If you hate the ending of a novel after really enjoying the majority of the story is it still a successful reading experience? It's a tricky question and one I've been left pondering after finishing “Small Pleasures”. Set in the late 1950s it follows Jean, a journalist at a local paper in the suburbs of London. Though she's around 40 years old she still lives with her mother whose cantankerous and overbearing manner leaves little room for Jean to have a personal life. Jean is assigned to write a feature about Gretchen, a Swiss woman who claims her daughter is the result of a virgin birth. During the process of researching this curious case Jean gradually develops a personal relationship with Gretchen, her husband Howard and their daughter Margaret. The author skilfully evokes the atmosphere of mid-20th century England alongside a compelling mystery which plays out in such an interesting way. It's a delight how Jean's fluffier news pieces about domestic matters are interspersed throughout the novel. Most of all, I grew to feel strongly emotionally involved with Jean whose quiet but painful loneliness is assuaged by her growing affection for this family. It's also very intriguing how this personal story intertwines with the facts Jean uncovers surrounding Margaret's birth. But the novel ends with a dramatic event which feels entirely disconnected from this gentle and beautifully immerse tale and it's left me feeling betrayed.
I'm not someone who needs a happy ending in novels. Even if I come to feel so attached to characters that I hope to see separated lovers reunited, good individuals rewarded and villains get their just deserts, I can accept it when things don't work out for the best because that often happens in life. But I think the conclusions of novels ought to be consistent with the tone of the story and stay true to the integrity of the characters I've come to care about after following them for hundreds of pages. It's true that disasters occur and the chance of being caught in such a horrific circumstance is a reality we wake up to every day. At any moment the narrative of our lives can be horrifically thrown off-kilter by such an occurrence. However, in a novel such unexpected events should be integrated into the story in a way that allows the reader to emotionally process a calamitous occurrence alongside the characters. That's why novels plotted around dramatic events often follow the aftermath so we can see how people survive or falter when confronted with tragic loss.
The way “Small Pleasures” ends simply left me feeling cold and manipulated because it's like the trust I'd formed over the course of the narrative had been broken. The afterward of this book made matters worse because the author describes how she wanted to self consciously incorporate two historical incidents into one novel. But the way she did this felt tacked on rather than artfully blended into the story. I'd rather not have spent so much time focusing on these final pages because I truly feel the majority of this book is moving and well done. It's poignant how there are storylines about suppressed same sex desire, the way family members can become overly burdened with becoming their relatives' carers and issues to do with untreated mental health problems. But I feel like the conclusion of this novel taints the overall experience of the story which is very unfortunate.
