OHIO - The Sense of an End

As I'm sure you were all expecting, it's time for the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows review. As I'm sure you were not expecting; it shall be short and contain no spoilers. This is because I have just one point to make. It's about endings.

Broadly speaking; there are three ways to end a series. Typically, I find that people have a particular favorite and, therefore, a good ending is one which fits in with their view on what endings should look like and anything else is, therefore, a disappointment.

You can tell a lot about a person, I think, by what sort of ending they prefer.

The first type of ending is the completely open kind. One which takes us out of a story right in the middle of the action; sometimes literally mid-scene. Good examples of this type of ending are Joss Whedon's Angel which left our heroes standing in front of an impossibly large army and said 'Let's go to work' and David Chase's The Sopranos which left our anti-heroes in front of an impossibly complicated meal and said nothing. This sort of ending really doesn't turn up in literary series very much and tends to court controversy whenever it rears its head in TV and the movies. Those who enjoy these endings typically point to the fact that series are about ongoing threads and that, just because we will no longer be viewing events, does not mean they are not occurring without us. Life goes on; there's no such thing as an 'ending.' Those who loathe these point out, of course, that they're not necessarily proper endings at all.

The second is the one I call 'winning the battle but still fighting the war.' Victory has been achieved on one level and the central struggle of a drama has ended. However, the larger over arching conflicts remain unresolved. The characters, though, will not be left the face the coming onslaughts with the same frailties and flaws they have suffered in the past. Something has fundamentally changed underneath and, somehow, we know that the tables have turned. Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a fine example of this type of ending (I choose to ignore his entirely unnecessary "Season 8" graphic novel nonsense) as are the closing moments of Chris Carter's The X-Files as Mulder and Scully realise they've pretty much *lost* their war, but are probably more invested in fighting it than they were at the start of the series. These endings are enjoyed by those whose imagination is sparked by the idea of ongoing adventures and stories happening of which they have no knowledge but which keep their favorite characters alive. This type of ending is loved by those who find endings traumatic, and who like to still have a sniff of a potential sequel to ease the pain of their favorite series passing; but others point out that this sort of ending is surely reserved for episodes in the middle of a series (the endings of Harry Potter 4, 5 and 6 all fit the bill, for example) and to put it at an end is rather anticlimactic.

And then there is the third type of ending. The 'happily ever after' ending, or maybe the 'ten years later' ending. The battle, the war and the story are all over. We are now given assurance by the author that we have witnessed the most significant parts of their characters' lives. Of course, those lives go on and we may find ourselves brought in at a later point to see where everyone has ended up and who married who and what they named all their children etc. etc. We are safe in the knowledge that we have not missed anything, and that our characters are no longer in danger. Obviously, this is often the chosen ending to fairy tales but other great series have utilized it to great effect. Tolkien saw fit to tie up each and every dangling thread of The Lord of the Rings; and when he couldn't quite squeeze it all into the main text he provided a whole raft of appendices just to make sure that the finality of the ending was not undermined. Similarly, C.S. Lewis saw fit to end the Chronicles of Narnia by ending Narnia itself. Interestingly, Lewis actually acknowledges that the characters' stories won't end simply because he is not writing them, but he leaves us in no doubt that the story is most definetly over. It's really rather good, so I'll quote it:
And for us this is the end of all the stories, and we can most truly say that they all lived happily ever after. But for them it was only the beginning of the real story. All their life in this world and all their adventures in Narnia had only been the cover and the title page: now at last they were beginning Chapter One of the Great Story which no one on earth has read: which goes on forever: in which every chapter is better than the one before.
This type of ending is, of course, loved and loathed in equal measure. The need to see a story through to its very end is seen as deeply romantic and effecting on the one hand, and as sentimental twaddle on the other. 'Happy enders' are typically portrayed in criticism either as people who know nothing of the tapestry of life; or people who appreciate it far more deeply and profoundly than those who clamor for troubling or abrupt endings.

I guess that I'm unusual, then, in that I enjoy all three types of ending. When, of course, each is used in their right context. I equally enjoyed the endings of Buffy, Angel and Narnia

I do, however, have a favorite type of ending. Everybody does.

Deathly Hallows probably isn't the best of the Harry Potter series but its problems are irrelevant. The only thing that matters about Deathly Hallows is how it brings to an end the Harry Potter series. Not just in its final pages; but throughout the story. It's a great one. A really great one.

And obviously; it's my favorite type of ending.