This cyclical structure reiterates the main theme of enduring love and provides a structural closing for the novel. There are many themes in the story and sometimes it can be difficult to see the main theme, or the purpose of the literary piece. McEwan opens the novel and quickly establishes the love between Joe and Clarissa. The fact that they had been apart for so long and yet the passion was still there, they “wondered aloud whether [they] should drive straight home to bed.” McEwan ends the novel with Parry’s obsessive love; even though he has been admitted to a mental institute his obsession has not been cured. Just as Clarissa loved Joe even though they were apart, Parry still “adores” Joe, “lives for him” and he still “loves” him. It is crucial for the theme to be portrayed clearly, so that the purpose of the story is understood. The author has to carefully use form, structure and language to ensure that meaning is woven into the text.
The language in Appendix 1 is objective and unemotional because it is a science based case study. It is written in 3rd person narrative hence it is not hindered by emotion or rationality that comes with 1st person narrative. Unlike in 1st person narration, where the narrator is a character in the story and bases his description upon his state of mind, the 3rd person narrator does not describe his or her role in the action and has no individual connection with the text and therefore is more reliable. There are many instances in the text where the reader may question Joe’s reliability; he makes errors as it is a recount from memory. In the restaurant he described the flavour of his sorbet as “lime, just to the green side of white”, later at the police station when asked whether it was “apple or vanilla” he said it was “apple”. So the reader may not trust Joe’s judgement, including the assumption that “the flash of a white shoe and a bit of red” belonged to Parry because he had seen him the day before wearing “box-fresh trainers tied with red laces”. So appendix one brings about the truth behind the story.
The case study is fact based; there is no reference to emotion, no opinions and no theory, just what seems to be pure fact. McEwan uses this to give the reader a chance to engage with the text and form their own opinions. This may alter the readers’ impression of the characters. In hindsight they may sympathise more with Parry after insight to his background. The fact that he was “an intense and lonely child” with “no father to boast about” that grew up with “no close friendships” may explain why he became a de Clérambault’s sufferer. It may also change the readers opinion of Clarissa for not believing Joe, the case study proves that this “harmless”, “Jesus freak” that she once described as a “nuisance”, is in fact mentally ill with “dangerousness and suicidal tendencies”. This regains the readers trust in Joe and re-establishes him as the protagonist, reuniting them with the rational Joe, unaffected by emotion that may have fuelled his obsession with Parry.
Appendix 1 has an omniscient narrative and is able to recount things that may not have been expressed by any of the characters in the story, so where there is any doubt about the plot or certain aspects of the story, the reader is able to clear it up by picking up the references in the case study. Such as the “brilliant idea with the curtains”, at first it conveys great ambiguity. You only fully understand after you have read the case study that this is the direct link to de Clérambault’s Syndrome.
Appendix 2 is the 3rd letter from Parry. It runs parallel with the idea “that love that did not find expression in a letter was not perfect”. The letter has vivid contrast to Parry’s other two letters. The first two were disturbing and angst. The language suggests torture and pain “like an electrical current” and gives proof of Parry’s unstable state of mind. “I hated you for it, but never forget that I loved you to.” The last letter has a big difference in tone. It is very affectionate and love based. The language is almost poetic; the use of the comma makes it seem to flow. This is symbolic of Parry’s mental state, it is no longer erratic (it could be assumed that he is on Prozac) “[he] never felt so free.” This letter may also bring another twist to the story because Parry’s description of his love does seem perfect if it were not for the circumstances he was in. He does well to express how perfect this love is by the use of the letter. This immediately links to Joe and Clarissa, could it mean that Parry’s love for Joe was stronger than Joe’s love for Clarissa because Joe could not write a love letter to her expressing his love? It depends only on the style the writer uses. Different types of writers use different styles. Joe could not write a love letter because his style of writing was rational and he lacked the emotional flare needed to write a love letter. But this did not mean he did not love Clarissa he was just unable to express his love through his writing.
McEwan uses the appendices to show the reader the reality of the art of writing. The reader is led to believe that the case study is true fact. The names Wenn and Camia (the psychologist responsible for writing the case study) are an anagram of Ian McEwan. So the case study is in fact fiction. McEwan uses this to show that it does not matter what type of writing it is, whether it is a literature piece, a case study, an article by a journalist, a love letter or a poem. You cannot be sure if it is reliable. All writers are artists and their media is their canvas. Their work will always be influenced by their expressiveness, their creativity and their purpose. The case study was written for a purpose, to provide a believable ending to the story and clear up any doubt. It was too perfectly formed to be true life, the curtains, the links, and the letters all perfectly mastered to fool the reader.
