Ambiguity as Method
Sometimes one sentence is enough – a casual ‘Tastes bitter when it sits too long‘ and an entire scene tips into something greater. Was it just a remark? A warning? Or a test? Kaspar’s Game by Benjamin Leeway is not what it appears to be on first reading. Characters speak in allusions, conceal truths between the lines – and even the narrator doesn’t always seem sure what game is truly being played. But this ambiguity is no accident. It is part of the rulebook. This edition of Behind the Stories explores ambiguity as a deliberate stylistic device: Why do authors embrace uncertainty? What makes open spaces of meaning so powerful? And how do they influence our reading – emotionally, intellectually, atmospherically? We begin by outlining the theoretical foundations, then turn to a specific scene from The Game of Kaspar that demonstrates how subtle cues become resonant spaces for radically different interpretations – and finally ask what all this reveals about the act of writing itself.
Ambiguity as a Literary Technique
Ambiguity is not a flaw in the system – it is the system. In contemporary literature, it is no longer seen as a weakness or a lack of clarity, but as a conscious choice: ambiguity creates tension, allows for individual interpretation, and actively engages the reader in shaping the story. In psychology, this capacity is known as ambiguity tolerance – the ability to hold conflicting or unclear information without immediately demanding resolution. Good literature trains exactly this tolerance. It leaves space open, challenges the reader to think, and rewards those willing to sit with uncertainty.
»Sometimes layers of meaning only reveal themselves through the interpretations of others.«
Hermeneutics – the philosophy of interpretation – provides further grounding. Hans-Georg Gadamer described understanding as a fusion of horizons: a dynamic encounter between perspectives from which meaning emerges. Truth is not embedded in the text alone, but in the dialogue between text and reader. And that dialogue only functions if the text leaves room for multiple readings. Recent developments in literary psychology – such as the work of Keith Oatley – point directly to the writing process itself: literature is a space of simulation. Authors construct scenarios in which emotions, decisions, and moral dilemmas are explored. Characters are not game pieces, but mental experiments. And as with real experiments, outcomes cannot always be predicted. This also means: authors don’t always know what their characters ‘really‘ mean. Sometimes layers of significance only emerge on rereading – or through readers’ interpretations. What remains is a field of tension: between control and chaos, between conscious intent and unconscious emergence.
Kaspar and Evan Meyer’s Coffee – Three Interpretations, One Game
Ambiguity reveals itself not only in abstract concepts, but in specific moments. To make the interplay between openness and reader guidance more tangible, we now turn to a scene from Benjamin Leeway’s thriller Kaspar’s Game. It is a quiet moment: two men, a cup of coffee, a passing remark. And yet it opens a universe of interpretation.
‘Should top it off. Tastes bitter when it sits too long.‘
What at first seems like a casual comment about cold coffee becomes, on closer examination, an ambiguous fulcrum – a line carrying multiple possible truths. This is theory made visible: ambiguity as method.
»How a text is read also depends on the space it leaves open.«
Reading 1: The empathic warning. In this interpretation, Kaspar’s line becomes a symbolic admonition. The coffee represents a truth that loses its value if postponed for too long. Kaspar notices Evan hesitating – and gives him a final chance to act before it’s too late. Returning the cup without a word is both a gesture of care and control: Say what you know – before the moment passes.
Reading 2: The subtle threat. In this sharper interpretation, Kaspar’s remark is a disguised assertion of power. The coffee symbolizes Evan’s standing in the system: relevant as long as it’s ‘warm.‘ Stay silent too long, and you’re iced out. Kaspar disrupts the routine, claims the object, returns it wordlessly – a miniature act of dominance. In this game, even kindness can be a mask.
Reading 3: The loyalty test. A third reading sees the moment as a psychological test. The line isn’t commentary but a carefully placed challenge: Are you playing the game – or just watching? The cold coffee stands in for Evan’s evasiveness. Kaspar tests whether Evan is ready to take a position. The bitterness lies not in the cup – but in the silence that drags on too long.
These interpretations don’t contradict each other – they layer over one another. This is the strength of ambiguous scenes: they are not vague, but richly interpretable. How a text is read depends not only on the reader – but on the interpretive space the text allows.
Ambivalence as an Invitation to Think
What Kaspar’s coffee comment reveals is true for many moments in modern fiction: the boundary between suggestion and statement is porous. Authors like Benjamin Leeway don’t use ambiguity to confuse readers – but to activate them. Uncertainty becomes method; interpretation becomes co-authorship. In an age of instant opinions and rapid explanations, ambiguity creates a space for resonance. Not everything must be understood at once – some lines unfold later, some characters reveal themselves only in retrospect. Literature that dares to leave things open asks for trust – and rewards with depth.
»Authors like Benjamin Leeway don’t use ambiguity to confuse readers – but to activate them.«
For writers, this means: clarity and complexity are not opposites, but a dynamic tension to be shaped consciously. Ambiguous scenes are not a weakness in the text, but an invitation to deeper resonance. And sometimes, the strongest statement lies precisely in what remains unsaid.
This essay was written by C. Y. from The Leeway Art Lab for the reflective Behind the Stories series. It is based on the chapter Ambivalence as a Narrative Principle from DICE Analysed – The Psychological Companion to the Neo-Noir Thriller by Benjamin Leeway. Some Behind the Stories contributions are penned under fictional author names to highlight narrative perspective as part of the concept.
References
Gadamer, H.-G. (2004). Truth and Method (2nd rev. ed., J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.). Continuum.
(Original work published 1960)
Leeway, B. (2025). Kaspar’s Game. BOD.
Oatley, K. (2011). Such Stuff as Dreams: The Psychology of Fiction. Wiley-Blackwell.