book endings discussion

[cacian]

which book endings did not meet your expectation or did meet it and why?

[RicMisc]

The best ending I've come across so far is the ending of 'The Great Gatsby'. I really liked the book but the way it ends and especially the last sentence is just amazing and I don't think I'll forget that one anytime soon! The sentence just sums up what the book was all about and that's quite a hard thing to do, I believe. I also liked the reference to boats and water since Gatsby and his 'past' are separated by the Long Island Sound. All in all just a very ingenious ending.

[Jason Cardona]

Nella Larsen's "Quicksand." It's about a biracial woman who goes to Harlem in the 1920s to find her way in the world. The first half is really good but it jumps the shark at the end and undoes its realistic tone. A pity because Larsen's prose is really good.

[metal134]

I'd have to say the ending to every Charles Dickens book I've ever read because it's always so damn trite and forced.

[Charles Darnay]

I'd have to say the ending to every Charles Dickens book I've ever read because it's always so damn trite and forced.

What? Maybe you can call the ending of "A Tale of Two Cities" forced (although I love the ending of that novel) but otherwise, I don't see it.

When it comes to good endings, I give the prize to Victor Hugo. "Toilers of the Sea" has one of the best endings I have come across - "Hunchback of Notre Dame" is also great.

And of course, the last "episode" of "Ulysses" is just so wonderful.

[Jair]

I always hated the ending of Robertson Davies's The Cunning Man. Every character seems to become a caricature of himself

[Charles Darnay]

I always hated the ending of Robertson Davies's The Cunning Man. Every character seems to become a caricature of himself

yeah, I love Robertson Davies, but endings are not his thing. "Mixture of Frailties" was a good ending, but most of his books seem to fall off quickly.

[metal134]

What? Maybe you can call the ending of "A Tale of Two Cities" forced (although I love the ending of that novel) but otherwise, I don't see it.

You don't see it? Have you read "Great Expectations". Oh my God, that ending was so contrived that I wanted to chuck the book across the room.

[cacian]

The best ending I've come across so far is the ending of 'The Great Gatsby'. I really liked the book but the way it ends and especially the last sentence is just amazing and I don't think I'll forget that one anytime soon! The sentence just sums up what the book was all about and that's quite a hard thing to do, I believe. I also liked the reference to boats and water since Gatsby and his 'past' are separated by the Long Island Sound. All in all just a very ingenious ending.


''So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
It sounds like a castle and its moat the separation I mean.

[cacian]

I'd have to say the ending to every Charles Dickens book I've ever read because it's always so damn trite and forced.

Hehe..do you have one in particular or in mind?

[Raven Falcon.]

Hehe..do you have one in particular or in mind?

I did not see this thread when writing mine of similar subject. I apologize for such an oversight.

To be on topic: The Great Gatsby, like Ric said, has a great ending. I use it as a model to write the ending of my stories. (my personal short stories that I don't bother to publish)

[hazelk]

My favourite ending is from "Rose" by Martin Cruz Smith, it is just a few lines at the end.

[Harlow58]

http://www.infoocean.info/avatar2.jpgI'd have to say the ending to every Charles Dickens book I've ever read because it's always so damn trite and forced.

[Raven Falcon.]

http://www.infoocean.info/avatar2.jpgI'd have to say the ending to every Charles Dickens book I've ever read because it's always so damn trite and forced.

Charles Dickens is inferior to Tolstoy in writing realistic world and characters.

Both, however, had written books with mundane endings.

At least Tolstoy had written Hadji Murad, though.

[cacian]

Charles Dickens is inferior to Tolstoy in writing realistic world and characters.

Both, however, had written books with mundane endings.
So you think Dickens's character are not realistic enough?
Do you have an example of a character or characters in mind?

At least Tolstoy had written Hadji Murad, though.
I don't understand what you mean by this.

[Raven Falcon.]

So you think Dickens's character are not realistic enough?
Do you have an example of a character or characters in mind?

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Hadji Murad has one of the best endings ever.


Yes, Dickens' characters are not realistic; they feel more like cartoon characters than real people.

It is fine, because Dickens was not concerned about it.

Tolstoy had created Pierre Bezukhov, Natasha Rostova, Andrei Bolkonski, Levin and more.

He also managed to take real historical figures who in history books tend to be painted as demigods and brought them down to our levl -as mere humans.

Even Napoleon is humanized in his book, War and Peace.

[cacian]

Hadji Murad has one of the best endings ever.


Yes, Dickens' characters are not realistic; they feel more like cartoon characters than real people.

It is fine, because Dickens was not concerned about it.

Tolstoy had created Pierre Bezukhov, Natasha Rostova, Andrei Bolkonski, Levin and more.

He also managed to take real historical figures who in history books tend to be painted as demigods and brought them down to our levl -as mere humans.

Even Napoleon is humanized in his book, War and Peace.

I tend to see Dickens as a too serious almost satirical writer, Tolstoy however is another style I agree.
I do not consider historical figures anything but humans too only the way they are portrayed by others/historians made them appear as you said above others.
I am not a fan of Tolstoy but I see what you mean.

[metal134]

Yes, Dickens' characters are not realistic; they feel more like cartoon characters than real people.
Hit the nail on the head. Dickens' characters are most certainly not realistic. People just don't talk like that.

[blazeofglory]

Tolstoy is matchless and his style and characterization is insuperable and we have no writers and the degree of profundity we can see in him. What is special about him is even with a good storytelling way there is no compromise and intricacy in him. His is a deft way of telling tales combined with grandness in his style. Read any books or stories written by this epoch-making writer you will not come upon any point that lacks beauty and does not interest you. He is simply unbeatable and I find no writers more readable in totality. He is the most sincere and honest writer I have come across. When I read a classic at some point I feel like retreating to something when I find the reading dull and dumb but in Tolstoy there is no such thing. I read James simply for his grand style and I read Tolstoy for his theme, style and philosophy. What else should I seek than this.

[stlukesguild]

Hit the nail on the head. Dickens' characters are most certainly not realistic. People just don't talk like that.

It is currently 2012 and not 1850 and so certainly people don't speak like they do in a Dickens' novel... or in Dickens' time. The fact that Dickins' was inferior at creating "realistic" characters to Tolstoy is irrelevant to the measure of his art. One might argue that Tolstoy was a greater realist than Shakespeare, and yet Shakespeare certainly does not pale in comparison with Tolstoy. Dickins' certainly employed exaggerated characters. One might argue that he chooses to employ caricature as opposed to fully fleshed-out and "realistic" characters because he is more concerned with using such caricatures to convey a social commentary or satire. Nevertheless, how many writers can possibly be said to have created more memorable characters than Dickens: Ebenezer Scrooge, Tiny Tim, Jacob Marley, Bob Cratchit, Oliver Twist, The Artful Dodger, Fagin, Bill Sikes, Pip, Charles Darnay, David Copperfield, Samuel Pickwick, Wackford Squeers, Uriah Heep...

Tolstoy is matchless and his style and characterization is insuperable and we have no writers and the degree of profundity we can see in him.

I'm glad you like him. Tolstoy is indeed a brilliant writer, however to suggest that he is matchless stretches things a bit. Firdawsi, Dante, Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Virgil, Montaigne, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Victor Hugo, Flaubert, Proust, and any number of other writers are in no way inferior to Tolstoy.

[metal134]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]

It is currently 2012 and not 1850 and so certainly people don't speak like they do in a Dickens' novel... or in Dickens' time. .
Charles Dickens was not the only author from that time. I have read plenty of other authors from the mid 1800's, British and non-British, so I'm not judging his characters mannerisms in a vacuum.

[Raven Falcon.]

Charles Dickens was not the only author from that time. I have read plenty of other authors from the mid 1800's, British and non-British, so I'm not judging his characters mannerisms in a vacuum.
Do note, though, that the post I've written above only states that Tolstoy is the better realistic author between the two.

Dickens, I think, didn't fail in what he wanted to write. Realism was not his purpose or goal.


I happens that I tend to prefer realism over other genres.


About Shakespeare: His characters, although they speak in Iambic Pentametre, are some of the most nuanced and human in literary history.

[mal4mac]

Dickens' caricatures:

http://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/dickens/caricature/caricatures.html

"Dickens is a master of the grotesque. His descriptions of London slums or Northern industrial towns are both utterly believable and utterly fantastical."

Realism was certainly his goal, but his particular genius was to combine that with the "utterly fantastical". Tolstoy couldn't do this, which is perhaps why his characters aren't so memorable (try naming ten!) But Tolstoy was a genius at bringing big historical & philosophical themes into his novels without destroying them as novels - another kind of magic... one that Dickens didn't practice...

Given their differences I don't see how you can say one is greater than the other. Fish & chips, which is best? Fortunately we can have both...

[stlukesguild]

:iagree:

[hawthorns]

Personally, I love 'unrealistic' dialogue, especially when it's intellectually stimulating and humorously witty. I sure hope the current realism of American lexicon doesn't become the standard for future novels--somebody shoot me. If so we're in for more Twilight and Hollywood-script-novels.