I am generally not a fan of sad endings, mostly because I think they are cop-outs. Any struggling writer can earn instant accolades from daft critics by throwing in DARK scenes and TRAGIC denouements and LOTS OF JARGON with DEPRESSING ANALYSIS.
So what?
It is so much harder to successfully resolve problems in a reasonably happy way. I review romance novels in a connected blog. Because many of my reviews tend to be negative, it may appear that there are very few good romance novels out there. In truth, there are excellent romance novels available. They are simply harder to write and rarely earn critical (as in, higher academic) approval.
I think
The Hobbit only didn't end on a depressing note because one can go on to watch
The Lord of the Rings. I write elsewhere about how Jackson should have paid off Tauriel better, even if he kept the book ending and (still) killed off Kili and Fili.
The Lord of the Rings, in contrast, ends sadly but not depressingly. In fact, I'm not sure I would even call it "sad." The Japanese do a better job tackling the sad-but-not-right-and-fitting-and-lovely-while-aching:
Mono no aware.
Frodo is the Fisher King, like King Arthur: the hero king or prince with a wound that never heals. He cannot stay. And however sad I find Tolkien's solution here, I also think it is more honest--in some ways--than fantasies that want everything to return to being EXACTLY THE SAME. They can't. Merry and Pippin and Sam have changed. The Scouring of the Shire changed Hobbit culture. The departure of the elves changes Middle Earth. It's good and bad. It's life. It's inevitable.
Tolkien wasn't afraid of age or change. So Frodo leaves.
I cry every time I read the book or watch the trilogy. But I am left feeling fulfilled because the ending is a well-written and appropriate ending.
No comments:
Post a Comment