I want to use the blog this week to talk about the "problem" of the two different endings as well as how this ending does/does not offer a satisfying moral to the other stories (not just the Estella/Pip relationship) being told in the novel, such as those about social change, redemption, the affects of poverty and/or violence on the self, justice in our institutions, etc. As we said in class, thinking about how you responded to this ending and why asks you to reflect on things Dickens is asking us to think about in other contexts: are victims of social suffering (poverty, violence, hunger, homelessness, orphanhood) responsible for their actions and, if so, to what extent? If we make these excuses for Estella (or Pip or Magwitch), what do we do with Orlick? or Mrs. Joe? Or how does it square with the endings of the other novels? We talked about the neat eradication of all the bad people (though Nancy complicates this) and the rewarding of the good people in Oliver Twist. We also discussed how Louisa was allowed to come half-way back -- to feel loved and valued but not to have a family of her own. Is Dickens doing a similar thing here or is this different?
So feel free to close read this passage -- there is a lot of meaningful detail in the scene -- or to speculate on some of the broader issues raised above and in class. OR BOTH: this is the second-to-last blog!
FROM VOLUME III, CHAPTER XX:
There was no house now, no brewery, no building whatever left, but the wall of the old garden. The cleared space had been enclosed with a rough fence, and, looking over it, I saw that some of the old ivy had struck root anew, and was growing green on low quiet mounds of ruin. A gate in the fence standing ajar, I pushed it open and went in.
A cold silvery mist had veiled the afternoon, and the moon was not yet up to scatter it. But, the stars were shining beyond the mist, and the moon was coming, and the evening was not dark. I could trace out where every part of the old house had been, and where the brewery had been, and where the gates, and where the casks. I had done so, and was looking along the desolate garden-walk, when I beheld a solitary figure in it.
* * *
"At last it is. I cam here to take leave of it before its change. And you," she said, in a voice of touching interest to a wanderer, "you live abroad still?"
"Still."
"And do well, I am sure?"
"I work pretty hard for a sufficient living, and therefore -- Yes, I do well."
"I have often thought of you," said Estella.
"Have you?"
"Of late, very often. There was a long hard time when I kept far from me, the remembrance of what I had thrown away when I was quite ignorant of its worth. But, since my duty has not been incompatible with the admission of that remembrance, I have given it a place in my heart."
* * *
I took her hand in mine, and we went out of the ruined place; and, as the morning mists had risen long ago when I first left the forge, so, the evening mists were rising now, and in all the broad expanse of tranquil light they showed to me, I saw the shadow of no parting from her.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDickens presents a variety of the struggles the characters in his novels experience, because he wants us to have a broad understanding on the circumstances that may affect the type of individuals we be become. Some experience better conditions than others, but they all have something in common. They all have the freedom to make their own decisions. Dickens believes in improvements and learning from our mistakes. Thus, we can achieve anything we want if we want it bad enough to fight for it. I see the different endings in Great Expectations as a way to give us two possible outcomes based on the character's decisions. I see it as a message, where Dickens is telling his readers that our decisions can determine our roles in society.
ReplyDeleteI think Mirianda hit the nail on the head with this comment. Dickens has given us so many alternate routes of how life can turn out, even if you start off with the same or similar circumstances. Overall I think the decisions we make in life can be slightly to drastically changed because of our surroundings (economy, opportunities, community, etc), but ultimately it all depends on what each person does with their surroundings. People can either accept the negatives of their lifestyle, or they can do everything in their power to make a change with themselves and with others. Sometimes making a change within ourselves can help others whether it was intentional or not.
DeleteThe imagery, and detail, in this passage reflects something greater than just a run down house. The broken down house is a parallel to people and they're foundation--that is, people are made up just like houses: the house, the garden, to the very gate. Estella, in this case, is broken down and ready for reconstruction. Her adopted mother built her into a monster, which has now crumpled into a new foundation ( like the Satis House), and ready for something or someone to help rebuild it/her.
ReplyDeleteGreat point. Can't get around the fact that this is an empty lot where a ruined house used to be and it is anyone's guess what will get built on this cleared land. Recall also our discussion about their meeting in a garden -- Adam and Eve but very far from Eden.
DeleteAlthough Great Expectation's second ending is a happy one, at the same time I find it just a little incomplete primarily because Dickens doesn't leave the readers with absolute certainty that Pip and Estella are going to be together. Presumably they are because they walk out the garden hand in hand. I would of been more satisfied if Estella and Pip ended up like Joe and Biddy and perhaps forecasting into the future with a family.I also find that there no similarities between the ending in this book and Oliver Twist, where he disposes the bad character and give the good characters a happy ending. However what is interesting is how Ms.Havisham,Mrs. Joe and Magwhich all fall under the category of Nancy, who also dies. All of theses characters could not be classified as fully good nor fully bad because were either victims of their environment or some negative influence who go through a transitional phase to the good.I also find that unlike Sikes who was entirely bad, Orlick did not suffer the same tragic but justified end. As far as endings go, I believe Dickens is aiming for an imitation of reality by not following a specific pattern.
ReplyDeleteWell put, Christina. Taking some of the pressure off of Ms. Havisham, Mrs. Joe, and Magwitch because of their unfortunate upbringings is not far off. I don't share that sympathy with Estella though, especially after last week's passage.
ReplyDeleteProf. Reitz,
Didn't you tell us that Dickens's initial ending was the first, and in my opinion the far superior, of the aforementioned two? If that is the case, I think we should all respect the original one, not just because it is better, which it is, but because the second one only alludes to Dickens's submission to what makes his readers "happy" (this is the word you used in class).
Oliver "wins the novel," Sissy sort of wins also, and in my opinion, Pip not ending up with Estella rectifies his victory. As Joe (the blonde Joe) in class mentioned, Estella does not deserve Pip. I wouldn't vouch for the extremity of Joe's conclusion (something about Estella feeling Pip's pain), but I think her realizing the errors of her ways and informing Pip of his influence grant him a "win" in the novel.
Don't hate me for this, but I think Dickens modifying his ending to please his casual readers makes him a sellout. Walking hand in hand into the mist is just like every children's book's ending, with animal characters walking into the sunset.
Christina makes some very interesting points about the role that a person's environment plays on their conduct. She speaks of Miss Miss Havisham, Mrs. Joe, Magwhich, and Nancy all dying, because they are not completely good or completely bad charters. I think it's safe to say that both Pip and Estella fall into this same category. They are far from being good and not completely bad, due to surrounding factors. However, Dickens does not give them the same ending as he does with the other characters mentioned above. I believe that Dickens makes this decision because they are still young and deserve to live as changed individuals.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, I am still not satisfied with the ending of this novel. I think that Pip's and Estalla's union could become identical to Mr. and Mrs. Joe's early relationship, where the woman has the ability to control the man. There is sufficient amounts of evidence in Pip's and Estalla's past interactions to predict this occurrence. We know that Pip is and has alway been in love with Estalla, but we have no indications of Estalla's romantic feelings for Pip. Estalla's union with Pip could be just out of convince.
The ending is not enough to believe that these two characters will have a happy life together. I am also suspicious, because Pip compares his first leaving the forge for London to his leaving the Forge with Estalla: I took her hand in mine, and we went out of the ruined place; and, as the morning mists had risen long ago when I first left the forge, so, the evening mists were rising now, and in all the broad expanse of tranquil light" (503). Pip has never been the most precise in his judgements, (except for his judgement on Orlick) so his feelings of tranquility does not ensure their happiness. He expected Great Expectations when he first left the forge, but got much dissatisfactions instead.
Dickens is such a great writer! He totally gave a detailed description of a scenery that was transitioning from an old state of being to a new state of being. Every bit of imagery he used showed something in transition, evolving, not fully closed or open for example: "There was no house now, no brewery, no building whatever left, but the wall of the old garden." a building thats described as being totally gone yet there is just a wall left. If everything else is gone then its indicating that the last of an old thing is soon to be gone to its on its last stage before the new scenery removes all evidence of its existence. "The cleared space had been enclosed with a rough fence, and, looking over it, I saw that some of the old ivy had struck root anew, and was growing green on low quiet mounds of ruin." Old ivy is now giving way to new ivy on the old ruins of a past thing. All of this is telling us that an old love is dying passing on just before the breaking forth of something new, a new love is about to grow over and in place of the old ruin. "A gate in the fence standing ajar, I pushed it open and went in." The gate showing that the entry to Pip's heart and Estella's was closing from a thing or opening to a new one but the process was ongoing but entry was there or the exit and he entered.
ReplyDelete"A cold silvery mist had veiled the afternoon, and the moon was not yet up to scatter it." The afternoon was at its end yet the twilight was only coming, it had not shown up yet, however its symbolcal of the twilight the changing point in both their lives which is reflected in this next line... "But, the stars were shining beyond the mist, and the moon was coming, and the evening was not dark." "I could trace out where every part of the old house had been, and where the brewery had been, and where the gates, and where the casks." He could still remember the old relics that had been there but clearly they were not there anymore, the evidence was still visible but they were gone, torn down. So it is representative of the love he once had in his heart now being gone, tore down but still could be seen and known that they had been there, a stain of its print remained. "I had done so, and was looking along the desolate garden-walk, when I beheld a solitary figure in it." finally with everything being torn down he also found someone who was in the same place as him..... Then Dickens give us the story of two hearts, Pip and Estella who are exactly as the scenery described in transition, moving from their old into their new. Covering up the old moss with the fresh moss growing anew.
Nice close reading, Greg!
DeleteDickens's rewritten ending, the seemingly conventional happy ending, gives us more of a reason to believe and notice Estella's transitioned character. Although it may be unclear whether Pip and Estella will get married and remain together, their reconciliation at the end serves a purpose in conveying Estella's change and proving her improved character to Pip. In the passage, we see Estella saying to Pip, "I kept far from me, the remembrance of what I had thrown away when I was quite ignorant of its worth...I have [now] given it a place in my heart." This quote is quite noteworthy as it is Estella's confession as well as her way of asking Pip for forgiveness. As Louisa had to suffer to find her way back to feeling loved, happy (in a sense via Sissy's family), and free, Estella also had to endure much suffering to realize how she could become a happier and better person. It seems as if Dickens is portraying hopefulness for the future of the new Estella as he had done with Louisa, telling the readers that these girls are now more likely to love, be loved, and live happily.
ReplyDeleteDickens' second ending is better than the first one. Although it is more of a fairytale ending than the original ending, it provides the reader of a better plot. For example, Pip and Estelle went back to the Satis house where they have met. Although the house is broken down now, Dickens provides us this information to show that these characters starting where they began. Estella states "And we will continue friends apart" shows that Pip and Estella wants closure.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I like the second ending better than the original. Not only does the second ending sound more poetic, but it also ties the themes of the story together. In Dickens's own ending, Estella suffers greatly and learns what Pip went through. Having Estella suffer and regret what she did to Pip makes the readers content. However, in the actual ending, Dickens is able to illustrate the failure of Miss Havisham's philosophy. Furthermore, it is more hopeful and optimistic. Despite their struggle, Pip and Estella are able to meet again and confess their feelings.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is important that both characters are able to express their feelings without any external influence. In other words, they are no longer mere puppets, but rather two individuals who have experienced hardships. Even their conversation suggests a sense of maturity.
Ibrahim brings up an important issue in these endings, expressions and feelings. As of late, Dickens has crafted a series novels that revolve around mechanical worlds filled with lifeless characters. These characters are lifeless in the sense that they are missing hearts, emotion, or a plethora of other fundamental flaws. The fact that the novel ends in expressions and feelings does a great job of showing a monumental change in the dynamics of morality embedded in these works.
DeleteIn all three novels Dickens brings to light a social issue and its outcome. He also hints at a solution to those social issues. For some characters it is too late to be saved and take Dickens advise and suffer the consequences as a result, hence Nancy, and Miss Havisham. Both Nancy and Miss Havisham learned their lesson but it was too late for them to turn back and change their ways so Dickens killed them off. But for the characters that still have a chance to change after their peril, like Louisa and Estella, Dickens gives them that opportunity.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I believe Dickens gave Great Expectations a happy ending. Dickens shows how Estella would have ended up through the example of Miss Havisham. So he shows the alternative Estella chooses, which is to live her life along side Pip.
"As we said in class, thinking about how you responded to this ending and why asks you to reflect on things Dickens is asking us to think about in other contexts: are victims of social suffering (poverty, violence, hunger, homelessness, orphanhood) responsible for their actions and, if so, to what extent? If we make these excuses for Estella (or Pip or Magwitch), what do we do with Orlick? or Mrs. Joe?" I do not think it is a matter of excuses or always choices but chance. It was mentioned in class that Estella, not considering her later in the book, was not a bad character but Pip and Joe had a horrible past but they are good characters so there were to be no excuses for Estella. I do not believe characters like Estella are wholly responsible for what she became. And when I think about the contrast between Compeyson and Magwitch, it makes me think that Dickens is trying to say that whether people are good or bad is a matter of chance not anyways choice. In the passage in which Magwitch talks about Compeyson, Dickson states that Compeyson came from a good family and he was educated.I also think about Dickens's autobiographical accounts that he could have easily have become a criminal.
ReplyDeleteI thought that it was a happy ending for the novel. The published ending is good because both Pip and Estella are no longer manipulated by anyone and they can now act freely. I also think it is a happy ending because I wanted to see Estella and Pip together, because I am a sucker for endings like that. The other ending is still a happy ending because like the published ending they are free to act how they wish. Also in both endings Estella finds her heart which is one of the ideas that Dickens has been trying to emphasize.
ReplyDeleteThough I understand that the second ending was supposed to please readers more, I don't like either. Pip, if we are to recall the Dickensian Gospel, holds no blame for what had occurred to him (except loving Estella which we should all condemn him for, of course) and didn't deserve to be exiled for years before finally a) learning that his flame walked in his shoes or b) being with her. I say exiled because it very much seems that he has to walk the path Magwitch had except he self imposed this punishment (self deportation, anyone?), again drawing parallels between the two. The first ending punishes Pip much the same way that Louisa is punished, never being able to marry or have kids of his own, despite the plot being more similar to Oliver’s tale (orphan boy comes into fortune). I think the difference for Dickens lies in the age of his protagonist. While Oliver is a child throughout the novel, and is therefore further absolved from blame, Pip’s “crimes” are committed as an adult, which seems to suggest that adults should be punished for their actions. Dickens imparts to his readers the importance of a childhood and growing up in this family-esque environment, but he does not allow faults there to justify a life of crime or, in Pip’s case, really bad ethical behavior. The message is one I like (I hate determinism) but I can't get over the feeling that my buddy Pip deserved a little better.
ReplyDelete