The construction of ending also comes into being in Flaw with the discussion of the fate of the refugees. While Tulli did not find it important to flesh put the events of the refugees’ escape to America, she did deem it necessary to call to attention how her previously ignored characters ended up. Tulli ends her novel with the discussion on what an ending really should be: "Happy endings are never happier than possible. It might seem like that, like a springtime thaw, they bring the promise of a new beginning, but the truth is otherwise. They merely law bare the rotting matter of dashed hopes. Fortunate turns of events bring no relief, consumed as they are by the mold of unintentionally ironic meanings, and shot through with the musty despair of past seasons. And it is from them, these endings which end nothing, that new stories grow. (pgs. 174-175)." With this passage, the concept of time immemorial can be brought back into focus. A happy ending is finite. A happy ending is something that can be defined and summed up easily. An author can put claim on a happy ending because it ends neatly. Tulli on the other hand does not wish to allow her characters to join the slew of finished stories. They will go on. They will live. They will suffer. They will die. Tulli sets aside her writing instrument and casts away her desire to exert control over the characters as most writers do. Tulli allows the reader to discern what they believe should happen to the refugees. She sets up more situations with problems abound, such as the case with one of the refugee families, “the father is slaving to death on the production line of a huge auto plant. He wants to secure a better life for his ungrateful children than he himself has had. But the children are already hurtling recklessly towards their future calamities.” (pg. 174). Tulli could have easily said that the father was working hard to provide for his children so that he could afford to send his children to good colleges, but this would not have sufficed with Tulli’s theory. Such an ending would have give the family closure over their lives. With injecting the lines “hurtling recklessly towards their future calamities,” Tulli lets the reader carve out avenues for the children to hurtle down.
The reader might be seen as a character of the novel herself by participating in the crafting process. The reader becomes the tailor from the beginning of the novel, which can be by alluded to by “Various small defects in the cut will reveal incidentally that the materials have been apportioned unfairly and in short supply. It might be observed that matters of the highest importance are decided by prejudice and whim.” (pg. 10). The reader will use her prejudices to draw out a storyline for her newly appropriated characters. Her judgment will be heavily influenced by the state of the world around her, but will be influenced nonetheless. She is unable to shake of her society. Whether she lets the refugees live without another act of open prejudice and/or displacement is remained to seen.
It is surprising that there are not more novels circulating like Magdalena Tulli’s Flaw. Tulli effectively employs her audience in helping her mark out the ways that her characters will experience life. Tulli uses examples that are timeless, or can fall under the heading of time immemorial, a term which she used herself within Flaw. Tulli’s characters could have been bland, perfect people than rescued the refugees because that is what we as a society are brought up to strive to do. Protect the weak. Do good. Reward those that hold happiness in high esteem with happiness. This is not what Tulli set out to do. Tulli set out to make her audience feel uncomfortable, to feel responsible, even somewhat maniacal by planting her narrative into the minds of everyone but the victims. Flaw is not about the good in humanity. Flaw is a story about the constant horrors humans subject one another to in the vast spans of memory. Flaw is a collective tale on how universally responsible we all are for what we think we cannot control, but indeed have the power to shape and cut away both good and evil.
Comments
The construction of ending also comes into being in Flaw with the discussion of the fate of the refugees. While Tulli did not find it important to flesh put the events of the refugees’ escape to America, she did deem it necessary to call to attention how her previously ignored characters ended up. Tulli ends her novel with the discussion on what an ending really should be: "Happy endings are never happier than possible. It might seem like that, like a springtime thaw, they bring the promise of a new beginning, but the truth is otherwise. They merely law bare the rotting matter of dashed hopes. Fortunate turns of events bring no relief, consumed as they are by the mold of unintentionally ironic meanings, and shot through with the musty despair of past seasons. And it is from them, these endings which end nothing, that new stories grow. (pgs. 174-175)." With this passage, the concept of time immemorial can be brought back into focus. A happy ending is finite. A happy ending is something that can be defined and summed up easily. An author can put claim on a happy ending because it ends neatly. Tulli on the other hand does not wish to allow her characters to join the slew of finished stories. They will go on. They will live. They will suffer. They will die. Tulli sets aside her writing instrument and casts away her desire to exert control over the characters as most writers do. Tulli allows the reader to discern what they believe should happen to the refugees. She sets up more situations with problems abound, such as the case with one of the refugee families, “the father is slaving to death on the production line of a huge auto plant. He wants to secure a better life for his ungrateful children than he himself has had. But the children are already hurtling recklessly towards their future calamities.” (pg. 174). Tulli could have easily said that the father was working hard to provide for his children so that he could afford to send his children to good colleges, but this would not have sufficed with Tulli’s theory. Such an ending would have give the family closure over their lives. With injecting the lines “hurtling recklessly towards their future calamities,” Tulli lets the reader carve out avenues for the children to hurtle down.
The reader might be seen as a character of the novel herself by participating in the crafting process. The reader becomes the tailor from the beginning of the novel, which can be by alluded to by “Various small defects in the cut will reveal incidentally that the materials have been apportioned unfairly and in short supply. It might be observed that matters of the highest importance are decided by prejudice and whim.” (pg. 10). The reader will use her prejudices to draw out a storyline for her newly appropriated characters. Her judgment will be heavily influenced by the state of the world around her, but will be influenced nonetheless. She is unable to shake of her society. Whether she lets the refugees live without another act of open prejudice and/or displacement is remained to seen.
It is surprising that there are not more novels circulating like Magdalena Tulli’s Flaw. Tulli effectively employs her audience in helping her mark out the ways that her characters will experience life. Tulli uses examples that are timeless, or can fall under the heading of time immemorial, a term which she used herself within Flaw. Tulli’s characters could have been bland, perfect people than rescued the refugees because that is what we as a society are brought up to strive to do. Protect the weak. Do good. Reward those that hold happiness in high esteem with happiness. This is not what Tulli set out to do. Tulli set out to make her audience feel uncomfortable, to feel responsible, even somewhat maniacal by planting her narrative into the minds of everyone but the victims. Flaw is not about the good in humanity. Flaw is a story about the constant horrors humans subject one another to in the vast spans of memory. Flaw is a collective tale on how universally responsible we all are for what we think we cannot control, but indeed have the power to shape and cut away both good and evil.