Sorry I've been starting these threads so often lately... If you're not annoyed with me yet, then I'd appreciate your opinions! Okay, the context is this: this is the end of my story, one of the story climaxes, when my character C finds out his father isn't really his father. In the ensuing scene, C shoots his "father". Now C is about to get into a hover-box (think a helicopter of sorts) with his girlfriend to throw bombs out of the city before they blow up. At the very end, I finish with a slightly philosophical sentence that's open for interpretation. It's deliberately that way. However, my co-author found it confusing and unsatisfying and didn't understand what I was getting at. She admits she isn't into philosophical stuff, however. I need to know if I've hit that sweet spot of "made you think", or if it just leaves the reader a little confused. Open for interpretation is fine but it should suggest something strongly, and I'm not sure I've managed that. Basically, should I leave it as is, or clarify the sentence, or lob it off altogether? Excerpt below: (where it says "catch my father's eye" - C is seeing the open-eyed corpse) She smiles, licks her lips and turns her attention to the levers and dials. I catch my father’s eye, my own numbness surprising me. Not my father. Not my father. The hover-box roars to life. It shudders and we begin to lift off. His face recedes from me as we climb higher into the sky, and I realise truth does not always shape our reality.