There is, I have noticed, a tendency among non-genre authors to end books with a kind of radical indeterminacy. They are books without answers, books that question the nature of reality and experience and linear time and make you think about what is true.
The fact that they don't come down on one side or another of the argument infuriates me. I'm not saying you have to be right, I'm saying you need to make a case.
"The world is less knowable than you think" is the trivial (and trivialized) version of "here be monsters". Krauss seems to be doing a kind of deconstruction, both of the novel writing process and of narrative as a way of understanding the world, where her writing creates the events of the novel...or vice versa. People become stories become people, which is not very interesting because--as Deconstruction itself has learned--it has to go somewhere.
Krauss deconstructs the imposition of narrative and time onto events, but never reflects back on the narrative she has created out of those events. Yes, the narrative is an imposition created out of its own need to be. But it is still there, made manifest by the writing of the book, and she seems unwilling to take on the responsibility--having taken it apart so thoroughly--of having brought it into existence nonetheless.
To put it another way, in its argument for why it doesn't go anywhere, the book fails to convince that there isn't somewhere it ought to have gone.