Life After Life question

People keep discussing whether or not WWII would have been fought if Hitler had died or not (super interesting discussion, and entirely plausible)... but in the novel, the reason WWII still happens after Ursula shoots Hitler is that, though we never find out if she succeeded in killing Hitler, the important thing is that SHE dies, restarting the loop. Therefore, it doesn't matter if she kills him or not. If she truly wanted to change that particular thread of history, she'd have to kill Hitler and THEN survive past the event so it doesn't reset... a daunting task. (this is also why Nancy, who seems to have died again as a child, is there when Teddy returns home).

Of course, it wouldn't matter, because she'd have to do it every time she lives anyways. I loved the idea of getting chances to change the things in your life that you wish to change, but the overwhelming sense I got at the end of the book was one of exhaustion. I read the ending as a continuation of the loop of eternal lives, in which the book takes on a rather interesting life of its own and lives beyond the pages. However, I felt sorry for Ursula if this was the case, because it would be tiring. Not to mention the fact that this interpretation also creates an idea that everything is futile...of course brought up in the book as amor fati....and that no matter what you choose, it will never matter in the end.

I feel tired at the end of this book, as though I had just lived all these lives, but it was absolutely worth reading.

I think that the ending is really exasperating, but also intriguing. There really is no such thing as a do-over in life, even in Ursula's bizarre life. I felt rather shocked at the end when I realized that she seemingly is never going to stop coming back to life, so no attempt to right wrongs or stop terrible events would ever stick. This book is so amazing and fascinating.

I saw Life After Life as a Groundhog Day parallel: we have so many pivotal opportunities to do the right thing throughout our life, and how wonderful if our life has a do-over clause.

The overarching trajectory of Ursula's lives was increasingly positive. My understanding was that she subconsciously absorbed lessons in each life; to avoid the boy who raped her, to save Bridget without harming her, to prevent Nancy's murder...

If you accept that premise, then it's easy to assume that she killed hitler in her final life - the life in which she seems most aware of her prescient knowledge, and the only life in which she is intentional about planning her future. To me, the opening scene was a natural conclusion of that life.

The final life is the only one that doesn't "fade to black." Doesn't that support the idea that shooting Hitler is the close of that story?

I realize I am very (very) late to this discussion... I just finished the book and was hoping to understand the ending better. But I'm not sure why everyone keeps talking about the end where she's reunited with Teddy as an extension of the life where she kills Hitler. I saw these as two distinct lives. She dies right after shooting (or failing to shoot) Hitler, so we never see how that ends up. Then we see another birth, and another story in which Hitler existed, WW2 happened, but Teddy lived. The way I see it, even if she prevents WW2 from happening in one life, she'd have to keep doing it over and over again... this act didn't end her cycle of lives. It didn't turn out to be the"right" storyline any more than any of the others did... I think. It didn't ultimately make the kind of sense we wanted it to make, a happy ending scenario. (Similarly, even though she got better at preventing disasters as the lives went on, this linear progress wasn't so linear by the end, as we saw that Nancy died again, and it was like a relapse.) So my thinking is that the end of the novel implies that there never will be a "right," resolving narrative... just infinite varieties, some of which contain one tragedy but not another, others of which avoid that particular tragedy but stumble into another unforeseen one... there isn't any getting it "right." And it keeps going. That's my take at the moment, though I'll admit it doesn't explain why that section is called "The End of the Beginnings."

If Ursula had a purpose, and it was to kill hitter, then die, she'd fulfilled her purpose. But she doesn't get another go (the section was the end of the beginnings - which indicated it was the last life ursula had) so, how is she rewarded? Her friends and family live, there is no World War Two, but there is no happy narrative for ursula herself, she sacrifices her life for others.

So maybe the scene at the end was her reward, her perfect moment in the context of her own lives (not the utopia future with no WWII. Teddy lives, Nancy lives. A moment of pure joy, fixed in time, unchanging for her, while the rest of the world continued on it's new, different time line. The midwife stuck in the pub, unchanging echoes that - another unchanging moment, just hanging there forever.

Another one who loved it.

My interpretation after finishing it was that we only read about Ursula's 'do overs' but that everyone has them (or the very least her Mother and Teddy do, but probably others).
I don't agree that some things 'go nowhere' rather they are just a part of those people's stories that we don't get to read about - but they hint at different courses taken, different choices made by those people. Like her Mother with another man...we know the marriage wasn't always happy, did she have an affair because the marriage was under strain? or did the affair cause the unhappiness in the marriage?

As for the actual ending, I think she shot Hitler and was then killed and that her next reincarnation is her "reward" life - the one where she gets her happy ending. She gets to live this last life without Hitler in it, without WW2 and without all the deaths and destruction she had to endure in previous lives. All those people that died previously get to live their lives to completion because of her.
All their stories go on, but we just don't get to see it, we just have to imagine it for ourselves.

I’m new to Goodreads and to this thread. Came upon it accidentally but I so love LAL, I read it through. Thanks so much to Dorothy July 14, 2013, whose remarks completely duplicate my reactions,

"I loved the ending. It made me realize this was a story within a story where everyone had a 'do over' life.

Such a multi-layered story - I borrowed it from the library and then bought the ebook when the price dropped. I know I'll be re-reading this and have already recommended it to friends.

When [\ Ursala was born again with the cord wrapped around her throat and her mother immediately grabbed for the never before seen tiny scissors, it was just mind blowing."

Loved the first half, and loved the concept, so very interesting. Confusing to me for sure. I thought she spent too much time in WWII, it got quite boring to me. Also too many quotes from important books. After half way I didn't like it, but the ending made me like it again but not completely. Still it made me think a lot which a good book should do. Also, she went to a sanitarium towards the end, then she kind of gets what's happening to her? I thought she did kill Hitler, but so confusing. Interesting to think about for sure.

I was bothered early in the book when Ursula returned from a visit to Izzie in London and remembered seeing her mother, Sylvie, stepping outside arm in arm with another man, giving a homeless man some money. That was out of nowhere and went nowhere.

And poor Nancy . . . Ursula gets to die peacefully into the dark each time but poor Nancy keeps getting raped and murdered most of the time.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who found this book confusing. It seemed like the author spent way too much time on certain parts of the story, like the blitz, and hardly any time on others. Several of you mentioned the part where Ursula sees her mother with a man while she's visiting Izzy. I kept expecting that storyline to pop up later but it never did. Also, I didn't understand why in one life she pushed Bridget down the stairs and in another life she lied to her about her fiance cheating on her. At first I thought that there was something bad about Bridget that we didn't know, but in other lives Ursula seemed to like Bridget quite well.

Could that be why mother says, "practice makes perfect"? Because she is also re-living her life and knew to keep a pair of scissors in her bed side drawer?

I believe she did kill Hitler, but his ideas had already taken root and someone else picked it up from there, so WWII still happened. However, things DID happen differently, because Teddy survived, not only his plane being shot down, but also being held by the Nazis for quite a long time. Maybe that indicates that the Nazis were not so "efficient" in how they ran things, and perhaps not so many died in whatever version of the Holocaust happened?

I do agree that this is a very confusing book, but I believe Kate Atkinson designed it that way.....kind of like the ending to The Sopranos, which left everyone theorizing what happened, it was planned to make you think, and almost any interpretation is valid.

I thought each life was a parallel stream with each other, not really linear one after another. The only thing that irked me a little is that both of Ursula's children die (one before birth, the other well before adulthood)- and Ursula's choices (or the author's choices) were for Ursula to never return to these events and make the choice to either not have the abortion, or to get out of Berlin in time. She is also never allowed to have a really happy long term relationship. I realize Ursula is supposed to be isolated and alone, but it gets somewhat ridiculous after awhile.

Obviously when she shoots Hitler she's killed, so the ending is not an extension of that particular life.

The 2 sections with Teddy at the end are a different life. A life where she didn't kill Hitler, the war still happens, but Teddy survives the war, and he is reunited with both his love and his sister.

And that is the final iteration of her lives. That's her BEST life. It's where Atkinson leaves it alone. It's a testament to family, and to the love Ursula had for her family.

To make my point more concisely, maybe: I was reading the book with a feeling that the killing of Hitler would end up being the resolving narrative that breaks the cycle, which I think is implied by the fact that the novel opens with this event, but at the end I felt I'd learned that this wasn't so... it wasn't the narrative to end all narratives, after all.

Sarah Goss I loved what you had to say about the infinite varieties and how each life contains both happy & tragic events (just like real life).I definitely need to reread this novel again soon.

I was surprised by the ending of this book too. I think my main question was why the book continued after Ursula killed Hitler. I think as a conventional book, that is where it would end, it's the logical ending - the concept of this novel would be that Ursula continued on 'reincarnating' to eventually lead the 'perfect' or most perfect life. However, Kate Atkinson continuing on with further chapters means the book is more of an illustration rather than a traditional novel.

I think the concept is that while you think the book is heading toward 'the perfect run' - as in, Ursula does everything correctly including killing Hitler - it continues with more lives because the book is actually trying to illustrate that there are so many permutations that can happen in life and continue to happen, and that these different lives are not necessarily going to end in bad outcomes (ie. her brother doesn't die in WW2, I don't think she directly had a hand in that).

I think it's trying to show that there is no 'perfect' sequence to our life but many, many sequences that are different and not necessarily good or bad.

So, it is unsettling that she continues to reincarnate but I don't think that's the point. The reincarnating is just an illustration.

I agree with the commenter who asked why so many people are commenting as if the scene where Teddy comes back were a continuation of the "Hitler" life. No. She killed Hitler (or didn't, but I think she did) and died, and then it all started over, and in the next life she DIDN'T kill or even try to kill Hitler, so the war happened.

Am I the only one who thought that maybe Ursula succeed in killing Hitler? Atkinson says that other guns are immediately drawn. Maybe she was killed before her bullet got to him.

Also, what does everyone think about Izzy's son showing up so late in the novel? This is one of the few stores that doesn't get repeated and changed, and it left me feeling unfinished.

I loved the ending. It made me realize this was a story within a story where everyone had a 'do over' life.

Such a multi-layered story - I borrowed it from the library and then bought the ebook when the price dropped. I know I'll be re-reading this and have already recommended it to friends.

When (view spoiler)[\ Ursala was born again with the cord wrapped around her throat and her mother immediately grabbed for the never before seen tiny scissors, it was just mind blowing./(view spoiler)[ (hide spoiler)] (hide spoiler)]

I was hoping that Ursala would have learned something from a former life and so would make different decisions and choices when she was born again. She didn't seem to remember her former lives, just snacthes at memories she half remembered.

I was confused about the ending. Did Teddy know what had happened before? Is that why he said Thank You to Ursala? I didn't think she killed Hitler because WWII still happened.

But, despite some flaws and confusion, I loved the book. The story was so creative. It was wonderful. I'll have to read other books by Kate Atkinson, she's a wonderful writer.

I was so intrigued and enthralled by this book. In Ursala's view of each life lived over the tiny to giant details missed or overlooked were fantastic to re read again. Atkinson's description of the London bombings were great. However, the ending was somewhat confusing to me. And yes everyone would love a do over life...but to infinity? I would've loved to be in Kate Atkinson's head while she was dreaming this story up! Fantastic and original!!!!

I definitely agree that the ending is confusing, but I think that this is the type of book I need to keep processing, long after I finish it (I just finished it last night). Also think that it's one that will improve with each successive reading, as there's little hints and details Kate Atkinson throws in that makes sense hundreds of pages later. I found myself wondering why Maurice was such a different character from the rest of his family? Yet Ursula was the odd man out, in Sylvie's point of view? I think a pivotal moment was when "something broke" for Ursula; at that point she seemed to make vastly different lifestyle choices to avoid making the same mistakes, yet she often ended up in that same area anyway. It makes me wonder if all of us rework our lives and choices in little ways, but often end up with the same results. It seemed like the only constant in her life was Fox Corner, thus family? Like Diane, I wonder why Teddy seemed to say "Thank You" to Ursula even if she hadn't directly saved him. Hmmm! This book will have me pondering for a long time to come!

Rachel wrote: "She apparently shot Hitler twice but this wasn't it as WW2 still happened. Teddy being alive was obvious a big thing but was nothing to do with her. It left me thinking what was the purpose of the book."

First, fantastic book! Second, there is a line in the book that may explain the Hitler shootings. Ursula is thinking about WWII as she says: "But perhaps Goering or Himmler would have stepped in. And everything would have happened in just the same way." So even though Ursula manages to shoot Hitler twice, the author is suggesting that one action may not alter the course of history (i.e. WWII itself), though it may change some aspects of history (i.e. Teddy being alive at the end).

I was also confused about whether or not Ursula's "do-overs" would stop at the end or not. A fascinating read and I'm sure I will re-read it in the future.

Great discussion! I just finished the book today, and I loved it. The ending confused me, too -- I was a bit frustrated but I also loved the fact that it kept me thinking and trying to work things out.

I had a different interpretation of the ending. I think Ursula's story ends, more or less, when she assassinates Hitler in 1930 (an event that was previewed for us at the beginning of the novel). I think it's probable that history was significantly changed at this point, but we don't really know.

However, she still has the opportunity for more journeys through her life to create more strands of history. So she creates a strand in which Nancy isn't murdered as a little girl and Teddy survives the war -- I don't really know how (how can she control whether an Aussie airman cuts Teddy loose and ensures that he's wearing a parachute?)

Ursula's main objective has been accomplished in Germany in 1930, but she creates this other strand of history so Teddy and Nancy can have what they never got -- a real chance to be together. Somehow Teddy knows (or Ursula feels he might) which is why she believes he is saying "thank you" in the pub. This makes me think that, instead of one version of events being the "real" one, there are different realities that all exist -- it's a bit like the theory of parallel universes.

The explanation Ngan and Marika offered is just as plausible though, if not more so.

I am not sure why we get the scene, at the end, with Mrs. Haddock trapped in the pub in 1910, except that it gives a since of time being cyclical which fits the theme of the book, somehow.

Interesting conversation! :)

I saw the ending as an indication that things had gone full circle and the story was complete. It is so interpretive....I guess the ending means whatever we understand it to mean.

First thing, Ursala and the other characters are the creations of the author and do or don't do anything except what she has them do. By entering into the world the author creates and engaging with it they become 'real' to us. This is of course the great joy in reading fiction. It can however be irksome if characters don't conform to or betray the perceived 'logic' of the story.

Which brings me to the second point. Life After Life is as much about the nature of story telling as it is about the story. Perhaps more so. Kate Atkinson is quite clever in making us like Ursala and to want her to get it 'right'. Ursala's lives play out as the author, god like, imagines them to. She gets the fun of taking her down different paths, having her fail or succeed in the same situations and even change 'our' history. We get to go along on the (I think very enjoyable) ride and in the end come away with not only the usual benefits of a good read but also having had a right good think about how story telling works.

I think she did kill Hitler. She pulled the trigger. But the war still happened anyway, maybe as it was said, some other historical figure steped in to make it happen. I assumed when reading that all the versions of her life had happened and that we were told the Hitler shooting first, early, out of order. And by the end of the book had come back to it. As it seemed the largest, or at least one of the largest, reasons to keep coming back and "get it right". But then again, there is no life of hers presented, even after shooting Hitler, which occurs without WW II happening. So I'm rather confused.
Also a bit upsetting is the very last chapter, with Mrs Haddock stuck at the pub. Maybe we're just coming full circle as one reader has suggested, and Ursula is simply being born anew. One more time in an infinite chain. But if you go back to earlier chapter, this exact scene in the pub occurs in the one incarnation of Ursula in which she is raped and later murdered by her husband. Is she back to reliving this life? If so, why? Am I taking it too literally? Any thoughts?

Dorothy wrote: I loved the ending. It made me realize this was a story within a story where everyone had a 'do over' life.

That's what I wondered at the end. Not only with Teddy's scene but also the birth scene where Ursula's mother is prepared to cut the cord. That made me think that everyone was repeating their lives. But what I was confused by was how much they understood of their past lives. Atkinson says in several places that Ursula doesn't really understand the "feelings" that she has. If that's so, how did she know to go to Germany and make friends with Eva Braun?
I greatly enjoyed the book.

Someone out there...(invitation to dedicated readers) should write a short guide to "Life After Life" - I want to wait a year or two before re-reading with a tablet in hand... If you read other Kate Atkinson books, you will realize she had to write this book. Her circular plot devices...are wonderful, but a bit confusing at times. This book (LAL) reaches the penultimate. I haven't been this confused since reading Ian Pears and Charles Palliser!!

Another comment. The Hitler question. She did NOT kill Hitler. You have to assume, since history did not change...that the other people at the table killed her first. Right in line with her many other deaths.

Please note that in each death...Kate is careful to delineate changes that occur because of actions. Unless I am mistaken (horrors!), I read of no changes due to a Hitler death.

But, as I posted above... we need a guide!!!!

I, too, feel that the ending proved that Ursula's lives were cycling over and over and not linear like a normal person's life. I was hoping she would be able to do something extraordinary, like prevent WWII and all the terrible Nazi atrocities, but I don't think she was able to pull the trigger and kill Hitler. Hitler always wore a bullet proof vest, though I'm not sure when he started doing this, if it was as early as 1930. The ending reminded me of the movie Inception. If you've seen it, you know how it was to sit there at the end and think "Is that really the end?" At first, I was disappointed by the end, but as I think more on it weeks after finishing the book, I am coming to terms with it. -http://miathereader.com

I also loved the ending. I don't think that all the versions of Ursula's life were so much "do over" trying to get something right, but "what if". Mostly the same people (and animals) were present in her lives but played different roles which culminated in different results. Did anyone else find it interesting that Ursula had a child in only one of her lives even though(and I thought that life was the most tragic), she mentions missing out on not having children in her other lives?

I think that Ursula can and does change history: first, just her own history, then other creature's history (the rabbits), then other people's history (Nancy et al) & finally world history--i.e killing Hitler.
It's just that she can't FINE-TUNE history. There were some changes she obviously had no control over, as: will the doctor snip the cord in time? There were some changes she didn't cause (at least not knowingly)like the arrival of Roland & that turned out not to be crucial to the plot anyway. When history reboots it's a new deal each time & Ursula's actions are only part of it.

So I'd say that, despite Hitler dying in 1930, WW2 happens anyway (very plausible, btw) In that last 1945 episode, it's clear that there was still a war of Germany vs. England/Russia/USA. It still ended w. Germany's defeat in 1945. There was even still a Nazi party, because they mention the Gestapo. No mention of Hitler, so all this still happened without him. No broad change, just enough lesser change so that Teddy survives.

I think Teddy survived and was reunited with Nancy. Ursula died on the park bench.