Strength in What Remains

Kidder’s portrayal of Sharon McKenna is unequivocally positive, but Deo’s recollection of her is more ambivalent. Why is there ambivalence on Deo’s part toward the woman that helped him at a crucial moment of his life? 

One of the most shocking moments during Deo’s escape is when he encounters a dead woman in a grove, with a live baby at her side. Deo continues to flee, leaving the infant behind. What do you think about Deo’s choice? 

As Kidder continues to learn about Deo’s painful journey, he confesses that he personally would not have survived. Why does Kidder make this statement? What, if anything, would let one person survive while another dies?

The Burundian concept gusimbura is very important. Does an aversion to gusimbura seem healthy? Why or why not?

Following up on the preceding question: if Deo is so devoted to the notion of gusimbura, why does he go with Kidder to retrace his journey during the genocide and after? Has he relinquished his adherence to this belief? If so, why? If not, then what explains his reliving of these difficult times?

Given that Kidder’s book follows Deo on his journey from Burundi to Rwanda, then back to Burundi and the US, does Kidder need to include the later chapters in which Kidder retraces these steps? Could Kidder have simply incorporated his own observations the first time he traced Deo’s narrative? How is the narrative changed by portraying his own time spent with Deo at these sites?

Regardless of the inclusion of his time with Deo, what do you think about Kidder’s structuring of the narrative? Does it seem like a wise choice not to simply tell it in chronological order? Are there themes or ideas that are strengthened by the discontinuous narrative structure?

In Bujumbura, Deo expresses frustration nearing contempt for the pitiable plight of his country people. He even shoos away a poor woman with a baby who begs for money. What do you think about this in light of Deo’s own destitute period? Does he seem justified or out of line?