|
|
Post by Anna M. on Dec 19, 2013 4:36:15 GMT
My take on the genre of "Happy Endings" is that it is a "Romeo & Juliet" type of genre (if that's even real). Similar to Romeo and Juliet, no matter what "Mary" and "John" do, they are destined to die. As Romeo & Juliet is a romantic tragedy, I might also say that "Happy Endings" is also a romantic tragedy. No matter how many romantic nights and happy days that "Mary" and "John" spend together, they will die. I think it is tragic that two people can have "true love" but that their love can be somewhat undermined by death. I say "undermine" because the story does make me question what the point of a romantic relationship is, why do we go through with the effort? Yes, love can bring incredible happiness, but as "Happy Endings" show, it can also bring incredible sadness.
I also agree with others on the forum who have concluded that "Happy Endings" maybe be within the realm of existentialism. Why do we pursue the relationships we do if we are all going to die in the end? Also, why do we do anything we do if the journey always ends the same for everyone? The search for meaning in a life that inevitably ends in death definitely creates an existentialist tone when I read "Happy Endings".
|
|
|
|
Post by jennyxu on Dec 19, 2013 4:39:57 GMT
I remember, in elementary school, loving books with alternate endings that result from the reader's choices. If you choose A, flip to this page, and if you choose B, flip to another page. "Happy Endings" is sort of a "self-reflective reality fiction". Like I explained with "No One's a Mystery", "reality" fictions force us to confront uncomfortable truths. These stories incorporate conflicts between ideals and real life. "Happy Endings" play with readers' preconceived ideas of how an "ideal" romance occurs and ends. It is self-reflective, because readers come into this story believing in one of the options and can choose to read only that option. Each option stands on its own. But if you read all the options and arrive at the end, Atwood puts forth the idea that all these options have the same ending, "John and Mary die." I love the line: "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" (Atwood 479). Sometimes, humans focus too much on perfecting the ending, so much that they miss the "now". The realization shakes up the reader's views, because is there really such a thing as "happily ever after"?
|
|
|
|
Post by clairem on Dec 19, 2013 5:28:12 GMT
The story "Happy Endings" reminds me of the videos on YouTube where you watch a scenario play out and then you click a link to the next video depending on which way you want the direction of the story to go. This is the totally empowering thing about this story is that it makes us feel like we have the opportunity to choose which way our life will go, but this story reveals to us that our stories will all end the exact same way. It is a scary realization to think that it is not how we start or end our lives that is important, but what we do in the middle, because of these epiphanies that the story brought to me I would classify "Happy Endings" as a Universal-Semi-Archetypal-Eye-Opening-Truth story. It is the kind of literary work that every human can relate to on some level to shake their previous perceptions on their lives or their worlds. This story scary as it shakes the foundations on which we have built our perceptions of the world while being important and helpful as we can learn and grow after learning the lessons about life that the story presents to us.
|
|
|
|
Post by amysohlberg on Dec 19, 2013 5:37:56 GMT
"Happy Endings" is a sarcastic and witty instructional manual for writers. It begs writers to transcend the struggle of creating a new, innovative plotline and instead move on to the only real variety in literature: how? Why? We already know what happens. John and Mary live, John and Mary die. "Happy Endings" demands that writers be the explorers of truth for all mankind.
Secondly, "Happy Endings" is a satire. It satirizes the way we all think our lives are very unique and important. Her repeated line, "continue as in A" hammers a feeling of unimportance and uniformity into the reader, and leaves you at the end thinking, "why did I ever think my life was unique?" I would argue that this story is not only a satire, but a myth/archetypal map as well. Atwood simply maps out the possible outcomes of our lives but concludes the story with the biggest fear underlying the human psyche: "John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." This story is adept at capturing the hopeless unoriginality of mankind and asks the age old question: why? Though the whole story seems to be smirking at the limited number of archetypes a love story can fit into, I find it funny that it concludes with a cliche. Atwood draws all the threads of this story back into the central idea of man's search for meaning.
|
|
alice
New Member
Posts: 30 
|
Post by alice on Dec 19, 2013 5:45:28 GMT
Im going to say that Happy Endings is a harshly realistic choose-your-own-adventure. I think the choose your own adventure part is pretty self explanatory with all the options for stories with interchangeable names and specific endings. I think the harshly realistic part of it comes from the actual endings though. She says that all ending are the same because "John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die" which is true in life. Again in life, and choose your own adventure novels it is the "How and Why" that eventually matter. The life you lead down the darkly lit cave will be different than the one that lies down the woodland path. I think this story cuts to the root of the harsh reality it illuminates by showing the vast array of people and the limited amount of endings.
|
|
|
|
Post by fionabyrne on Dec 19, 2013 5:54:08 GMT
I classify "Happy Endings" as satire, through and through. Regardless of whether or not that alone is considered a genre, the satiric message overpowers and overwhelms any other genre as which it may qualify. Atwood writes, "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 quote better than any other illustrates the commentary on thin, predictable story lines frequently seen in books and movies. Atwood's use of the storyboards demonstrates how it seems like writers throw in pre-heated conflict to their one-dimensional plots and in the end the result is always the same. The idea that any story hat presumes to end with anything but death is false really resonated with me. It made me think, stories may not carry out to the final breath of each character but in reality death is how everything ends. Whether I find that to be as significant as Atwood may is uncertain, because I generally see much more significance. Either way, I appreciate the satire because it seems to challenge writers to try harder to really CREATE, not just follow the formulas.
|
|
|
|
Post by jessicapollard on Dec 19, 2013 6:03:31 GMT
"Happy Endings" is falls under the "huge wake-up-call type slap in the face" category of expository essays. I don't consider the piece to be a short story so much as it is a presentation of information valuable to humanity that I can clearly envision Werner Herzog reading aloud. Atwood's writing has a quick and snappy factual feel rather than a lucid fiction-type one. Not to mention her established ending is a logical, concrete truth.
|
|
amychen
New Member
“But the wild things cried, “Oh please don’t go—we’ll eat you up—we love you so!”
Posts: 47
|
Post by amychen on Dec 19, 2013 6:19:34 GMT
As David and Patrick have stated, "Happy Endings" appears to be meta-literature, and as many others have stated, postmodern and somewhat instructional and didactic. It reminds me of one of my favorite books, How Not to Write a Novel. In it, the author uses examples of, well, what not to do, and then explains what should be done. In this sense, I definitely see Margaret Atwood's piece as a didactic, instructional piece of literature. Meta-literature might as well apply to any book on writing, including How Not to Write a Novel, because both HNWN and "Happy Endings" are works that refer to writing. What I think makes us stay away from calling Atwood's piece a true "writing guide" is the fact that it is well written and doesn't specify what to write other than "Now try How and Why" (Atwood 479)---but the fact is that no guide-to-writing can give specifics on what to do, but only on what not to do. Any guide to writing that gives specifics as to what to write and how to structure the plot would suggest works too derivative to be considered following good advice.
This notion, that guides to writing might produce derivative works, is also a possibility as to why we avoid calling Atwood's piece a writing guide. It makes the work feel cheaper, as if there there is no other worth to the work that wouldn't also be found in a textbook---books that are usually dry and in general, poorly-written, only serving the purpose of providing rules and facts. Perhaps we simply haven't been reading the right textbooks.
|
|
|
|
Post by coreybrown on Dec 19, 2013 6:24:51 GMT
Atwood begins immediately by asking the reader to take control of the story and this is where a lot of people are drawing the "choose-your-own-adventure" style/genera from. "John and Mary meet. What happens next If you want a happy ending, try A." While I do think that there is an aspect of control in the hands of the reader, I see this as less of a "you can choose what happens" to a reader and more "choose what can happen" to a writer. This short "story" is more of a first step and piece of advice to all writers. Every story is the same in the end. "The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die. So much for endings. Beginnings are almost ore fun. True connoisseurs, however, are known to favor the stretch in between, since it's the hardest to do anything with. That's all that can be said for plots, which anyways are just one thing after another, a what and a what and a what. Now try How and Why."
It is clear that the purpose is not to be a story, however, it ends up being one. Atwood constructs, quite playfully and sarcastically, a series of related narratives depicting the various possible lives of John and Mary. It's an expository (almost persuasive in that it convinces the reader to become a better writer) essay that centers around the sort of "shock" that, no matter what, every story leads back to A, the original "happy ending" choice as proposed by the 3rd sentence of the text. And yet, even the "happy ending" ends in death. We'd like to think of "...and they lived happily ever after. The end." as a happy ending, but isn't that all A is saying? Everything has to end sometime, that happily ever after is no exception. And, without fail, in the end John and Mary die. And even if there was someway for their "happily ever after" to actually continue for eternity...well...let's just say that immortality is not all we'd like to think it is. There are no "happy endings" as we tend to think. There is only "John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." And that is your happy ending.
In the end, this beautifully written, shocking, humorous, and insightful piece forces its readers to think more deeply about the nature of happy endings in life and in literature (whether reading or writing it). Therefore, suffice to say, it's a fantastic expository/persuasive essay that successfully manipulates the reader.
|
|
|
|
Post by racheladele on Dec 19, 2013 6:28:00 GMT
What I find most fabulous about this story is that its reminder of inevitable death will outlive its author and many of its readers. This makes me agree with those before me who have addressed this story as a call to action, but the unspoken call to action that I see is one of fighting that inevitability by creating something that will outlive you, something meaningful.
Perhaps the following idea is not a correct use and combination of these words, but I would place “Happy Endings” in the genre “contradictory, step-back existentialism.” This story for me was reminiscent of existentialism because of the idea that the characters will die no matter which path they take, so it doesn’t matter which “beginning” you choose. Atwood addresses this with satirical lines such as, “So much for endings. Beginnings are always more fun,” which prevents the story from being a pessimistic reminder of the inevitable. The lighthearted method in which the story is told comes off as a contradiction from the seriousness of its content, which ultimately adds to the work by making the reader think and investigate deeper than the words on the surface. The choose-your-own-adventure style also makes it slightly lighthearted, again adding to the contradiction. Also, existentialism does not in my experience operate as a call to action, but somehow this story possesses ideas from both corners; another element of contradiction. This sort of story serves a similar purpose to reading tragedy, because it reminds us of our humanity and the inconsequential nature of the courses of our individual lives on the whole universe. It makes us take a “step back,” which seems odd in terms of “Happy Endings” because of the inconsequential nature of each individual ending on its own (comparable to the inconsequential nature of each human on his/her own). Together, however, I think the endings form a general, simplified version of the desires of humans as humans.
|
|
|
|
Post by emwolfram on Dec 19, 2013 6:46:04 GMT
I'm going to call it "Realistic-cynical-truth-which-hurts-but-weirdly-makes-us-smile-and-brings-us-clarity-towards-the-discomforting-reality-of-life-and-inevitibility-of-our-death" genre
The truth of life is that it often sucks. S-U-C-K-S. sucks. The dreams you have will be crushed. The people you love will hurt you and let you down. Oh and by the way you will die. 100% of the time you will die. There is zero chance of escaping the fact that you will die. There is also no escaping that everyone you love will eventually die too. That person who means the world to you will one day be buried in the ground. 100% of the time, every time. Also not all of us will be special. We won't all succeed or find our perfect happily ever afters. Some of us will end up losing everything. (I mean I love you all and wish you nothing but happy beautiful lives) but that is reality. And reality does not guarantee a happy ending for all of us. So the story we read was truth. And it is beautiful because of this. It scares us because it shows that what we want is not always what we get. Sometimes we end up dying alone filled with sleeping pills and cheap alcohol waiting to be saved by someone who wouldn’t even take us to dinner. This is sad. And yet the way it is written makes us laugh. I think we laugh because the blatant truth shocks us. We are not often given the truth. It is usually sugarcoated with fairytales and promises so when we see harsh-dry reality it is almost funny. The story is written like a timeline of misfortune. But it does not apologies for its tragedy. It doesn’t need to. And I like that a hell of a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by carolinedorman on Dec 19, 2013 7:00:34 GMT
“Happy Endings” does not follow the typical structure of a piece of literature, as we discussed in class. It is extremely direct breaks the wall between the work and its reader. This story reminds me of a book I used to have where you could pick alternate endings to the story and eventually see how different the story ends up. “Happy Endings”, however, without any euphemisms, speeds directly to the end. The end for any human will always be death. I like Rishi’s categorization of “Happy Endings” as a satire. I agree that Atwood uses irony and mocking to criticize idealistic and romantic literature. Yet, Satire is used to expose people’s stupidity or vices (according to Google). I don’t think people are stupid about how their life will eventually end. Yes, people often romanticize what is often a depressing truth, but everyone knows death is unavoidable. I think “Happy Endings” deserves the genre “cold reality”. The tone is cynical and unromantic. The story serves to point out the romanticized version of love we see in movies and books and strip it down to its most basic form.
|
|
|
|
Post by patricktbutenhoff on Dec 19, 2013 7:29:40 GMT
I have to agree with Sheridan that "Happy Endings" is a largely philosophical work, and I would ultimately have to label it under philosophy. Like Sheridan said, there are definitely some existential components to Atwood's work. First, the story seems to take more of a pessimistic tone than the ultimate-truth-oriented view of essentialism. "Happy Endings" does not at all have a happy ending: John and Mary die, and anything else is just a blasphemous lie "motivated by excessive optimism" or "malicious intent to deceive" (479) But at the same time, the story puts some power back into the reader's hands. The ending of every story might ultimately be the same, but this doesn't mean that all stories are the same. The ending is just one small portion, and Atwood acknowledges this near the end: she writes, "True connoisseurs, however, are known to favor the stretch in between, since it's the hardest to do anything with" (479). Plots are just the start to the meaning of a work of literature; the true meaning comes between the lines, in the How and Why of the work. Even if the same archetypal plots are repeated in story after story, this doesn't mean that they're all just one tale. It's the journey to the end, not the destination, that counts. Essentially, Atwood says, "Here is what is. Make of it what you will." This is the basis of existential philosophy: everything has an existential form or plot, but there is still importance to be assigned to it beyond that form. To some extent, the author is the architect behind the deeper meaning in the work; to some extent, this power stems from the reader.
Probably the largest reason that I immediately labeled "Happy Endings" as a philosophical work is that it has no plot. The writing is self-aware, it comments that the plots--for there are several, jumbled in no particular order--are shallow and ultimately unimportant. The point isn't the story; nobody will look at "Happy Endings" and at first think to analyze Mary's character. Why? Because Mary isn't a character, she's just a placeholder to get a point across: that the facts of all stories, when you boil them down to their conclusions, are more or less the same. "Happy Endings" is a guide to writing. It looks at life from the context of a writer trying to create a good story. But even more so, it is a comment on life in general: at the start you are born, at the end you die, the facts and meaning of what you do in the middle are up to you. "Happy Endings" is, overall, a philosophical guide to writing not just the story of a novel but the story of one's own life.
|
|
|
|
Post by shannonfender on Dec 19, 2013 7:56:05 GMT
I really like what Rishi said about "Happy Endings" being a satire. Margaret Atwood creates a rigid plot line in each of her "alternate endings" to show how empty these archetypes are. However, an important element of satire is that the exaggeration throughout the text is subtle - it seems realistic, but something feels absurdly out of proportion all the same. Initially, Atwood is very subtle, but she then goes on to wrap the whole story up by basically saying "Do you see how dumb and incomplete these stories are? Please do not fall into this trap". (Not that it is a bad thing. I liked it!) Thus, I propose a new Frankenstein genre for this text called "Archetype Defaming".
The idea behind this genre is relatively simple: Write a story that strictly adheres to an archetype in order to show how ridiculously simplistic it can be. In "Happy Endings", Atwood draws upon the typical "life-story/hardship/love" archetypes and incorporates each as a subplot. The subplot adheres to the "whats" of each archetype without wavering. Any complex elements are omitted from the text. Therefore,you (the reader) receive a bare-bones version of each archetype, and we can see how hollow and unrealistic this method of storytelling is. This message is evident when Atwood completes her story and 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". In these final words, Atwood really emphasizes the need for depth in writing if we want our literature to reflect (an relate!) to our reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Dec 19, 2013 8:07:04 GMT
When it comes to writing, there are two distinct abilities that come with experience and improvement. First, there's understanding how to write well; then, there's writing well. In terms of made-up genres, Atwood's "Happy Endings" falls into Training Wheels for Understanding How to Write Well.
To give this genre some context, I'll refer to a book I read last summer. Anne Lamott's "Bird by Bird" is a useful and hilarious manual for the aspiring writer. When I finished reading the novel, it was not as if I suddenly became a best-selling offer. I did, however, gain understanding of the common mistakes and challenges (and solutions) of writers. Simply put, I understand better how to write well.
While Lamott uses lengthy anecdotes and humorous commentary to provide these skills for the reader, Atwood cuts to the chase. Satire allows her to get to the point quickly, as it demonstrates rather than explains. "Happy Endings" teaches a powerful lesson, but it is not exhaustive. It is a set of training wheels, not a manual. The very last line - "Now try How and Why" - reveals something that Atwood wants all her readers to know. The faults of fake, overused plots are easy to expose. But even if you can fix that much, plot is just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more to be explored through the How And Why. These journeys are to be made by the writer once he or she leaves her training wheels behind.
|
|
