As I contemplate the ending of "Breaking Dawn," the fourth and final installment of the beloved "Twilight" series, I am left wondering on the definition of good literature. Is a good book one with a happy ending, picture-perfect, leaving the reader with a mushy warm feeling all over? Or is it, rather, ended poignantly? Should literature reflect the good, bad and ugly reality that is life, or it literature something that people should be able to escape to when the real world is just a bit too much? If the first is true, then the ending of the book was perfection. Bella, the weak, self-conscious anti-hero turn beautiful, graceful and, above all, the ultimate hero. A perfect romance was also carried out, one that every reader has been dreaming of even since they cracked the book and read the opening chapters of "Twilight." And yet I am left wondering if that is truly what makes good literature. I believe that the same quandary easily carries over to other forms of media as well. For example, should Meredith Grey end up with Mr. McDreamy in the end as is every "Grey's-Anatomy"-loving viewer's dream, or should the series end as reality dictates, with Mr. McDreamy dying on his was to end a misguided relationship in order to have good karma as he embarks on a renewed relationship with Grey? This ending would provide for additional character growth and development. If there was no grief in the story line (something, however, that "Grey's" has seen plenty of), then there would be no growth. This fact is obvious. But is that the point? Is media meant to be an escape from or an analysis of reality? I guess this question is the reason behind the plethora of genres in existence and the unending variety of endings given to every story line.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment