The end of I am Not Sidney Poitier left my thoughts swirling with different theories regarding Not Sidney’s eventual fate. The novel spirals towards its ambiguous conclusion when Not Sidney decides to acquire 50,000 dollars in cash so that he can fund the construction of a church for the nuns he encounters during his time in Smuteye. In order to procure the necessary funds, Not Sidney travels to Montgomery, Alabama, alone.
On his return to Smuteye, Not Sidney becomes extremely paranoid and is swarmed with the fear that “the watchers, the robbers, the highwaymen, [the] snaggletoothed spawn of aging grand dragons” (Everett, 195) are stalking him, looking to steal his money and possibly his life. However, the reader is led to believe that, despite Not Sidney’s anxiety, he returns to Smuteye unscathed. Though on his way back, Not Sidney does witness what is implied by Everett to be a Ku-Klux Klan meeting, described with upsetting detail and a chillingly casual tone.
The narrative continues and Not Sidney finds himself arrested once again on the basis of his skin color, as well as his status as a stranger. This time, Not Sidney has been accused of murder. The chief of police, simply called Chief, eventually clears Not Sidney of involvement in the murder and enlists his help in determining the identity of the corpse. Much to Not Sidney’s horror, the body Chief shows him resembles Not Sidney exactly, though neither Donald, the coroner, nor Chief seem to notice. Not Sidney is later able to visualize what happened to his “doppelgänger” and sees in his mind’s eye Thornton Scrunchy, probable KKK-member, striking him in the back of the head in an attempt to steal his 50,000 dollars.
Reading this section of the novel shocked me. I didn’t know what to think when I first read it. However, this was before we researched the word ‘eidolon’ in class. Eidolon is defined as either an idealized person or a phantom/specter. This newfound knowledge caused me to theorize that perhaps Not Sidney truly died during his return to Smuteye, but was continuing the narrative as his eidolon, Sidney Poitier. In this instance, I believe that either definition of eidolon would be applicable.
However, the consideration of this theory was just a jumping off point for me. I found myself unable to sleep a few nights ago, because I was so perplexed by what had happened or not happened to Not Sidney Poitier. Finally, when I was on the treadmill at the gym, I remembered a particularly interesting theory that a friend recently explained to me: Quantum Immortality.
Quantum Immortality is a theory based on a thought experiment published by Hans Moravec in the late 1980’s. The thought experiment itself is quite grim but its consequences are beautifully frightening. Quantum Immortality, in conjunction with the Many Worlds theory (also known as the Everett interpretation of Quantum mechanics), implies that if an individual dies in one universe, that individual will continue to exist in another universe and will be both alive and dead at the same time. However, said individual would not be cognizant of their death and would simply go on living in a new but familiar universe.
This theory could explain what happens to Not Sidney at the end of the novel, but then again so could many other theories. In fact, virtually any interpretation could be considered legitimate since there are a near infinite amount of interpretations that could arise from the consumption of literature. This is due to the fact that no two minds think exactly alike since each reader possesses varied life experiences. Therefore, each individual that consumes literature will form an interpretation that, in a way, transports them to their own universe, a universe in which their interpretation is the most plausible. Therefore, an individual’s ability to traverse universes in Quantum Immortality theory can be said to mimic the way in which literature can impress diverse meanings in different minds.
Both Quantum Immortality and the inherent multiplicity of meaning in literature are beautiful but eerie concepts. I find it at least somewhat disturbing to imagine that I have possibly died and am now existing in a different universe than the one I was born in. Additionally, the concept of immortality is itself confounding, but I won’t go into that. Furthermore, it can be unsettling to imagine that you as a reader are in a world alone with your interpretation of what you have read. However, I think that as readers we should learn to overcome this fear and accept the heterogeneity of our interpretations, so long as no one’s interpretation could prove harmful to another individual.
The multiplicity of meaning in literature is exemplified by my interpretation of Not Sidney’s fate. A different reader of I am Not Sidney Poitier may find this interpretation quite plausible and thereby adopt it as their own. Another reader may believe that Not Sidney’s fate is to become his eidolon, Sidney Poitier. Another reader may have an entirely different interpretation altogether. However, each take on the end of Everett’s novel is both valuable and valid.