 |
| Photograph by Fred Thornhill/Reuters |
In the three stories published in 3x33, I like what Percival Everett points out in his introduction: that Atwood is exploring the "'nature' of story" and the "business of making story." There is traditional plot and character, and plenty of it, in these tales...John and Mary feel real, if Protean...George and the sisters are at turns threatening and pathetic...Ronette is faced with an all-too-familiar serious issue...but when we slow down and think, really think, we see the whole question of story coming at us like a Mack truck on a highway, and us stalled in the center lane. Atwood gets us on the highway--makes us involved--and then she pulls a move that is almost impossible, it's like one of those bullet-time film sequences that allows us to see the truck from multiple angles and still be in danger, and then the truck stops, and we're still in the middle of the road, and we're okay. Or, the truck has moved on past us, and we're okay. Sort of. We're looking backwards, and then forwards, and then backwards again, and we're wondering what we're supposed to do now.
Margaret Atwood’s short stories in 3x33, held my attention. I couldn't pull myself away from any of the stories, because each of the three had certain qualities that really stood out to me. I believe I found "Happy Endings" to be the most attention-grabbing. I think this because we talk about taking risks and telling stories in a different way, and this short story falls into a category all of its own. Every optional ending somehow meshed with all of the others, and to be honest, I wish this story had been longer because it kept me fascinated. I especially liked how many of the optional endings after ending A referred back to ending A.
ReplyDelete"Wilderness Tips" made me think of the typical and slightly dysfunctional family but with a twist. There were clear issues between family members, but the dysfunctional marriage of George and Portia also adds even more to that not-so-typical family lifestyle. The only thing that confused me slightly about this story was the whole idea of where George came from and how he ever met Prue. I wanted to know more about his past, yet we are left with a mystery.
Finally, "True Trash" was interesting and slightly sad. I felt for Ronette, who I think really just wanted to be loved by someone. At the same time, it came across to me that she was someone who had everything going for her, so she didn't need to date Darce who apparently wasn't really respectful to her. I had to read through this story all the way to the end, and even though I had guessed that Donny was the father of her soon-to-be child, it still shocked me to find it out at the end of this story.
Percival Everett states that Atwood's stories are scary because they tell us about ourselves and how we perceive the world we live in. I think he is also talking about the fact that in each of these three stories we are presented with characters that have flaws, and setbacks, yet its how they choice to conquer them or walk away that makes the storyline so different. I enjoyed reading these stories because each one had characters and relationships that seemed so real. In Happy Endings we are faced with the dilemma that no matter how you put Mary and John or James and Madge, the outcome keeps repeating itself. "John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." Atwood ends Happy Endings with the idea that there are none and the beginnings are what really matter.
ReplyDeleteIn Wilderness Tips, we are presented with the bond of three sister and brother paired with George one of the sister’s husbands. The idea that George is married to Portia, sleeping with Prue and finding himself thinking about Pamela, is bound to cause a major dilemma in the family dynamic. Yet Atwood approaches this topic differently from what I was waiting for. Instead everyone keeps their mouth shut, as if pretending everything is fine it naturally will be. I really liked how Atwood went back and fourth between each characters point of view. Not only did it make me feel closer to the character but it also helped me in understand which way the plot was going to lead me. However even though she gave clues I felt like I was lead down a dead end in this story. I'm not sure what to think about the ending, and I think that’s what Atwood intended.
In True Trash we get again the different characters point of view, however Atwood still keeps the tiniest amount of detail for later causing me to read in great anticipation for the awaited outcome. Atwood also uses time to define how different life can seem eleven years from then, and how something so deep in ones mind like a summer at camp, can easily disappear over the years. Although True Trash leaves Donny and Ronette with the dramatic plot twist, I found myself more involved in Joanne’s head and how she felt about the whole series of events.
I really enjoyed Margaret Atwood’s writing. Every story kept me enthralled and interested all the way to the end. One thing that stuck out to me was the multiple angles she explored in all three of the stories. This is most apparent in Happy Endings, where we are presented with a few different scenarios that all lead up to the same ending. The idea that all of those completely different plots can lead up to the same exact ending really illustrates Atwood’s point that it’s the beginning and the journey to the end that really matter.
ReplyDeleteIn Wilderness Tips, though we are first presented with George and his own views and thoughts, Atwood also lets us see into the minds of Roland and then Portia later on. Instead of giving us one angle into this not-so-typical family, Atwood gives us multiple points of view and multiple thoughts on the family dynamic. I agree with Sidney that I was also curious about George’s past. The reader learns that he was a foreigner and is now very wealthy after some possibly shady business deals. I also wanted to know more about his past, but we’re left wondering.
In True Trash, we get more shifting points of view. The relationships between the campers and the counselors and the waitresses was interesting and, though the drama is all about Donny and Ronette at the end, I agree with Jen that getting into Joanne’s head felt more important and more interesting to me. Ronette was a character I would have also liked to have learned more about, just like George in Wilderness Tips.
I'm familiar with Atwood's writing style, having read Handmaid's Tale, but these pieces blew me away regardless. She has a beautiful way of creating realistic characters, and intertwining their lives that, as Percival Everett notes, implies a greater story. My personal favorite of the three (although it's hard to choose!) must be Happy Endings, for its simplicity and unique format. Very concisely does she manage to lay out realistic--albeit representative or stereotypical--characters and realistic chains of events. My favorite, however, in terms of intertwining characters, is definitely Wilderness Tips. A family, troubled by natural sibling rivalry, injected with the presence of a man (whom I can only describe as devilishly charming with an emphasis on "devilish"); this is the basic structure of the story, and it could be said about a real family as well. There were many many times reading this where I didn't believe it was fiction, just because of the vividness and detail of it all. One thing I noticed in all of the pieces (maybe less so in Happy Endings only because of its length) is that, looking back, there were many instances of foreshadowing; not in a metaphorical way like I've seen in a lot of literature, but in a natural way, such as when George considers sleeping with Pamela, only because she is the only of the three sisters that he hasn't slept with before. This, in "real life" (I put this in quotes because I hate this term--I feel like everything is real life, isn't it?) isn't so much foreshadowing as it is George's forceful personality and sexual perseverance. All in all, I was, as I always am with Atwood's writing, very impressed and enthralled.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading her stories, I was absolutely pulled into the worlds created by Margaret Atwood. They scared and fascinated me at the same time. For as Percival Everett said in his introduction, Atwood's stories not only tell us about ourselves, but also how we make sense of the world. We have characters that have flaws and are downright despicable in certain situations, and yet we feel the need to read their story, to find out what happens to them and see how they navigate the harsh world they live in. We also see the multiple angles in which we can observe and live in a situation, which happens to us in real life as well.
ReplyDeleteIn “Happy Endings”, my personal favorite of the stories, we observe the different ways that Mary and John attempt to get the other to fall in love with each other. Later we see the different lives of Fred and Madge. Unfortunately, the one recurring theme we see with John and Mary's relationship is that they die. They die sad and alone, sometimes by suicide, and sometimes by murder. We are then led to believe that Fred and Madge will have their happy ending, but even their story eventually ends in death. I found it fascinating that in these persons different stories, it wasn’t that they had a happy ending, but a happy beginning.
In “Wilderness Tips,” we see from different points of view of the very dysfunctional, not-so-typical family. We have the bond of the three sisters, and how George somehow manages to be involved with all three of them. He is married to Portia, sleeping with Prue and finding himself thinking about Pamela. He is very charismatic. I also wanted to know more about his past, such as how he met the sisters and how he became rich in the first place.
In “True Trash,” we see the complicated relationship between the counselors, waitresses and campers at a summer camp. The way the story shifted its points of view made it fascinating to see more details of the same situations that the people were going through. Joanne was my favorite point of view, as her need to succeed and see the end of a story made a very interesting voice. I wish we could have seen or known more about Ronnette, because she was so mysterious. We only saw her through how the other characters saw her, from being a sex goddess to Donny to a piece of meat to Darce.
First of all, before these short stories, I didn’t have any experience with Margaret Atwood. I’d certainly heard her name and was aware of excellent reputation. But, I had never read any of her work. This, in my view is a very positive thing. In a way, I was able to look at these stories from a new perspective. If it had been an author I was familiar with, then I would’ve probably had certain notions ingrained in my mind. First of all, one thing I noticed within these three stories was Atwood’s use of the present tense. It is perhaps not all that common, but it was quite effective. It really helped put me in the moment, so to speak. Moreover, it really contributed to Atwood’s “factual” writing style. Essentially, she did not take much time describing things. Sure, she did have some wonderful descriptions, but I really enjoyed the way she assumed so much of the reader. For instance, in “Happy Endings,” we just knew who the characters were. We did not need very much description of who they were. It was an interesting piece, because it was so downright unusual. I thoroughly enjoyed it, but it was probably my least favorite of the three stories. Really, it’s the difference between an “A” and an “A-“. But, I digress. “Wilderness Tips” was chillingly lovely. And, as in the other pieces, much was assumed of the reader. Well, maybe that’s not even the right word for it. I suppose Atwood was just in control. There was no beating about the bush. This is what this place was and that was that. For instance, the “city” was just a city. George’s name wasn’t actually George, but perhaps most chillingly of all, this wasn’t the biggest problem of all. It was just a fact of life. “True Trash” was, in a way, the most traditional short story of the three. Hell, it even had dialogue! But, it held a certain power, as well. We were easily brought into this world. Is this island a real place? I doubt it, but it certainly could be. It is creepy, yet at the same time predictable. I wasn’t too surprised that Ronette got pregnant from a pregnant. But, it was still startling to read. Wonderful. Which would I pick as a favorite? Just for shits and giggles, I might say “Wilderness Tips,” simply because of its tingling simplicity, yet also, at the same time, its frightening complexity. It’s just felt so thorough.
ReplyDeleteI had only ever read “Happy Endings” before and now I realize it was just the tip of the literary iceberg that is her skill. I think Andy had it right; all of the stories are simply captivating. I haven’t been so pulled into a story in a long time, and a short story at that. For me, it was all in the simplicity. The details, the ever so slight narrative hints, the small after-thoughts following a character’s dialogue or otherwise perspective. With “Happy Endings” it’s all in the irony. She says in the beginning herself, “If you want a happy ending, try A”. Well they all say they end in A eventually, but it’s difficult to even think that they all have been so happy to begin with. And after some of these variations can you even visualize a happy ending? And it’s just with these simple facts that they seem to be believable, that these stories, yes, these stories happen. This is what happens and they will continue to happen. In “Wilderness Tips” it just seemed to be an ongoing thing with the cruel subtlety about mysterious and apparently dangerous George, whose real name isn’t actually George. With every description, either from himself or from one of the other characters, there was a mention about George that helped formulate another path of his character that we had to try and follow. There was the George that we saw, that we gained knowledge of through his actions and speech, but there was also the George of the past that is never explained to us, yet every character seems to know. And then in “True Trash”, the subtlety transforms and brings out the darkness in the characters, almost every single one. Atwood begins to show the dark side of each character even from the beginning and we see the characters as their evil versions throughout the rest of the story. At least for me it almost seemed I knew a bad secret about each of the characters and it made me doubt their purity. But looking back I don’t think there was any purity to begin with.
ReplyDeleteThe primary aspect of Atwood’s writing that intrigued me was her ability to change perspectives in each story in ways that worked with the individual pieces. The ways she altered perspectives were not quite the same with each story, yet every time she pulls a switch on the reader, it works to the benefit of the narrative. For example, “Wilderness Tips” takes us through the eyes of the different characters, and from different perceptions of the same sequence of events, we see the story of Wacousta Lounge as George’s success, Prue’s game, Portia’s surrender, and Roland’s failure. However different the feelings of each pair of eyes the reader is given, the stories behind each character’s mood builds on the actions and attitudes of the others, blending their perceptions into a cohesive whole for the reader to see each side of the family’s relationship and piece together the bigger picture. Likewise, “True Trash” deals with character perceptions, but while the provided points of view of Donny and Joanne see the story from different angles, their feelings are not so different from one another, as both can feel the loneliness and sorrow of the fickle romances around the camp, Ronette’s relationship with Darce in particular, providing a shared human experience through different incidents and points of view.
ReplyDelete“Happy Endings” takes the concept of altering perspectives in a more meta direction. Atwood takes the most typical love story (“girl meets boy,” as Everett describes it), and shows through progressively more complicated versions of the same tale to show just how expansive and narrow a simple concept can become when taken in from a different perspective. “John and Mary meet” and “John and Mary die” are the consistent beginnings and endings to each version, making the story unchangeable and narrow when looking at it in terms of “what happened,” but what happens in the middle can always be different, giving the story endless possibilities when looking at it in terms of “how it happened.” The genre and mood of the tale change depending on the chosen middle, displaying a more external approach to playing with perspectives by cycling through ideas instead of characters. Through all of this, Atwood shows she isn’t afraid of avoiding conventional and straightforward tales, and that she doesn’t need to be.
And, I think, neither should we.
“Happy Endings” has always been one of my favorite works of short fiction, and I have read it many times in the past but never chose to read any of Atwood’s other works. I liked how “Happy Endings” almost poked fun at this typical setup to a romance story. For me, I interpret it saying that there will never be an original ending to a story like this; the ending is always predictable. The only way to set each one apart is what comes in between, and focus less on the plot since it will come to the same ending anyway. Each of the scenarios Atwood gives us all make the same writing prompt seem like completely different stories, but in the end they are all exactly the same. What I like in each one is the vast amount of character detail and how Atwood shapes each character as a distinct figure. That is what makes this piece, and the other two pieces, interesting.
ReplyDelete“Wilderness Tips” and “True Trash” sort of follow this idea Atwood presents us with in “Happy Endings.” Personally, I was not very fond of these two pieces in terms of the story itself, but I really enjoyed Atwood’s amazing attention to detail and ability to create such different and developed characters. I found the stories rather miserable, perhaps because I don’t like to admit how true such stories can be. They certainly weren’t the typical sorts of “romance tales,” yet they still weren’t tales I enjoyed. The characters, however, kept my interest throughout.
In “Wilderness Tips,” each and every character, even those who hold little relevance to the main plot, like Roland, are each given their moment in the spotlight, and are given such distinct tendencies and descriptions to set them apart. Portia, for instance, is always described with delicate, careful words, giving us a sense of her innocence compared to her other sisters. We are even presented with some backstory for these characters to further solidify their relationship with each other. We see some flashes of the past relationships between George and Prue, or how Roland almost killed his sister because of his fixation with the Indians in the Wilderness Guide. The same goes for “True Trash” though I did enjoy some of the irony in the story: comparing the magazine article to the waitresses’ realities. Again, we are given an account of the events of the story from the perspective of different characters, and we can really get to know each individual character. We see Donny’s struggle as a teenaged boy who can’t understand what he’s going through, and we see Joanne’s conflict as she wishes her life was more like the magazine, more interesting.
I see these characters as Atwood’s greatest strength in the art of writing. She knows how to make the characters to drive any story. In the end, after all, what is the point of a story if you can’t enjoy the characters?
Margaret Atwood’s 3 stories in 3x33 are all terrific examples of the short story. The first of those, “Happy Endings” is a very experimental in its form, bringing us a conventional story in a very twisted and unconventional way. I really like how all of the “Endings” are not really endings at all, they’re all beginnings and middles and continuations of each other. Ending A is not an ending at all, it’s just a new beginning for each of the other “Endings”. The only real ending is the one that Atwood gives us, “John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die.” “Wilderness Tips” is the hardest one for me, I’m not sure I really got it by the end, but I found the relationships between each of the characters in their dysfunctional family to be very interesting. Why do all of them keep coming back to this place? I liked how Atwood managed to tell their story using the past and present of the lodge and blend them seamlessly together, along with the various shifts in point of view to give us a real glimpse into what this place really is. The last story, “True Trash” is another story that easily shifts its point of view back and forth between two characters, Joanne and Donny. The path of the story seems predictable, the trashy magazine that Joanne reads to the girls foreshadowing what ends up happening to Ronette. When I found out that the father wasn’t Darce though, I immediately thought it must have been Donny, but I still didn’t fully believe it until he confessed it to Joanne years later.
ReplyDeleteMargret Atwood creates worlds in which there are many points of view. In order for her stories to be understood, she digs deep into the beings of each character and lets them each have a chance to speak. In “Happy Endings,” this is done by the character shifts in the first lines. One story will be talking about both John and Mary, then the next passage might start with a sentence just on John. Each of the sections show a different story being told. The characters in “Wilderness Tips” have a story that spans through many years, and in order to understand the family dynamic, Atwood lets each character speak. The move from each character’s point of view is smooth and can sometimes go unnoticed by the reader in this story. The story, “True Trash,” has an ongoing dialog between the young campers who go to the camp and the teenage waitress who faun over the counselors at the camp. The two groups really just watch each other and don’t talk to each other. To close the gap of the two groups, Atwood writes scenes in which they think about each other and slowly, the reader can see how the end of the story forms. Creating stories with many characters who each have their own side to the story takes a lot of skill. It is easy to write a story in which a reader might get lost switching between each of the characters’ points of view. Atwood, on the other hand, makes the different views easy for the reader to follow. Each of these stories would be hard to create a whole picture without so many points of view.
ReplyDeleteIn the stories that Marget Atwood created my favorite would have to be the first story, "Happy Ending." It showed the way a story is constructed and how its different parts could be changed to fit a whole. I loved the way she described how the "beginning is the funnest," and the middle is the hardest. I also thought it was so interesting that the stories had the common theme of dieing. That all the stories ended with section A or some variant. The characters shifted from what happened in one section to another section were a different senerio took place.
ReplyDelete"Wilderness Tips," was also very fasinating I enjoyed the characters and how they seemed to mirror one another. Prue, Portia, Pamela and then Roland and George. The way she shows so much about them from their own view point is what was impressive. The whole family dynamic was interesting because it rotates around George and what he does. He determends when whos happy. except for Pamela.
The last story that we had to read was held me through it the entire time. "True Trash," had so many view points and diologue that made it just easy to read and follow. I senced a little bit of irony, but also saw how the characters developed durign the story seemingly getting darker and more sinister as the story went on.
The setting was also interesting that it was in a camp and how the waitress mingles with the counselors. Margret Atwood has a unique style of writing that I found great. She allows the charcters to create there view point based on who the character is.
Margaret Atwood is doing something very interesting in her short stories in 3x33. As she tells the stories, the veil is constantly being lifted up, as if Atwood is trying to tell her readers, this isn't just the narrative, this isn't just the story of these characters. Each story is a possible version of the narrative. This is obvious in Happy Endings in a way that makes talking about this aspect of that piece unnecessary. Instead, I find the ways in which Atwood is revealing the artifice of story in Wilderness Tips to be much more interesting. Even the title of the story is soaked in a raised level of multiplicity, as George considers the meaning of the word "tips" as he reads the book on the shelf. He settles on the intended meaning of tips as advice, but not before raising the idea of tips as a verb, which I think Atwood does intentionally, to bring to bear on the story another reading where the wilderness of Wacousta Lodge, of George, is tipping the lives of Prue, Portia, Pamela, and Roland. This idea of multiplicity is raised throughout, from the very beginning of the piece where George, who is not really named George, is introduced. The stories Portia tells herself work alongside the forward narrative of the piece to create a story about stories, which is what Atwood seems to be up to.
ReplyDeleteA final thought, Atwood's endings all raise the idea of endings and of stories. How is she making this work for her? It's an interesting movement.
I think the most interesting part about these particular selections was the references to writing. I started with "Negotiating with the Dead," and expected the stories in 3x33 to be much different. They were, sort of, but one of the common threads was thinking about life as just another story. "Happy Ending" breaks down the different possible outcomes of a relationship, and in doing so makes us reconsider what we want our own happy ending to really be like. Here, life is just a story that the writer hasn't finished yet. You choose your own ending, and you better hope you know which one you want. "Wilderness Tips" continues another theme of these stories, which was one of miserable relationships. Lastly, "True Trash," which is an awesome title, hit on both of these themes. There were terrible relationships of several different kinds, all revolving around Ronette. The switching of viewpoints which so many other people have noted was well executed. We, as writers, are often told not to try that unless we really have a handle on what we're doing. Margaret Atwood clearly has.
ReplyDeleteI love when I start a new story and I’m totally taken off guard—with Margaret Atwood, I felt this way when I began reading her first story, “Happy Endings.” Its structure is split up, squeezing out different possibilities of the same simple story—John meets Mary, or Mary meets John, and then a series of events happen. But because Atwood shows us the different events that could occur, she gives her readers a chance to play it all out in their minds and subconsciously pick the tale they like the best. It’s like we as readers are the ones in control, even if we’re not the ones writing the story.
ReplyDeleteI also admire how Atwood confronts what makes a “story” by switching point of view multiple times, particularly in “Wilderness Tips” and “True Trash.” Everett notes this in his introduction. For example, on page 36 we are in George’s head, and then Atwood switches over to Roland, a character who both we as readers and the other characters hardly hear anything from. Then on page 39, we switch to Portia, and so on. “True Trash” makes the point of view seem a little more confusing since there are so many characters, but I didn’t find myself always trying to figure out which mind I was in at the time. We go from Donny to Joanne and looking back, especially on page 48 and at the end of the story, it seems like we read from Joanne’s perspective a lot, but Atwood’s style of focusing on so many characters makes it more of an “adventure” for the reader to keep up.
It feels like the chaos increases in intensity with each story, with the last one being the most chaotic. Atwood gives us so much to comprehend, like why George seems to be full of himself and never satisfied, what is going on with each of the three sisters and Roland, what will happen with the waitresses and boys at the camp, and the list goes on. But Atwood reworks the meaning of “story” by bringing us into her work from all angles. She presents us with all the tools we need, and we get to choose how to put it all together.