House of Stairs

The final part of House of Stairs offers narrative resolution for all major plot points and concludes the characters’ arcs. Narrative tension reaches its climactic point now that the protagonists have all picked a moral side. The novel structure reflects its message with an open-ended epilogue that ties the two parts together but leaves room for the reader’s interpretation of the characters’ fates.

The teenagers are now split into two distinct groups. On the one hand, Blossom, Oliver, and Abigail decide to obey the machine to avoid starving. They realize that the stakes are now life or death, which plays into the theme of Power and Control. The disciplinary authority represented by the machine can reward and punish individuals based on their willingness to conform. The machine’s methodology illustrates The Social Impact of Authoritarianism, which enforces its domination through violence. Indeed, the narrative suggests that dominant groups are afforded that very power by the oppressed group’s submissiveness.

On the other hand, Peter and Lola have realized The Importance of Compassion and Solidarity in fighting authoritarianism. The narrative positions their deep emotional bond and their collaborative action as a model of resistance against oppression and injustice. As a result, it depicts Lola and Peter’s behavior as the most moral choice despite its self-destructive consequences. This is confirmed by Peter’s appearance at the end of the novel. While he was characterized as stammering and cripplingly shy in the first part of the book, Peter is now described as follows: “He stood so straight, and calmly looked people in the eye, and smiled so openly” (161). In fact, Peter’s empathy for Lola prompts him to sacrifice himself when she decides to return to the machine instead of letting herself die. Although there is no direct reference to Christianity in William Sleator’s novel, the symbolism of self-sacrifice imbues Peter with a spiritual quality that heightens the morality of his actions.

By contrast, Peter notes Blossom, Oliver, and Abigail’s “tense, slightly crouching posture; the way their eyes slid constantly from side to side; [and] their quick, furtive gestures” (161) at the novel’s end. They have been entirely corrupted by the machine and thus have become paranoid and asocial. Their off-putting behavior highlights Dr. Lawrence’s twisted morality as he claims that they are the most successful subjects of the experiment. Incidentally, Dr. Lawrence is introduced in the epilogue to provide the necessary resolution to the main questions the narrative raises about the house of stairs. However, it is important to note that Dr. Lawrence is not characterized as a rogue scientist. Rather, he states that he was mandated by the government and, therefore, embodies the larger forces at play behind authoritarianism.

The ending remains ambiguous for all five protagonists. Blossom, Oliver, and Abigail are deemed successful but are evidently traumatized by their conditioning. As a result, their future training will complete their assimilation into the system. However, their individuality and ability to form social bonds—which are identified by the narrative as threats to authoritarianism—have been eradicated. In contrast, Lola and Peter have retained their agency and formed a deep friendship. As a result, they are unable to assimilate into a conformist society and must be ostracized. The narrative does offer a hopeful ending for them, but their fate remains open to interpretation: “[N]ow they were to be sent away. Sent away to a place where people might be like themselves; a place where things would be different, and perhaps better” (172). While their future is uncertain, they have something the other group does not: hope for a better future.

With this, the novel concludes with the three others encountering “a green, blinking traffic light” (172) that reminds them of the machine and responding to their conditioning exactly as they have been taught. Blossom, Oliver, and Abigail start dancing, even though there is nothing at stake anymore—they will not be rewarded with food, nor will they be punished if they do not dance. This conclusion drives home the idea that social conditioning through fear only serves a disciplinary purpose but cannot replace teaching through empathy and critical skills. This reinforces Sleator’s message about the dangers of authoritarianism and illustrates his darkly humorous tone one last time.