Like so much else about Keith, his experience after the attacks in terms of constructing a new sense of being is not entirely clear. Keith's reserved and detached way of being before the attacks is not completely reversed after wards. The notion of attachment and association with others is not seen as immediately redemptive in Keith's world after the attacks. Keith seems to be as detached as he was before the attacks. There is more in way of reflection, but the recreation of his identity into one that is more emotionally redeeming is not as evident. Keith's symbol of the "falling man," being posited in a world between life and death, seems to be one that follows him throughout his narrative. This becomes the constant in his life after the attacks. I think that the work makes it clear that the complexity of the September 11 attacks is only matched by the complexity of those who were forced to endure them. The construction of identity after such events is not a straight and direct narrative. Rather, it is one filled with constructions that are challenging and far from direct. They are attempts to find life of living, as opposed to being posited between life and death. If anything, it is a desire to be more than "the falling man" in a condition where one lives as "the falling man." It is here where I am not entirely certain that a case can be made for Keith rediscovering his identity.