Name that Genre! x2 - "Happy Endings"

I would categorize the story "Happy Endings" as an interrupted, non-fictional saga.

Why? Well, to start.... each part of this story can function separately, but together, in the order intended, they create a sort of saga. The characters' personalities differ between plots, but their names stay the same. This suggests that the reader should treat each individual character as the same person inside, even though each plot is different and the actions from the characters change. When I was reading, I felt that Mary's "soul" (not sure thats the best word) was the same, but her surroundings and external environment were the cause for her different personality and lifestyle choices. So, in a way, when you put each mini story together, they follow the lives of each character. Like a Saga.

Next, I would say the story is non-fiction because each plot is realistic. I don't think there is a way to really elaborate on this except for saying that we've seen these kinds of plots in the movies, on TV, and in books. However creative, the stories are not far-fetched and therefore fall under a non-fiction-type genre.

Lastly, I used the word "interrupted" because although each story "ends," I wouldn't say that each plot was complete. At least not compared to what we are use to reading. Just as each story gets good, it ends fairly abruptly, thus the use of the word "interrupted."

I really like what Lauren and Morgan have to say. For me, I see a Postmodern genre because the author is pocking fun at writers for writing cliches. She's using language to mock the common patters of language and urges writers to break it and for readers to be aware of it. Atwood writes, "That's about all that can be said for plots, which anyway are just one thing after another, a what and a what and a what. Now try How and Why."(479) Her call to action fits very much in the ideals of PoMo. The power is not in the "truths"(because there are none) but in the meaning. Words have a way of making us believe; an incredibly strong power. Her story makes us look at the ways stories are told and notice how everything is the same. John and Mary will always die but what matters is in between the events. In stories, the reality of life is being used to manipulate our thoughts and Atwood wants us to be aware of that. I would argue that she is saying that Universal Truths dont matter because the fact that John and Mary will always die is not the main point.

My made up genre of the day and for which I will use to label Atwood's "Happy Endings," is 'Guidebook to Understanding the Inevitable." I guess in a way I could just call it a guidebook then, but I kind of like the touch 'inevitable' adds to my title. In genre-izing this work I am going to attempt to kindly complicate the responses prior to my own and add my own spin and understanding.

I like how Betsy called "Happy Endings" postmodernist because there are some structural components of this work that do in fact lend themselves to postmodernism, or an initial interpretation of postmodernism. Atwood approaches relationships from multiple viewing angles and this theoretically should create a multitude of off-shooting interpretations. However, Atwood's point in creating many John and Mary scenarios is so that readers discover a similar end to no matter what path John and Mary's future takes. In essence, Atwood is saying that no matter what way you would like to twist a relationship and look at it, although you may change several aspects, the ultimate end is that "John and Mary die. John and mary die. John and Mary die" (479). I like the redundancy of that quote. It's kind of like Atwood trying to ingrain the idea into my head with a hammer that takes the shape and appearance of a flower: it's kindly and smoothly said, but harsh in its truth and inevitability. With there only being one end to the story, Atwood makes each story have the outward appearance of being identical to each of its counterparts. This leaves readers with one forced interpretation of the story, an idea that a postmodernist reader would likely snootily (in the words of Taunting French Guard from "Monty Python and The Holy Grail) "blow [his or her] nose at".

This is kind of how I imagine Postmodern critics (yes, throwing livestock and all):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V7zbWNznbs

To discuss the second part following the 'inevitable' notion in "Happy Endings" I would like to wrestle with the idea of realism. Because A4 did not have the opportunity to talk much about "Happy Endings" we did not really tackle the idea so it was interesting for me to read about Haley's interpretation of realism in the work. While I fully agree that life is much more complicated than Atwood makes it out to be in her short story, I would like to assert that "Happy Endings" is realistic as opposed to unrealistic. The truth and realism in the novella do not rely in its depictions and imagery. The novella is rather an account of the outlines and great changing points in our trees of life that do not take into account all the sadness and happiness that intermingle in everyday life. The simplification is purposeful and is realistic because it acknowledges is point-then-point style and uses this method to effectively characterize the inevitability in all of our lives: we will die. This much is realistic. Atwood states near the end of her novella, "So much for endings. Beginnings are almost more fun. True connoisseurs, however, are known to favor the stretch in between, since it's the hardest to do anything with" (479). Atwood in a sense admits to the error in her simplicity in this quote. It's easier for her to remove the constant complications of life and look at our outlines instead. It allows her to get her point across and tell readers that though death is inevitable, we can create our own beginning and middle. This story is simple, but all too realistic to be comfortable.

I would categorize "Happy Endings" as an instruction manual/call to action. Although not a genre that is typically associated with great works of literature, I think that it best captures the message of the story. This story is directed at two groups: readers and writers. It tells the readers not to be satisfied with the typical story that ends happily. Atwood challenges the readers to challenge themselves and their thoughts by reading--and demanding--stories that end in ways that more effectively reflect the universal human struggle and the inevitable ending of death. She also instructs the authors, however, to write these types of stories. Likewise, she challenges the authors to write stories that break the "happily ever after" mold. She offers this "call to action" in the end of the story by saying, "That's about all that can be said for plots, which anyway are just one thing after another, a what and a what and a what. Now try How and Why" (Atwood 479). By including this in the end of her work, Atwood challenges her fellow writers to explore a deeper level of writing and move away from the "happily ever after" complex that she has so effectively satirized.

The instruction manual aspect of this work is more of a guide on "How not to write a story". She offers many alternate endings to a simple, but classic love story. All of these endings, however, end with the couple living happily ever after (although stated as "challenging and stimulating", the more intellectual version of happily ever after"). Atwood writes many different happy endings for this classic tale, all of which she cautions her fellow writers to avoid. She begins with many examples of how not to write a story, then provides her fellow writers with instructions for improving upon their own stories by challenging them to abandon the need for a happy ending. Not only does Atwood challenge her fellow writers by creating a call to action, she also provides them with an instruction manual on how to write an effective, intellectually stimulating story.

I like what Gary and Madison have to say in labeling "Happy Endings" as a guidebook, and Matt's comment on it being a metafiction. I think it is wise to consider the fourth wall being broken, because that entirely changes the feel of the story. I would "genre" this piece as "sarcastic-honest-fiction and commentary and call-to-action." I know, that's a decently lengthy genre title, but it is difficult for me to pair it down to just one word. The "sarcastic-honest-fiction" part comes from her overall tone and the method in which Atwood decides to portray her commentary on today's writers. She goes through this complicated series of scenarios, creatively intertwining them, and uses a sense of humor in some pretty horrible circumstances. Atwood writes, "...Fred dies. Then Madge devotes herself to charity work until the end of A. If you like, it can be "Madge," "cancer," "guilty and confused," and "bird watching" (Atwood 479). This statement is really sad, the ending to the story in general is very bittersweet, but it's covered by the humorous truth that the words describe. This is a quality I really like in Atwood writing, her tone.
Instead of leaving my genre title at "commentary," I have to add in "call-to-action," as did Besty, because of the very last line. Up until then this could pass as solely commentary and criticism, but with addition of the word "now" in the last sentence, this piece is distinguished as one with purpose and is meant to send a message to writers via this directive word.

I think that "Happy Endings" would be categorized as an "informative" story. The story serves to inform readers to be wary of certain endings because "they're all fake, either deliberately fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not downright sentimentality." Atwood suggests that no matter what characters goes through, in the end, their endings are all the same: death. Furthermore, Atwood informs not only readers but also writers that they should not simply focus on plot- the what. Rather, they should "try the How and Why". This is exemplified through Atwood's own story. The overarching plot in each section is more or less the same. The way in which each section leads to the same ending, however, is different. Atwood thus uses her story to exemplify that John and Mary end up in the same situation regardless of what they go though. Therefore, we should not focus so much on what John and Mary do as how and why they do it.

I confused "No One's a Mystery" with "Happy Endings", so I'm going to post my response from that forum here.

I agree with Lacey in that "Happy Endings" is similar to "Our Town" because it's told from a kind of omniscient point of view and it shows a general trend and pattern that normalizes over time in a variety of cases of human nature. I was just doing my statistics homework and there's a principle that says that the variability of data points becomes less as more data points are added, and the data comes closer to the mean over time. This kind of reminds me of the perspectives on human nature presented in "Our Town" and "Happy Endings" which, to me, are similar in attitude. All of humankind, which obviously varies immensely much, can ultimately be narrowed down to one "mean", one "average" plotline that we all (or at least, the vast majority of us) seem to fit. The author takes that immensity of differences and trims it all down to one generalization. Because of this, I would say that "Happy Endings" is almost a formulaic work of literature, the mean of an immense number of human observations over time.