Scan barcode
A review by bhnmt61
The Sense of an Ending by Julian Barnes
3.0
The Sense of and Ending is beautiful and thought-provoking, and there were moments while reading it that the words themselves took on-- well, it will sound goofy to say it, but a sort of transcendence. Up until the end, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, and I suspect that I will be thinking about it for a long time.
I’m pretty sure I understood the plot twist at the end, but I don't get why it's so hugely relevant to Tony. Let's say, theoretically, that you have your heart broken by a girlfriend when you're in your early twenties. She then starts to date one of your friends, and you lash out in pain and write a really awful letter, and one phrase of that letter leads to a series of unexpected events. If those events were happy and upbeat, they might at some point slap you on the back and say, wow, if it weren't for your letter, none of this would have happened! But no one would consider you responsible for their subsequent happiness, except in a mention-it-at-the-rehearsal-dinner kind of way.
So if the outcome is unhappy, how is it any different? Choices were made, adult people with functioning minds did things that no one forced them to do, and we're supposed to blame all of it on a phrase from Tony's letter? A letter he wrote as a twenty-year-old when he felt hurt and humiliated. Why is this his fault? I'm not questioning his remorse over writing that letter, because it really was awful, I'm just not getting why he is then responsible for what Adrian, Veronica, and Veronica's family choose to do.
I tried to write this so there wouldn't be any major spoilers, but I'll check the box for hiding it because it may be more information than you want to know if you haven't read it. I enjoyed the first third of this book more than anything I've read in quite awhile-- I remember thinking, who knew that this short little book would be exactly the book I needed to read right now?
But by the end, I just felt mystified. Frankly, it felt a little manipulative on the part of the author, because using Tony's letter as the pretext for Adrian's involvement with Veronica's family is so thin, the whole thing felt reverse manufactured. As if Barnes came up with the end point of the plot first, and then had to think up a way to get there. And the way he came up with doesn't really make sense. Why is Veronica so reluctant to say what happened? It must have been fairly public knowledge. Why doesn't she just tell him? Because if she did, the novel couldn't have unfolded the way it did. Like I said, it felt manipulative.
And since I seem to be one of just a few who feel that way (after having read half a dozen five-star reviews), I'm willing to admit that maybe I just didn't get the full implications of what happened. There was this big, gorgeously written build-up to the reveal of some horrible thing that Tony did, but then when you finally find out what it was, it turns out that it wasn't really his fault. I guess he's supposed to feel really bad about it anyway. And he does, so mission accomplished.
But I'm glad I read it anyway. Have been changing my "rating" back and forth between three and four stars while writing this, but I think I'm going with three here at the last minute, because it just felt a bit overdone. Tony's just your average, banal, boring guy. Which of us couldn't have some thing we said in a rage forty years ago come back to haunt us?
I’m pretty sure I understood the plot twist at the end, but I don't get why it's so hugely relevant to Tony. Let's say, theoretically, that you have your heart broken by a girlfriend when you're in your early twenties. She then starts to date one of your friends, and you lash out in pain and write a really awful letter, and one phrase of that letter leads to a series of unexpected events. If those events were happy and upbeat, they might at some point slap you on the back and say, wow, if it weren't for your letter, none of this would have happened! But no one would consider you responsible for their subsequent happiness, except in a mention-it-at-the-rehearsal-dinner kind of way.
So if the outcome is unhappy, how is it any different? Choices were made, adult people with functioning minds did things that no one forced them to do, and we're supposed to blame all of it on a phrase from Tony's letter? A letter he wrote as a twenty-year-old when he felt hurt and humiliated. Why is this his fault? I'm not questioning his remorse over writing that letter, because it really was awful, I'm just not getting why he is then responsible for what Adrian, Veronica, and Veronica's family choose to do.
I tried to write this so there wouldn't be any major spoilers, but I'll check the box for hiding it because it may be more information than you want to know if you haven't read it. I enjoyed the first third of this book more than anything I've read in quite awhile-- I remember thinking, who knew that this short little book would be exactly the book I needed to read right now?
But by the end, I just felt mystified. Frankly, it felt a little manipulative on the part of the author, because using Tony's letter as the pretext for Adrian's involvement with Veronica's family is so thin, the whole thing felt reverse manufactured. As if Barnes came up with the end point of the plot first, and then had to think up a way to get there. And the way he came up with doesn't really make sense. Why is Veronica so reluctant to say what happened? It must have been fairly public knowledge. Why doesn't she just tell him? Because if she did, the novel couldn't have unfolded the way it did. Like I said, it felt manipulative.
And since I seem to be one of just a few who feel that way (after having read half a dozen five-star reviews), I'm willing to admit that maybe I just didn't get the full implications of what happened. There was this big, gorgeously written build-up to the reveal of some horrible thing that Tony did, but then when you finally find out what it was, it turns out that it wasn't really his fault. I guess he's supposed to feel really bad about it anyway. And he does, so mission accomplished.
But I'm glad I read it anyway. Have been changing my "rating" back and forth between three and four stars while writing this, but I think I'm going with three here at the last minute, because it just felt a bit overdone. Tony's just your average, banal, boring guy. Which of us couldn't have some thing we said in a rage forty years ago come back to haunt us?