The narrator told this story because he had returned from war and while he was with his family had decided to go to Alaska to find gold and have a change in life. Before he could even decide when to go, Miss Agatha requested that he, far from a detective, find who killed her son, Ike. For majority of the piece, it seemed as though the narrator was thinking and without an audience — other than himself — to converse to over the events that occur. The piece brought about a sense of constantly seeking support from none other than himself, as if he was trying to understand what was going on and using himself as conversation as with the paragraph on page 20 regarding meeting his ex and what he should do if she confronted him or even attacked him, but in the end, she didn’t even notice him, which made him feel disappointed — though he wouldn’t say that outright. The story was about the past but there was a sense of immediacy in the story that made it feel as though everything happened moments or minutes ago. We learned in the beginning the perspective of the story, which is recent, and a little bit of information regarding some of the people around our narrator, narrator, and setting — Washington. I believe the narrator thought this story is about himself. I think he understood that this was something — the murderer specifically — he would find out by himself only and because he didn’t know about the other people entirely, gave him more space to see things more openly. He didn’t understand a lot of what was going on beyond what was told to him, which wasn’t fully revealed in the beginning as he needed it to be. He talked about his ex a lot and declared he didn’t want to be with her, but was actually hung up on her, which was where I truly feel he knew this story is about him because he, in my mind, would focus only on the short comings of the detective work had it mainly focused on other people and not him. Why would he bring his ex up, who had no play in the murder mystery, otherwise? It was his process of including all of this as he searched for the murderer — what happened to him, not what happened or could have happened to Ike, his mother, or anyone else beside himself.
The way the narrator presented the story is a bit of a revelation and self defense. I think revelation because it was about a murder mystery while also being a self defense because of the time and characters set in this story. They couldn’t rely on officers, only each other, and in the end, they couldn’t do that. It was almost as if it was his way of saying “this happened to me, but don’t you dare think I am what caused this all to happen.” I find his tone almost unsure, as if he questioned the reality of his situation — primarily at the end, that is. Throughout the piece, the narrator spoke in a tone that was almost waiting to see the end too because they’re ready to move to the next stage of life, yet it wasn’t quite rushed. It brought a lot of details in, not only facts, as seen with his ex. It was as though he was biding his time until he could escape. The narrator did change throughout the story. He became more invested toward the end; invested in his home town and the murder of Ike. Though he was tempted to lie and blame the crime on someone he knew little of, he still returned to that apartment one last time to check. Despite he thought it was a lost hope, he still went to Ike’s place to look one last time, and in the end he didn’t fulfil his dreams in Alaska. I think the narrator found these events life changing, which is why he relayed his story.
I never read the narrator’s voice as being unsure. I understood him to mean that he came to a realization about the women with whom he interacts. As we read in the last paragraph, for the first time he wonders what a woman is thinking and realizes that there is more to women than he had thought–he sees them as people. Furthermore, he decides to stay in Washington, D.C. because he understands his place is with the women who care about him, and he wants to make right the harm inflicted on them by men.