Two questions about endings; you can answer either one, or both.
1. Sterne ends his novel in the middle of a sentence, a scene, and the night. What is the significance of this abrupt ending?
2. In what ways does this novel supply a satisfying (or not!) close to the semester's reading in this course?
Deadline: Friday (12/11), noon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
In response to question two:
I feel that the ending to Sterne's novel may not be satisfying-- it is quite the cliffhanger-- but it is a very fitting end to studying the Enlightenment period as a whole. Over this semester, we have read numerous opinions of varying (and often opposing)viewpoints, leading at times to a kind of cliffhanger similar to that found at the end of Sentimental Journey-- different opinions, yet few definitive answers. I also feel that, in many ways, the way that Sterne ends Sentimental Journey stands as a sort of microcosm representing the Enlightenment Era and its place in history. Due to the advancement of scientific inquiry, many new questions had come to the forefront of Enlightenment culture; however, because their technology was limited, and their knowledge small, Enlightenment thinkers couldn't really come up with sturdy conclusions or answers to their problems. In essence, they too finished in mid-sentence, leaving future generations to finish their thought.
I agree with Cameron in that throughout the course there never has been a definitive "this is the right way to think" idea. Johnson and Hume approached religion in different ways, Kant/Rousseau/Voltaire approached government and the ideal conditions for society in different ways, and texts like Fantomina and the story about the almoner in Tahiti never really were resolved in a way that outright told you what was right or wrong. Everything's always kind of up in the air, like in Yorick's situation in the end of SJ. It is exemplary of the era because it makes you ask questions, and asking the questions - not so much finding the one, right answer - is what the Enlightenment seemed to be about for me.
In response to the first question, I found that the abrupt ending merely reinforced my attitude towards Yorick. As we discussed in class, Yorick's morality is constantly in question and by leaving the book on with such an abrupt ending, it lets the reader see that Yorick still has much to learn and his moral standings are still very questionable. I found that this ending like Cameron and TKim have already stated allows for this questioning of Yorick to continue.
I disagree with Cara that Yorick's moral standings are questionable. "So that I stretched out my hand, I caught hold of hold of the Fille de Chambre's," (104). This is the last line of the book and what I can make out of it is that Yorick did this by accident. I still don't really understand the significance of it and I could be completely wrong but that is how the end comes across to me.
Personally, I feel Yorick helps rectify his moral standings by him figuring out that begging and receiving services is how people get ahead in life. And as he phrases it, "but twas a dishonest reckoning . . . the higher I got, the more I forced upon my beggarly system" (94). Yorick, at this point, realizes that his morals are wrong and attempts to rectify them. I then see proof in his next even where he is very grateful for the supper he has recieved.
Sterne makes one hell of a cliffhanger for the novel. However, I believe that he did this mainly for his audience. We all know that the novel was a sequel to his previous one. I think he does this because he meant to write another one. But as far as the actual significance of it for Parson Yorick, is that throughout the story he had been making significant moves to becoming a morally just man, and in this night with these women, he is caught in a position to revert back to his old self. Does he do it? Does he not? The world will never know.
The ending isn't as satisfying as it could have been. Like I stated previously, its a hell of a cliffhanger. But as Sterne was writing this and literally dying, it is sort of interesting that it is left so open. He died not too much later after finishing this, I think had he lived longer, he would have wrapped up the story much later and we would have had a better understanding of how everything affected Yorick in the end.
I agree with Cameron and Tkim and Cara that the ending was appropriate with the novel. It would not have made sense for it to end in a definitive way, because the entire novel is spent with Yorick wavering. Throughout the entire novel Yorick's motives, and morality are in question. Ending the book abruptly signifies that Yorick is still distracted and still does not have secure morals. His morals are questionable throughout the entire novel and clearly the journey he went through did not secure his moral character.
I agree with Cameron that the ending was appropriate as well. It resembles Yorick's unsure nature. Though I'm not certain that is is representative of Yorick's morals. He seems to have found a sense of morals after leaving Paris and during his stay with the family. I think the cliffhanger is just a way to provoke thought without a sort of definitive answer. It doesn't tell you how you're supposed to think.
Agreeing with most above, I think the novel in itself represented a very satisfying ending for this course. Standing alone, the piece it probably more iconic and questionable in following such a skittish narrator's journey but I think overall it's this precise type of narrator that we have strove so hard to discover.
Yorick's persona is something so complex that I felt that if we did not prepare adequately with works and people from the past, we could not approach and fully understand his attitude and overall Sterne's intentions in writing such a "sentimental" novel.
The lack of a definitive ending and a definitive answer to "life-related questions" only highlights glimpses of what we've been working towards all semester -- the Enlightenment era is just as undefined and perhaps not as solid as we originally thought it to be when we first began the course. Therefore it's uncanny lack of answers shows how the 18C literature is not as easy to stereotype.
Post a Comment