I'm a big fan of happy endings. It gives a sense of closure when the problem is resolved and you're happy with how things turn out in the book. I don't see the point in reading a book if the ending is just going to make me angry or annoyed. The ending is one of the most important parts of the book since it's probably what the reader is going to remember the most, so it has to be done well. Normally when I finish reading a book I like to be left with a satisfied feeling that I've gained something from all the time I spent reading it. That something was achieved in the book. That it wasn't a waste. When I finished reading Kindred I didn't really get that satisfied feeling. Probably because the ending wasn't a satisfying one at all. I was really enjoying the novel up until the last couple chapters. Well, I guess until the last section. Everything just started to fall apart once we found out Alice killed herself. You could pretty much tell from that point on in the novel things weren't going to pan out so well but you just had to endure it, and it just becomes like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
What really bothered me about the ending of the book was that it was Dana who had to take Rufus out. Like, really? We just spent the entire book watching her spend years of her life in 19th century helping Rufus and being a slave on his plantation and enduring all kinds of hardships and she's just going to stab him after all that? She could've just let Rufus commit suicide like he was going to anyway. At least that way his death would have seemed somewhat justified. Rufus would've gained a lot more of my favor if he had killed himself (kind of weird to say, but true) since then it would've seemed like Rufus was remorseful of his actions and that he had learned his lesson. Instead he just turns around and tries to rape Dana.
The fact that Dana lost an arm to her time traveling experience also bothered me. She had plenty of scars that she got from whippings and even Kevin has a scar on his forehead, isn't that enough of a physical reminder of what they experienced? I realize that Butler is trying to make a point about slavery and how it scars the individuals permanently, but regardless I don't like that Butler made it impossible for Dana to go back to normal life afterwards since she's now disabled. I don't really know why, but somehow that doesn't sit well with me.
1 comment:
The question arises, what might a "happy ending" have looked like for this narrative? In Butler's view, the historical legacies of slavery remain unresolved in Dana's present day, and her journey back in time causes her to confront a complex and confusing set of circumstances, where she can't easily pick "sides" (since she must face the fact that her family is linked to both master and slave). Maybe there's something inherently *unresolved* about the narrative (figured in the fact that the hero returns "home" with a jagged, open wound) because the historical foundation itself is full of unresolved questions. How *could* this story work out in a way that would reassure the reader that everything is fine?
Post a Comment