dead and all but forgotten.
The captive dies in captivity, and it is implied by Brita’s discussion with Rashid and his interpreter that the world has forgotten the terrorist had even held him, while Bill dies on a boat completely unknown to those present. When Bill meets with the British veterinarians he never gives his identity, and insists that they’ve never read anything by him or seen him in passing on television appearances (that point being fairly likely given Bill is a recluse). He is, to the vets, an unknown quantity, more importantly one that has had no impact on their lives. Finally, in his conversations with them, he constructs a situation that seemingly mirrors the absurdity of his insistence to continue on to Beirut. His hypothetical character hit by a car should, by the all testimony given by the vets, go see a doctor, and certainly not go on a cruise or journey as Bill suggests. In spite of all the injuries Bill wants his character to carry on, as he does to Beirut. It seems to me that Bill is trying to lay himself to rest, or to hide from the grotesque specter of his novel which seems to be dogging him throughout the novel.