Once upon a time… they all lived happily ever after.
These bookends of fairy tales are a staple in society. The prince and the princess meet. They fall in love. The prince sweeps her off of her feet and they ride off into the sunset on the back of his white horse. They live happily ever after.
But as common as this ending is, it is unsatisfactory. As daydreaming little children grow into (slightly more experienced) daydreaming adolescents and adults, the world around them makes it increasingly clear that love is rarely so cut and dry. To drift into a sunset and a happily ever after would be extremely lucky (and perhaps extremely boring.)
Margaret Atwood’s “Happy Endings” seems to lean into this concept. The format of this piece was unexpected in the aspect that it was metafiction- a piece of fictional writing about fictional writing. Therefore, the story prompted me to 
think not only about the concept, but about how the concept is formatted in writing in general. Reminiscent of a choose your own adventure, the story simply starts out with the statement, “John and Mary meet.” Asking what happens next, Atwood tells the audience that if they would like a happy ending they should try A. The rest of the piece is formatted in listed variations of the story from A to F. Scenario A contains stereotypical diction that evokes an image of a 1950’s ideal family with 2 kids and a picket fence. In this version, John and Mary fall in love, get married and live a perfectly content life. Then they die.
Scenario A is interesting in both it’s dynamic and placement. The easiest to access, ending A may have been listed first because it was the ending readers tend to think of first. When two potential love interests meet, the reader (or in this day and age viewer) most likely expects and wants ending A to happen eventually. This would be a perfectly fine ending, yet the reader feels no urge to give up after A, instead continuing on to scenario B despite the reassurance at the end of A that, “This is the end of the story.” The reader, perhaps at first thinking that they would like a happy ending, is left unsatisfied with the blandness of ending A. Catherine Sustana points out in her analysis of the short story that Atwood uses the descriptors “stimulating and challenging” three times in order to describe John and Mary’s jobs, sex life, and retirement hobbies. The descriptions are not stimulating and challenging to the reader, but rather vague and unsatisfying. Atwood uses this to create a bland tone around Scenario A, as a first hint that the happy ending maybe wasn’t all that the readers were looking for. The weak descriptors give no emotional connection to John and Mary and the reader finds a lack of intrigue and personalization, moving on to other endings in hope of something more.
The other scenarios turn out to be more interesting if no less predictable than ending A. Dr. Anthony Funari points out in his analysis of the piece that the plots are made predictable through their cast of stock characters. A desperate woman has unrequited love for a tool of a man. A balding married man seeks affirmation through a relationship with a much younger coworker. Etcetera, etcetera.The scenarios play themselves out under each letter, but no matter how they get there, they always reference the ending as A. Suicides and murders, natural disasters and heart conditions, yet somehow the ending still ultimately turns out to be A. In the end, Atwood concludes that all endings are essentially the same, no matter how we look at it.
The only final and true ending: “John and Mary Die.”
While shocking and a bit morbid, I nonetheless agree with Atwood. In life, there are no guarantees of a happy ending. Atwood describes “excessive optimism” that can cause unintentional deception in storytelling. Hopeless-romantic daydreaming.
Eventually the final ending is death. The true story is what we do with the middle.
Atwood states that “True connoisseurs (…) are known to favor the stretch in between, since that’s the hardest to do anything with.” Atwood uses the boring tone of A in contrast with the intrigue the reader felt when reading the other descriptions, especially when Atwood seemed to be close to giving character insight, in order to have the reader realise that the true joy doesn’t come from the ending, but the growth and adventure the characters experience getting there. Thanks to the lovely development of binge watching, this can be evident in our day to day lives. When rewatching a go-to T.V. show in order to revisit a favorite couple, we don’t simply watch their meeting and ending over and over again, we view our favorite moments and developments in that relationship.
The piece also brings up the challenge that the middle is the hardest thing to write about. The beginning is doable, the ending predictable (especially Hallmark’s,) but the real trick is the development in between. The How and Why. How do characters grow with one another? How do they make each other feel? Why do they feel that way? This section of the story is what sets romances apart. This is what requires creativity and the ability to tap into the human soul. The characters unique perspectives and the audience’s ability to relate to those characters is what will engage an audience into the story, and in order to create characters such as these, the author must be able to fully develop interesting characters, as well as implement tools to successfully communicate those characters to the audience.
Overall I felt as though the short story was reflective and intriguing, and a fantastic stepping stone into how we view and go into relationships ourselves. If we are willing to truly put up with and grow through the middle if we are only looking forward to the end. Does the end even matter? Or is it getting there that counts?
Extra Links:
Loved the question you posed at the end. The story itself seems to pose a bit of a nihilistic view of life, doesn’t it? Despite the fact that Atwood makes subtle remarks against the sort of “hopeless-romantic daydreaming” that populates a couple of the scenarios, I’d like to think that that sort of idealism can still work out. While the endings may be the same at face value, every single permutation of the middle leads to a different connotation.
After doing some quick thinking, I guess a Rubik’s cube is the closest analogy I can think of. There are several main solving methods for a competitive cuber: the most dominant one, Fridrich, which I guess you could call Scenario A, and less popular ones like Petrus, Roux, and ZZ< which won't give you faster times than Scenario A, but might be a bit more fun and interesting. Fridrich is a pretty vanilla solve: you solve the first two layers simultaneously, and then finish off the last layer on top. Petrus, a delectable Scenario B, involved building a 2×2 block within the larger cube, and then filling in the spaces around it. Roux involves using the middle column of the cube to the main advantage, and ZZ is a weird Scenario D that no one likes to talk about.
All of them ostensibly lead to the same ending: a solved 3×3 Rubik's Cube. But it's the journey that matters, right? Personally, I think Scenario A is the most straightforward, but I think any method is great! You do you. That's what makes the endings worth it.
I really enjoyed your analogy to the rubik’s cube, it’s a great way of thinking of the situation. I read your blog on being a hopeless romantic, and I think it’s great that you hope for the ideal. Personally, I think you need a little idealism in romance, but it’s also important to keep in mind that successful relationships take work. Making sure you keep reality in mind and know that not every situation will work out is important, which I think is part of the point that Attwood was trying to make with her writing. I think it’s interesting that you said Scenario A was the most straightforward, as I believe that realistically it was more of an ending than a journey. Thank you for commenting, I enjoyed the insight!
Having read The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood this summer, I was especially intrigued by this story and what it would entail. Her writing, from what I have gathered, tends to have some sort of commentary on society and from what it seems, this story is no different.
I am especially interested in your discussion about “the middle” of the story, or of someone’s life. With college application season in full force, I am really feeling the effects of missing out on “the middle”. We understand and are so focused on the destination– college acceptance letters– that I feel like so many seniors are missing out on their senior year of high school. It seems to be the same way in this story. Everyone is so focused on the happy ending that the middle becomes boring and trivial. Atwood seems to turn this on its head by making the plot especially boring, emphasizing the importance of the little things in the middle. Overall, I would be especially interested in reading this story to understand the full importance of “the middle” of the story.
I love the tie you made to the season of life that we are going through! I think you are exactly right in saying that so many seniors are missing this message, so focused on the finish line that they don’t enjoy the race. I think it is so important to enjoy this last year that we have with each other before we get the letter and then realize that time has flown by. I hope to continue to read Atwood’s work and The Handmaid’s Tale is on my reading list for winter break. I’m very interested to see what themes of life she explores in that story. No spoilers! Thank you for your comment, I really enjoyed your connection.
You brought up an interesting question about what’s really important: is it the end that we’re looking forward to, or is it the journey itself? It’s often said that it’s about the journey, and that the experiences along the way end up meaning much more than the final destination. In terms of life in general, I would agree with that idea. But as you brought up, this can lead to “excessive optimism.” We tend to not think about death but instead immerse ourselves into the journey, to the extent that we avoid thinking of what comes next.
This short story seems really intriguing merely in the way that it’s formatted. I found it really interesting that Atwood purposefully made scenario A bland, hinting towards the idea that a simple happy ending wasn’t satisfying enough for readers. The manner in which she seems to predict the readers’ reactions and their trail of thought gives the story a lot more depth. I’m definitely interested in giving the short story a read!
I’m glad you’re interested in reading the story! The format was certainly unique as you said, and provided an interesting variation on the type of short stories we typically read. Attwood was certainly encouraging the reader to look introspectively as to what they valued more, the journey or the end. I think that Attwood valued the journey as well, as she said that the true connoisseurs learned to value the middle. Attwood making the first scenario bland shows that she thinks that the truly interesting part of the story, of the romance in general, is the journey.
Although seeming paradoxical at first, the blandness–as you said–of the short story really does make it original and engaging! I gave the short story a quick read through and I definitely agree with what Dr. Anthony Funari analyzed about the usage of stock characters. Reading the story, I found myself almost predicting what was going to happen next simply because Atwood creates such archetypal characters.
One of the most intriguing parts of the short story to me was the ending of a lot of the scenarios that goes something along the lines of “then everything continues as in A”. What did you interpret this to mean? To me, it suggested that most people might seek a different, adventurous life in their youth but, over time, begin to tame themselves into the norm of A.
The short story was definitely worth the read and I liked what you took away from it: that we need to focus more on what happens in the present and what happened in the past to get us to this point. Why care about the end when we all know what happens, right?
I’m glad that you agree that the short story was interesting and engaging! I also thought that the ending of many of the scenarios with “then everything continues as in A” was a meaningful and purposeful choice. Your interpretation of the youth settling down could certainly be the intended or at least part of the intended meaning. To me, when I first read through the story, I interpreted this as referencing the final ending of death as well as the fact that as each story expands more on the background of characters,the boring ending found in A becomes more and more meaningful. I think of it like when you attend a wedding. The speeches of the best man and bridesmaid focus more on the meeting of the couple and the journey they got to get married. Many couples get married and live a happy life, but their special connection comes in their history and growth together. Thanks for commenting, I enjoyed the input!