beth_shulman (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
beth_shulman) wrote2011-02-10 07:11 pm
beth_shulman) wrote2011-02-10 07:11 pm
Entry tags:
On Epilogues and Ambiguity
I've been thinking about this for a long while now, probably since reading Mockingjay last summer. I still haven't expressed what I mean very well, but I wanted to say it.
There's been an odd finality to the epilogues of fantasy series recently. I think it's what accounts for the polarized reactions. Spelling out for readers exactly what happens years later is frustrating; it is bound to disappoint someone. It robs the readers of the limitless possibilities that result from ambiguity. It limits the impact of the author's theme because readers can no longer draw their own conclusions about the outcomes of the book's conflict - because the result of good versus evil is specified play-by-play.
What problems does Harry face now? The success of the series may have been because Harry was easy to relate to; here Harry is unrecognizable. All was well? What kind of cop-out is that? What person achieves that sort of future?
Katniss's conclusion is worse. Mockingjay frustrated readers because it possesses such a depressed tone. And the conclusion says that she never recovered, never learned how to deal with that grief. What happened to Katniss the survivor? War and death are nightmarish but they're made even worse when they're allowed to control people's futures. (Although the conclusion is almost redeemed by "My children, who don't know they play on a graveyard." Almost.)
It's not as if the "years later" conclusion can't be done well. Lloyd Alexander demonstrates that. Perhaps it's because they don't fall into the genre of epic fantasy, but neither recent epilogue possesses the grandness and the vision that Silver on the Tree and The High King do. Instead, the conclusions undercut the stories. There is a neat little bow that ties the characters into a box and distances them from the readers. There is less of the universal truth of fantasy, the infinite interpretation of its symbols that comes along with ambiguity and doubt. There is less wonder. And the books suffer for it.
"For remember," he said, "that it is altogether your world now. You and all the rest. We have delivered you from evil, but the evil that is inside men is at that last a matter for men to control. The responsibility and the hope and the promise are in your hands—your hands and the hands of the children of all men on this earth. The future cannot blame the present, just as the present cannot blame the past. The hope is always here, always alive, but only your fierce caring can fan it into a fire to warm the world...From Susan Cooper's Silver on the Tree
"For Drake is no longer in his hammock, children, nor is Arthur somewhere sleeping, and you may not lie idly expecting the second coming of anybody now, because the world is yours and it is up to you. Now especially since man has the strength to destroy this world, it is the responsibility of man to keep it alive, in all its beauty and marvelous joy...
"And the world will still be imperfect, because men are imperfect. Good men will still be killed by bad, or sometimes by good men, and there will still be pain and disease and famine, anger and hate. But if you work and care and are watchful, as we have tried to be for you, then in the long run the worse will never, ever triumph over the better..."
"The tasks you set yourself are cruelly difficult. There is no certainty you will accomplish even one, and much risk you will fail in all of them. In either case, your efforts may go unsung and forgotten. And at the end, like all mortals, you must face your death; perhaps without even a mound of honor to mark your resting place."From Lloyd Alexander's The High King
Taran nodded. "So be it," he said. "Long ago I yearned to be a hero without knowing, in truth, what a hero was. Now, perhaps, I understand a little better. A grower of turnips or a shaper of clay, a Commot farmer or a king—every man is a hero if he strives more for others than for himself alone. Once," he added, "you told me that the seeking counts more than the finding. So, too, must the striving count more than the gain..."
...
"Evil conquered?" said Gwydion. "You have learned much, but learn this last and hardest of lessons. You have conquered only the enchantments of evil. That was the easiest of your tasks, only a beginning, not an ending. Do you believe evil itself to be so quickly overcome? Not as long as men still hate and slay each other, when greed and anger goad them..."
...
And so they lived many happy years, and the promised tasks were accomplished. Yet long afterward, when all had passed away into distant memory, there were many who wondered whether King Taran, Queen Eilonwy, and their companions had indeed walked the earth, or whether they had been no more than dreams in a tale set down to beguile children. And in time, only the bards knew the truth of it.
The train began to move, and Harry walked alongside it, watching his son's thin face, already ablaze with excitement. Harry kept smiling and waving, even though it was a little like bereavement, watching his son glide away from him...From J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
The last trace of steam evaporated in the autumn air. The train rounded a corner. Harry's hand was still raised in farewell.
"He'll be all right," murmured Ginny.
As Harry looked at her, he lowered his hand absentmindedly and touched the lightning scar on his forehead.
"I know he will."
The scar had not pained Harry for nineteen years. All was well.
The questions are just beginning. The arenas have been completely destroyed, the memorials built, and there are no more Hunger Games. But they teach about them at school, and the girl knows we played a role in them. The boy will know in a few years. How can I tell them about that world without frightening them to death?From Suzanne Collins' Mockingjay
...My children, who don't know they play on a graveyard.
Peeta says it will be okay. We have each other. And the book. We can make them understand in a way that will make them braver. But one day I'll have to explain about my nightmares. Why they came. Why they won't ever really go away.
I'll tell them how I survive it. I'll tell them that on bad mornings, it feels impossible to take pleasure in anything because I'm afraid it could be taken away. That's when I make a list in my head, of every act of goodness i've seen someone do. It's like a game. Repetitive. Even a little tedious after more than twenty years.
But there are worse games to play.
There's been an odd finality to the epilogues of fantasy series recently. I think it's what accounts for the polarized reactions. Spelling out for readers exactly what happens years later is frustrating; it is bound to disappoint someone. It robs the readers of the limitless possibilities that result from ambiguity. It limits the impact of the author's theme because readers can no longer draw their own conclusions about the outcomes of the book's conflict - because the result of good versus evil is specified play-by-play.
What problems does Harry face now? The success of the series may have been because Harry was easy to relate to; here Harry is unrecognizable. All was well? What kind of cop-out is that? What person achieves that sort of future?
Katniss's conclusion is worse. Mockingjay frustrated readers because it possesses such a depressed tone. And the conclusion says that she never recovered, never learned how to deal with that grief. What happened to Katniss the survivor? War and death are nightmarish but they're made even worse when they're allowed to control people's futures. (Although the conclusion is almost redeemed by "My children, who don't know they play on a graveyard." Almost.)
It's not as if the "years later" conclusion can't be done well. Lloyd Alexander demonstrates that. Perhaps it's because they don't fall into the genre of epic fantasy, but neither recent epilogue possesses the grandness and the vision that Silver on the Tree and The High King do. Instead, the conclusions undercut the stories. There is a neat little bow that ties the characters into a box and distances them from the readers. There is less of the universal truth of fantasy, the infinite interpretation of its symbols that comes along with ambiguity and doubt. There is less wonder. And the books suffer for it.
no subject
And even if fantasies take place in A TOTALLY NEW SPARKLY ~FANTASY WORLD OMG!!1!, if it has no relation to our world, if we can't recognize ourselves and our lives in it somehow, then it's probably not going to ring true.
YES x1000.
(now is not the moment to confess that I have never read LotR, is it.)
no subject
Just kidding!
It's ok. As much as it pains me to admit, I know it's not for everyone. A few years ago, I wouldn't have been able to say this, but I noticed on my latest reread through it that Tolkien's style is rather dry. Staying with a story that long when it's not the most poetic or lyrical writing can be tough. XD
no subject