Half empty or half full?
Good morning!
In critical discussions of literature, tone refers to "the attitudes toward the subject and toward the audience implied in a literary work." Usually, literary works can be said to have an overall tone, which results from the cumulative effect of various parts of that work. The individual books of the Bible, for example, convey a variety of tones toward their subjects and audiences. The Song of Solomon, through its celebration of physical love between a bride and groom, creates a tone of joy. The Gospel of Mark, through its rapid narrative pace and its probably original, abrupt ending at 16:8, creates a tone of urgency for its readers--they must respond, and now, to its claims about Jesus Christ. Psalm 23, through its pastoral imagery, creates a tone of quiet assurance; Psalm 88, through its constant references to darkness and trouble, creates a tone of despair.
A major question as Fahrenheit 451 ends concerns the tone of the novel: Is the ending optimistic or pessimistic? That is my question to you today. What tone do you find at the end of the novel and why do you feel that way?
In addition, do you LIKE the way the novel ends? I've heard some complaints (imagine that!) from some that they don't like Part 3 at all. So how should the book end? Give us your ideas.
So two things to answer this morning--or this afternoon!
Love,
Mrs. D
posted by Sister Sara @ 8:05 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
I think the ending is purposefully vague. There are no gaurantees about anything. Not really giving a conclusive ending is much more ominous and allows the reader to decide what he thinks will happen. I'm a sucker for happy endings, so I think that Clarise ends actually being alive and coming back to Montag with the forest people. And then, they save the rest of mankind from themselves, and everyone lives happily ever after. But, the open-ended ending, will allow someone like Jake to imagine that everyone dies. Not just the bad guys. But everyone. Which is why the ending is perfect, because then everyone is happy.
I think the ending was optimistic because even though they were all sad because the city was gone, there was still hope that the people who were left would realize the error of their ways and return to reading books and thinking. I kind of liked the ending (even though I was sad that Clarisse was gone) because there was still hope for the future, Montag was able to remember some of what he had read, and the verse at the very end was spiffy.
Taking my joyful ability to look at the darker side of everything, it is my opinion that the attitude Ray Bradbury intended was one of abject pessimism. The cycle of the Phoenix can be taken either as beautiful or extremely repetitive, and I like to make a case for repetition. Man is stupid, in essence, and he does not learn from his mistakes. The ending presented in this wonderful "dystopia" novel is that a nuclear war has wiped out much of civilization, and from this there is a very predictable path. First, the complete collapse of the government will create a period of Anarchy, and with the addition of the nuclear fallout, the population of America will be eliminated to a mere fraction of what it currently is. From here, there are two things which are likely to happen... one of which would be the "V For Vendetta" ending (for those unfamiliar with that wonderful graphic novel or the movie based on it, it shares the occurrence of a nuclear war) in which a totalitarian government takes control and establishes order in the most unpleasant of fashions. The other option, which I believe to be more exciting, is that a government never really takes control, and that anarchy prevails, providing a wonderfully nihilistic post-apocalyptic world in which it is is literally every man for himself. For those who have seen Mad Max, Waterworld, or any similar movies, this is the world I describe.
In short, unless you happen to be an insane radical that revels in the idea of no government, an agricultural society, and the abolishment of that evil little thing called currency (aka paper that has no real value), the ending of this book will probably make you shiver in a dark corner. Alone.
Yes, I am that insane radical...
The story, I thought, had a good ending. Yes, it was pessimistic, but bad things happening open up the opportunity for good things to happen. For example, when a fire burns down a forest, everything dies, yet the next year, the growth of everything is much healthier. So, although the city was bombed, it opened up a fresh start. And I wouldn't have changed anything.
I actually like the way Bradbury ended the book a lot. I think in ending he let the readers mind begin to think on what happened in the book. He left it unconcluded almost. Basically, with Granger's thing at the end about how humanity will continue this oscillating process of rising and falling, he forces the reader to wonder if that could happen to us. Is it happening to us? That's what I liked. Even though it was not a "feel good" ending, it was very effective.
It is the best ending that could have been expected from a doomsday kind of book. Look at the movies Independence Day, Day After Tomorrow, The Terminator 2 and 3, Water World, etc. At the end of all those movies they had to go repopulate the earth and start over. I personally like it when everybody dies. But, that's just me.
Stephanie Gray
Graded.
Post a Comment
<< Home