The book is an interesting display of distance and desire. How desire is a by product of distance and seems to be the largest proponent to how and why Johnnie’s imagination is so driven. Such a case was familiar when watching Hitchcock’s Foreign Correspondent, the windmill scene. It struck me how familiar the settings were and how very deliberate this must have been. So I researched and found an interview that was done with Joanna Howard. It seems that my thought that Johnnie and the author are as akin as it may seem and not a biographical fallacy. She states in regards to Hitchcock and other directors in authorship, ” these were strange filmmakers and strange films. They involved sensational plots, exciting distant locales, or weird scenarios in spectacular architectural spaces.” And she goes on to say, “Growing up in a rural area of the country—Oklahoma—these distant, incomprehensible worlds captured my attention and continue to enter my mind when I sit down to write.” This sort of thought process that’s so fantastically imaginative comes across as very personal. Personal to the point of questioning how much of Johnnie is Howard or visa versa? Which also makes me wonder how much of this is motivation from the writer or is it equal parts rhetorical value? By this I mean how much is it supposed to be that way. The story claims the readers obsessions and ambiguous truths. Were Johnnie maybe too obsessive at times and oddly taken by urges I feel that is a caricature of what obsession can do to someone. The effects of the distance that desire can create in the pursuit to materialize, in context of the book a relationship (at least talking) to Scooter.