Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Jeannette wrote: Somewhat off topic: Does anyone have any thoughts about why many of the books from this period (at least in my experience) have such unhappy, or at least not very happy, endings. I'm thinking of Brideshead Revisited, Great Gatsby, Room with a View, Vile Bodies (I've only seen the film).

Is it post-war or end of the Empire or what? Any thoughts on this?


Robin Wrote: I think the wars did a lot to kill off the Romantic period in literature. There was a turn to the gritty real life views of the middle class and (declining) elite (sadly, working class people are background props until the post WWII period; with some noteable exceptions of course), creating a kind of modern twist on the Greek Tragedies. It's interesting (and frustrating) how many of the central male figures are emotonally aloof; pondering the world, but standing back from it. Maybe a bit like the authors themselves..."

I think its a sympton of the turmoil presenting itself in the world at that time. Major events such as WW1 & WW2 as well as the Spanish Civil War and the Flu epidemic etc etc made the world a less certain place to be. Rigid rules of society were breaking down, Victorian ideas of morality were being questionned and old certainties didn't seem that certain any more. The philosophical side of politics i.e. the philosophy behind fascism, communism, marxism, socialism etc etc also played its part - factions developed which fragmented a once solid sense of Empire.

I think this fragmentation is the key - a lot of writer of the modernist era were breaking down the 'rules' and using the broken pieces in a new way to form something entirely different. They were taking the best of the past, re-arranging it and adding bits of their own to form a new way for society to be. Novelists, poets and artists were at the forefront of this wave of modernity.

The happy ending seemed redundant and old-fashioned. No longer fit for purpose.

Ally

I like the way you summed it up with:

"The happy ending seemed redundant and old-fashioned. No longer fit for purpose."

So many things were changing, or being destroyed, maybe no one believed things could be as simple or easy as in the "old days" anymore.

Yes Jeanette - Thats why I feel the 'Belle Epoque' is such an interesting phase to look at in literature - the turn of the century was kind of a golden age - the end of Victoria's reign was very peaceful compared to her empire building zeal - the Empire was formed and there was a level of self-satisfaction and invincibility about Britain at that time - the childlike simplicity and certainty monumentally came crashing down when the Great War hit - it was all a bit of a shock. Britain (...and its colonies) was no longer invincible.

Has anyone read Jill Dawson's book The Great Lover about war poet Rupert Brooke? - she captures the spitit of the age very well.

Ally

Just a heads-up, Ally: your link in the previous post points to Lady Chatterly's Lover, instead of Jill Dawson's book. I have tagged The Great Lover in my tbr shelf. :)

Interesting point that you folks are discussing. And this new philosophy or view of realism that came about was definitely transatlantic. I would think European authors would have really distilled this more, but then there are Fitzgerald, Hemingway and others here in the U.S. Of course they lived in Europe too, so I guess the influence was heavy.

Jeannette wrote: "Just a heads-up, Ally: your link in the previous post points to Lady Chatterly's Lover, instead of Jill Dawson's book. I have tagged The Great Lover in my tbr shelf. :)"

Thanks Jeanette - I think I've managed to fix it now!

Sarah wrote: "Interesting point that you folks are discussing. And this new philosophy or view of realism that came about was definitely transatlantic. I would think European authors would have really distilled this more, but then there are Fitzgerald, Hemingway and others here in the U.S. Of course they lived in Europe too, so I guess the influence was heavy..."

I was wondering about the effect of the same era around the world. - There is this wonderful African poet called Christopher(?) Okigbo who was writing comparable poetry to T.S. Eliot - all fragmented and full of allusion but he is almost unknown compared to some of the greatest writers of the era. It worries me that many gifted writers from former colonies may have been forgotten.

There is Katherine Mansfield in New Zealand as well as the US writers you've mentioned but I'm unsure of Australian writing at that time - if anyone has any more insights into how this time period played out around the world I'd be really interested in hearing about it!

Ally

Sadly I cannot think of many aussie writers during that time (considering I have lived here for nearly 4 years). All I can think if is Miles Franklin, though I have never had a chance to read any of her works. Her most famous novel is 'My Brilliant Career 1901. She was a feminist, and an incredible influence on other aussie writers such as Tim Winton and Patrick White.

Though I can understand the unhappy endings. I do love Victorian fiction. But everything is always perfect in the end. There's a marriage or death of a bad guy. As Ally said Modernist Literature is more fragmented, and did not suit the times, and was just a natural progression.

I read My Brilliant Career / My Career Goes Bung just last year. They were okay, but I was not blown away. The feminist stance was fascinating, but the story itself actually became a bit tedious after a while.

As far as other Australians go there was also Patrick White, though his writing is more in the Forties and later.

But back to the happy v. unhappy discussion - it's funny, because I see similar discussions in other groups occasionally on GR. There seems to be a vast majority of people who like reading books with "happy endings" in contemporary fiction, and often turn down classics because they are deemed "unhappy". The main argument is that life isn't always happy or unhappy, and with all the negativity in the news, etc., why would one want to spend their recreational time reading about unhappiness? Personally I don't care how a story ends, so long as it serves a purpose and/or fits the story itself. I don't like happy just for the sake of being happy, nor do I like unhappy just for the sake of being unhappy.

It's already been asserted here that the early 20th-C brought a lot of changes, from the end of the Empires, to technological and scientific advances, to war, to the women's suffrage movement in many countries, etc. With change comes a lot of uncertainty. And with uncertainty comes a lot of mistakes. And people died, sometimes unnecessarily, and families were torn. It became more important for that reality not to be turned away at the door - authors in the beginning of the century wanted to write about what they knew, but without covering up so much of it as had been done previously (though not exclusively - let's face it, the Romantics didn't always exactly know how to write a happy ending either...).

It all changed again towards the end of the century, as more changes came into play - more war, more politics, more scientific and technological changes, etc. The more chaotic the world became, the more authors wanted to portray that in their writing. Like Lindz suggested, art follows a natural progression... though now the discussion almost borders on the whole question: Does life imitate art, or does art imitate life?

There was a lot happening in this period, Art deco and modernism in architecture, cinema, WWI, Russian revolution, Rise of European facism, economic depression, and the beginnings of decolonisation - all in a period of less than 30 years. Artistic expressions of the world in change came through in painting (horror, terror and decay), architecture (towards the futuristic and utopian), literature (gritty realism, moral and religious readjustment), cinema (realism, utopian, and then glamour fantasy). The rise of popular music on the other hand always seemed to be in the realm of small-time fantasy [Romance mostly:]). Such an amazing period. And for every artistic reaction, there was a reaction, so it is hard to characterise the period other than to say it was a time of change.

Robin wrote: "literature (gritty realism, moral and religious readjustment)..."
Please, do not forget about a great deal of pulp fiction. Some of the greatest SF and Fantasy authors lived in that time, such as Herbert Wells, Robert Howard, Edgar Burroughs and many more. Some critics do not place such writings into the scope of literary studies, nevertheless, this kind of literature has every right to exist. It helps one to forget about the hard life for a moment, not to point at it again.

Good point Alexander

Lindz wrote: "Though I can understand the unhappy endings. I do love Victorian fiction. But everything is always perfect in the end. There's a marriage or death of a bad guy. As Ally said Modernist Literatur..."

I don't think literature was ever truly happy for more than brief periods of time. English literature tends to be insular sometimes and I think this is the case with Victorian writers. If you look at French and German literature written in the same period you get Romanticism, Realism and Symbolism, neither of which was a particularly cheerful literary current. Victorians wrote happy books more or less because Dickens wrote happy books. Dickens liked happy endings, not only did he like them, but most of his work was published in serialized form so he had to produce something that would sell and people were more eager to read happy endings than tragedies (in much the same way jounralists nowaday have to write articles about accidents, murders, etc. rather than happy things). After Dickens died, books started becoming more grim.

It's like Dickens was a little ray of literary sunshine. :)

Good points, Andreea. German authors especially have never been very "up". Same with the Russians. But when I look at what was happening in those places throughout the years, it's impressive to me that any of the authors had the ability to get out of bed to write anything, and not just resign themselves to crippling depression.

Andreea wrote: "Lindz wrote: "Though I can understand the unhappy endings. I do love Victorian fiction. But everything is always perfect in the end. There's a marriage or death of a bad guy. As Ally said Moder..."

Dickens did write one unhappy ending in The Old Curiosity Shop
I've read that people threw the last installment away in disgust when Little Nell died! I think the public wanted all those happy endings.

I think there are a lot of people today who enjoy happy endings, too, even if people seem to enjoy watching and reading about the misfortunes of others. This hasn't changed much for centuries either. Remember public executions, the stock, etc....

El wrote: "It's like Dickens was a little ray of literary sunshine. :)

Good points, Andreea. German authors especially have never been very "up". Same with the Russians. But when I look at what was hap..."

My German husband can't think of any happy German authors, either. The ending is why my daughter refuses to watch "Das Boot". It might also explain why the German public loves Hollywood movies.

DAS BOOT is such a great movie. My brother and I were just talking about that recently. I haven't read the book it's based on though; I understand it's not as happy as the movie, believe it or not. I'll reserve judgment on that until I actually read the book and rewatch the movie (since I was probably 9 or so at the time I saw it).

From what my husband tells me, I think the book and the movie are pretty close. It is a great movie, but a bit intense. As a bonus, the movie had every popular German actor of the day in it. It is an excellent movie.

is there any era where happy endings outnumbered unhappy ones?

to my way of thinking, books with unhappy endings are more popular because people learn more from tragedy/difficulties than from comedies

also humans seem to remember/emphasize the negative more than the positive and therefore unhappy endings would be more popular

I wonder?

Life is full of both happy and unhappy endings and there must be the same division among books and authors. Maybe unhappy stories are more "dramatic" and make better reading or more memorable reading. Maybe happy people are too busy being happy to write about it?

I just had a second thought: Shakespeare wrote both tragedies and comedies and his comedies were full of happy endings! And he wrote during a time in history when people surely craved relief from their daily struggles.

Also I think people are suspicious of happy endings. We're in a cynical age (and apparently have been for a while), and are distrustful of things that end happily. We think, "Yeah, but what happens five/ten/fifteen years later? Bet things aren't happy then!" We want to be able to relate to characters, but have an understanding that things are much more complicated than, say, Disney movies portray. Even fairy tales, which are commonly misconceived to be "happy", originally are some of the darkest literature out there.


Jim, I'll have to think about your first question. Nothing springs to mind, but a head cold while at work tends to slow me down a bit.

What constitutes a "happy ending" has also changed over time. Since Shakespeare was mentioned, I know that Taming of the Shrew was considered to have a happy ending in the 16th-17th century because Kate was broken of her insolent ways and she became what was considered a more appropriate woman for the time. Similarly, Merchant of Venice was also considered to have a happy ending as Shylock was forced to convert to Christianity, fitting the religious expectations of the time. Just looking at those endings with that perspective in mind I wouldn't call them "happy endings", per se.

El wrote: "What constitutes a "happy ending" has also changed over time. Since Shakespeare was mentioned, I know that Taming of the Shrew was considered to have a happy ending in the 16th-17th century becaus..."

I guess I was thinking "happier" than say "King Lear" or "Hamlet" or "Romeo and Juliet" -- more on the order of "Midsummer Night's Dream" perhaps?

I'm sorry, Jeannette, I wasn't arguing your point. What you said reminded me of those two plays and I wanted to put it out there before I lost that train of thought. :) There are other authors and literature out there that was perhaps considered "happy" at the time that would make us cringe now.

El wrote: "I'm sorry, Jeannette, I wasn't arguing your point. What you said reminded me of those two plays and I wanted to put it out there before I lost that train of thought. :) There are other authors a..."

Oh, no problem. It happens to me all the time when I make a sort of "broad" statement like that. I enjoy having to reconsider my opinion and/or "defend" it.

I wonder if all the literature that we consider "great" is unhappy? Jane Austen always wrote happy endings, and even Jane Eyre had a happy ending (well, sort of).

I am thoroughly enjoying this thread! :)

I just looked up "happy ending" on Wikipedia (because I'm a dork and that's what I do), and there is mention of Taming of the Shrew and Merchant of Venice and some other works whose interpretation has changed over time. I found this paragraph particularly interesting, though it's looking at a specific film and not fiction:

The same can be said of Schindler's List with its background of the real-life Holocaust. The murder of six million Jews is a fact which the viewer knows about in advance and which occurs throughout the film. Still, as long as the specific Jews on whom Schindler has cast his protection (and who are the only ones given a name and face in this film) survive against all odds, the audience still goes out feeling that they had experienced an uplifting happy ending.

But the whole article () is pretty interesting.

Didn't Tolstoy say something along the lines that happiness is commonplace, but there's always a story behind tragedy? I can't remember the quote exactly.

There's the one about happy/unhappy families: "All happy families resemble one another, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

For someone who wrote sad stories, the man sure had a lot to say about being happy.

Here is another I found on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ and possibly the one Andreea is referring to:

"Happiness is an allegory, unhappiness a story"

El wrote: "I just looked up "happy ending" on Wikipedia (because I'm a dork and that's what I do), and there is mention of Taming of the Shrew and Merchant of Venice and some other works whose interpretation ..."

Thanks for the article -- I'll enjoy the read and then I'll probably follow some of the links in it, too! :)

Jeannette wrote: "Here is another I found on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ and possibly the one Andreea is referring to:

"Happiness is an allegory, unhappiness a story"

" That's the one.

Andreea wrote: "Jeannette wrote: "Here is another I found on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ and possibly the one Andreea is referring to:

"Happiness is an allegory, unhappiness a story"

" That's the one."

It's interesting to ponder his meaning.

because happy endings only happen 1% of the time in real life

Is this statistically proven, or just a personal observation?

...either way - it feels true for many people!!! LOL

Ally

But hopefully not all of the time for everyone! I hope the percentage is a lot higher! :)

with the divorce rate growing (54% since I last checked) and all of other life's tragedies that can happen (widows/deaths, cheating spouses, unemployment, bankrupcy, illness, etc) it's hard to meet anyone that has that perfect happy ending you see in the movies

Wild for Wilde wrote: "with the divorce rate growing (54% since I last checked)..."

Not sure where you're checking, but the news is much better than that! At least in the U.S. Below is a link to a NY Times article explaining as clearly as possible the reality behind that 50% figure and why it was probably NEVER as high as 50% (at least here in the U.S.).

<< In fact, they say, studies find that the divorce rate in the United States has never reached one in every two marriages, and new research suggests that, with rates now declining, it probably never will.

The method preferred by social scientists in determining the divorce rate is to calculate how many people who have ever married subsequently divorced. Counted that way, the rate has never exceeded about 41 percent, researchers say. Although sharply rising rates in the 1970's led some to project that the number would keep increasing, the rate has instead begun to inch downward. >>

Michael wrote: "Wild for Wilde wrote: "with the divorce rate growing (54% since I last checked)..."

Not sure where you're checking, but the news is much better than that! At least in the U.S. Below is a link ..."

I checked multiple sites by reputable people/companies (such as New York Times) etc and most stated it was growing higher than 50%. I meant to put 52% and not 54%. But predictions can be wrong, there is a lot of different and conflicting information on the topic so I don't think anyone knows for sure.

But it was the NY Times article that I linked that said the actual divorce rate has never been higher than 41%. And has been falling for years.

The larger point is that the conventional wisdom is so frequently wrong. Not only that 50% divorce rate, but domestic violence on SuperBowl Sundays, birth surges nine months after electricity blackouts, and much more. Pop culture rubbish, almost every one of them, it turns out.

Well, that wouldn't be the first time the New York Times has been wrong and contradicted itself lol

Wild for Wilde wrote: "Well, that wouldn't be the first time the New York Times has been wrong and contradicted itself lol"

Granted! : )

Wow! What an interesting thread!

Here's my two cents about happy endings:
I believe, people have always enjoyed happy endings.It gives you a feeling of peace and, well, happiness to have things end in a neat and clean way. Though, on the other hand, I believe, people have also always searched for a sense of truth and authenticity in the books they read, or the films they watched. When I read Tolstoy or George Eliot, I am not exactly uplifted by the outcome of the stories, but there are numerous instances in their works, where I feel a moment of recognition, like, "Yes, that is so true - I have always felt this, but never knew how to say so." (to put it rather blandly) This experience can also be very uplifting and reconcile one with life in a way.

In the time around the turn of the century, and even more so after WWI, many people felt a powerful sense of disillusionment - religion, government, sexual relationships - nothing could be trusted anymore, everything seemed to be changing. Maybe, therefore people had a greater need to find a sense of truthfulness in fiction at that time?

Fini wrote: "Wow! What an interesting thread!

Here's my two cents about happy endings:
I believe, people have always enjoyed happy endings.It gives you a feeling of peace and, well, happiness to have things en..."

I definitely agree with that that theory.

it seems that the modernist period saw the rise of the ambiguous ending. rather than happy or sad things tend to be unresolved by the end, leaving the reader in a place of suspension.

because it is part of life.It like a burgaining you have to sacrifice something in order to get what you want

I agree with most of you. The beginning of the 20th century was an age of upheaval. It seems the anxiety of the age reformed literature as well. The writers are almost always sensitive souls and they might've felt it even more than common poeple.

Even writers like Tolkien and CS Lewis created their escapist fantasies seems like an antidote to the uncertainty of the war-torn 20th century as Ally has pointed out in the beginning.

I think the book we're discussing at the moment - Rebecca - is interesting here. Was Du maurier writing nostalgically about a lost age of Britishness or was she in the second camp stirring things up a bit and creating something new - what effect does empire have on this tale? - I think I'll raise this in the discussion thread...