am i correct in viewing this story as essentially an exploration of the way in which the human mind deals with grief? i interpreted every scene involving scout, fidorous, mr nobody and the ludovician as either hallucinations or dream-sequences in eric sanderson's subconscious - the only thing that was real was clio's death, eric's subsequent meetings with dr randle and then his journeys around the country, alone, until he killed himself...

if this is the correct interpretation then i found the book to be ultimately a heart-breaking and moving journey...if this is the incorrect interpretation and in fact the scenes/characters i mentioned were in any way based in reality then i would view the book as nonsensical, indulgent a complete a waste of my time...

Kind of sounds like you don't read much. Ambiguity and the participation of the reader's imagination is kind of what fiction is about. There is no 'correct' reading-- that's the sort of thing that holds over from having a not-very-good English teacher who required that you give the exact same interpretation as is printed in the guide book, or you've 'read it wrong.'

Essentially, it sounds like you read the book and found it 'heart-breaking and moving journey.' Unless some stranger on the internet tells you that you read the book wrong. Who cares what they thought? Who cares what the author's intentions were? Did you enjoy the book? I sure did. Talk about it, complain about it, find yourself thinking about it while you're washing dishes or laying in bed falling asleep. You read it, it's your book now.