Reading Group Guide questions from the back of the book #3

Niffenegger portrays Henry's time traveling as the result of a genetic disorder, which is explained at some length later on. How plausible is this explanation--not from a scientific point of view, but from a dramatic or literary one? Do you think that Henry's condition requires an explanation?

I think that from a literary perspective, the reader has to sort of look past any discrepancies in the explanation of Henry's condition because, obviously, time travel doesn't make scientific sense. Nothing Niffenegger could have said would have made the reader believe that it was possible, but she effectively convinces the reader that it's not necessary to know the intricacies of Henry's disorder. From a literary perspective, Niffenegger gives us just enough information for it to be plausible in our minds, as long as we didn't think too hard about it. I think Henry's condition definitely requires an explanation for the story to have depth and substance. It would be very difficult for Henry's character to be believable if we never saw him ask questions and wonder about why he is the way he is. From that perspective, Henry's condition needs a scientific explanation. In order for the audience to recognize Henry as a real person, he needs to go through steps that a real person would. If a real person realized they time traveled uncontrollably, they would also want to go to a doctor, research the reasons behind it, try to find a way to stop it. The explanation of Henry's condition doesn't serve to convince the reader that time travel is plausible, it serves to provide depth to Henry's character.