So are we to conclude from this story that it was better in the long run to let JFK be killed because in that timeline in the long run, things turn out better? And that is why Jake goes back into the past to reset the changes he had made? And the painful and successful work to thwart the assassination is all for naught?
I read somewhere that time travel obviously never happens in the future--otherwise we'd know because Shakespeare would have mentioned all these people LOOKING at him. He'd have been so creeped-out he would have mentioned SOMETHING, at least. LOL Any number of famous past personages would have remarked on the watchers.
We would never know if time travel would actually work or not. (as in Back to the future part 2) we could never be sure we get back to our own reality to make sure what we did actually work or even if it could be undone. I understand that that is beyond the scope of this book. I HATE the ending... HATE. I makes no sense.
More than that! Not only was the painful and successful work to thwart the assassination wasted, but any work done to improve the lives of people in the past had negative side effects on those people or those around them... as time took revenge for their true paths having been changed. I came to see the ending, with Sadie being 'Citizen of the Century' as a reward: her life was improved for Jake having not intervened, to make the point clear.