Z. Goldstein - Crit. Response to Atwood's Happy Endings

Happy Endings by Margaret Atwood (Crit. Response)

This is a story for which the latter elements are entirely dependent upon self-analysis of the earlier elements. The structure resembles a plot list more so than an actual continuous narrative. Label ‘A’ is the stock “happy ending” where everything goes according to plan and John and Mary live happily ever after. As we move down the list the tales become grittier, more real, and more...human. It exposes the insecurities and indiscretions driven by base human nature coupled with societal constructs. Still, labels B-F only hold meaning as direct comparisons to the outcome of story ‘A.’


Story A is the ideal; the standard Disney fairy tale plot progression with no mention of any conflict whatsoever. Soon new characters are introduced such as Marge and Fred but we are still referred to the original happy-go-lucky tale of John and Mary for the outcomes of the later stories. It is meant to expose how fragile plots can be and how interchangeable the characters can become. After the last sub-story ‘F’ the tale breaks off and the reader is addressed directly if not by name but under the pretext of “you.” The message is that all endings are the same: John and Mary die. What matters (and where creative fiction writers are left to fill in the gaps) is the “stretch in-between.”

Plot progression is dependent upon one thing after another, and too often the plot is moving but the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ are left behind. This story teaches us to slow down and let the reasons catch up to the results and the cause catch up to the effects. As a literary exercise the story works because it isolates the plot from the narrative and thus exposes how fragile the former can b. In this sense the story is a novelty and rather interesting to read. However in terms of practical application this is something already known to me and thus of no further use stylistically.