closure
In seminar this week, it came up that the books we are reading don’t generally have a sense of closure in their narrative. It was pointed out that the implementation of closure in narrative is largely Western. It was something I never really considered before, just how much emphasis is placed on the happy ending or a sense of closure in the media we consume in this country. We have been so conditioned to expect it, which is really sort of disturbing when you think about it. It reminds me of this music theory class I took in high school where our teacher was playing the major scales and would leave out the tonic note (the first and last note in a scale) to make us feel uncomfortable without that closure. People were squirming at this, and begging that the teacher finish it. When he finally did, there was a collective sigh of relief. It’s really a fascinating/terrifying thing.
I’ve noticed that generally some people have been put off by this lack of closure in the books we’ve read, and that it has seemed to impact their overall opinion of the book. I think it’s important not to let that overlook what the author was trying to say throughout the book, though. There’s a reason for that lack of closure, it’s not just there to provoke. The subjects we’re touching on are messy, to say the least. History is messy. I think we need to sit with that messiness and lack of closure, not only to challenge this weird thing we’ve been conditioned to expect, but also to be able to fully take in the meat of the author’s writing. Or else, what are we really doing here?
I hope this wasn’t too soapbox-y.