Wednesday, April 2, 2008
BA#8
After reading "The Ledge," by Lawrence Sargent Hall I began to think about the series of events that lead up to the final culmination of the deaths of the Fisherman, his son and nephew. It seems as if there were many options that would have taken these characters in different directions. For example, I can't help but wonder how the story's outcome would have been entirely different, if the Fisherman had returned home to retrieve his tobacco when he realized he hadn't brought it along with him. What if he had tied the boat up before they went out to retrieve the dead ducks? It seems as if author's knowingly take the turn away from what is an easy route, to create a "happy ending," and instead opt for the difficult task of writing a tragic, emotionally disturbing peice instead. What makes an author decide a specific ending when writing a peice of literature? How does one seemingly insignificant event lead to a tragedy? How does both a tragedy and a "happy ending" have different effects on the emotions of a reader?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This is a very interesting point, and it is very high possibility that things might have been different if he had gone back to get his smokes or to retrieve the ducks. I believe the author wanted to write a tragic piece, and chose to kill the main character, because it made the character change and show some depth, rather than just be static. I think the reader has some respect for the fisherman in the end because of the tragic ending, but still may feel he was too harsh. These complexities may be why the author chose to end the story the way he did.
If the author decided to have the Fisherman go back to get his tobacco, the story would have changed completely. I think that this story is all about modernism. There is fragmentation when we realize that his boat is gone. From that point on, the readers know that the characters are bound for destruction. Although the fisherman goes through all the struggles and regrets with his son and nephew, at the end of the story, the readers do feel respect for him. The ultimate point of tragedy, when the fisherman crosses the body of water, makes the readers realize that it wasn't his fault and everyone who is human is bound to mistakes.
I liked this post. I would like to think that writers may jump into something with a specific ending in mind but through the course of the book the ending may take a different turn from what their original thought was. It should be assumed that maybe IF he had went back for his tobacco or IF he had tied up the boat we would have been looking at a different short story perhaps with a happy somewhat over used ending.
It would have been cool to see the reactions of him going back to get the smokes: would the children feel deprived and thus suffer, or hate their father because he would remain a static character? Perhaps it wouldn't end in death, but instead neglect or hatred. I think that this ending allows for a conclusion now, instead having to wait for all of the characters to develop into adults and grow stronger feelings.
Post a Comment