Engl.

4382-Birzeit University
seminar in literature
spring semester 2020-2021
Understanding Fiction in a World Where ‘…. the Rest is
Silence’
Malak Soliman
A CHOICE OF ENDINGS: LIFE OR DEATH?
MEDEA, HAMLET, AND STORY WITHOUT AN END
Introduction:

The topic of the seminar Understanding Fiction in a World Where ‘…. the Rest is Silence’
requires us to think seriously and analyse how to formulate the endings in literature and their
implications and what is presented as a conclusion to the works of the novel, play or story
and compare it with the results and clarify the consequences of investigating into the primary
and secondary texts by looking at the end.
As a work studied served understanding the topic of the seminar, we watched clips in order to
understand what is endings, and where they come from, and why the director chose such
ending, like Sister Wendy, Different Versions of Anne Karenina (Train Deaths), Hamlet, and
Paper Moon. In addition we looked into paintings like Dance at Le moulin de la Galette) is an
1876 painting by French artist Pierre-Auguste Renoir, The Swing (Les Hasards heureux de
l'escarpolette) Painting by Jean-Honoré Fragonard, and The Pietà is a work of Renaissance
sculpture by Michelangelo Buonarroti. Many ways used to understand different visions of
endings understand it is a happy ending because they are dancing, or tragic because they are
crying.
As a personal response to this topic, I chose a certain ending, which is a famous tragic
ending, which is death as I chose two different plays with different endings and different
writers and how the death of the protagonist as an ending considered a solution for one while
letting the protagonist alive as a problem at the end, which one more effective on the
audience? It’s a very interesting claim in these two primary texts, Hamlet and Medea since I
deal with endings bringing Chekhov as an example presenting his theories in writing endings.
Primary Texts:
Hamlet by Shakespeare
Medea by Euripides
Secondary Text:
A Story Without an End by Chekhov
 Abstract:

Writers differ from one to another, by which they choose how to end their plays whether it's
happy or sad endings, tragic, love, death, and life, it depends on the author’s vision of what is
suitable for the event in the play, somehow there are many plays end in a sarcastic way to the
audience, but good for the writer, the period that the play was written in it, also plays a very
important role, in which the writer choose the play to reflect a certain situation, such as,
political situation, or romantic, or death and war cases. Modern writers take the style of
Shakespeare, Chekhov, and many others in using suspense tactics and tragic or open ends that
open up a space for discussion by the audience similar to what is presented, except that the
language, choice of cases, and style are different. In addition, many theories deserve to go
through the investigation, as this paper will discuss endings, from Euripides in Medea
through Shakespeare in Hamlet to Chekhov and his theories about endings, that will be
examined in this paper called Returning Characters to Life: Chekhov’s Subversive Endings
by David Jauss, since this deals with the end of the protagonist, discussing how that he has no
certain style of endings whether its life, death, or even realistic and left them open for the
audience. This paper tends to examine how the death of the protagonist is a possible solution
for an author(Shakespeare), while it’s a confusing ending for the audience, in which
Euripides chose to end the play by making the protagonist survive, which one is more
effective? Why there are different choices after tragic events? In a way to clarify the main
topic, which is an analysis of how death is a possible solution for an author when creating the
ending and life is a possible confusion for the audience. So, this research will analyse the
nature of endings from Medea by Euripides and Hamlet by Shakespeare to Chekov.

Literature reviews:
As this literature reviews, explain the factors that will be taken in my topic: how Shakespeare
tends to make the death of a protagonist (Hamlet) as a solution, while Euripides chose to end
it with the survival of his main protagonist, which is more effective? An analysis of how
death is a possible solution for an author when creating the ending and life is a possible
confusion for the audience. These articles are general views of the primary texts, that chosen
to be investigated in my research paper, beginning from the protagonist in text one and how
his ending effect on the audience, through Hamlet being dead in Shakespeare tragedy since
he is the protagonist, and Medea by Euripides, to Chekhov.
Text 1:
Article: The Survival or Death of the Protagonists of Meaningful Movies& plays.
Running Head: MORTALITY AND DEATH VS. SURVIVAL OF A PROTAGONIST.
Chapter 8
Published at University of Zurich. Main Library. 2017. By Hofer, Matthias

Hofer and Matthias tend to show the importance of the protagonist element at this article, and
the extent of its impact on the audience within the story /plays and movies as well as the
directors prefer to make the hero of the movie likable in one way or another to the audience,
so it would be easy to the audience to understand what happens with this character for
example if he died, they would know if he deserves it or not and if not, that will affect in their
opinion at the end of the movies. The article brought up many studies that prove the extent to
which the audience is affected by the survival or death of the protagonist and what makes the
writer choose this end, and that the open and realistic end, opens a wide space for discussion
and setting endings from another point of view, such as, The director has his own vision as he
draws ends not like the one, that the real writer had written.
According to terror management theory(TMT), which Matthias uses in this article to support
his ideas, ‘‘people need to create meaning in their lives when they are reminded of their own
mortality, for instance, by engaging in close relationships with others.’’ illness or death of the
protagonist, won’t attract the pleasure of the audience, and not end the happiness if it happy,
if not, they prefer to solve it somehow, or to let the protagonist survive, as a result of an
experimental study, which used at this article; (N = 130); that audience and actors also,
appreciated more and liked the protagonist better when he survived than when he died.
Excitement and suspense have always been enjoyable experiences that the writer is keen for
the reader or audience to live. However, this hedonic view is inconsistent with the fact that
viewers also seem to be entertained by tragic movies that depict the heart-breaking fate or
even the death of beloved characters, Matthias takes ideas from (Oliver & Hartmann) to
support this point of view, that plays end up with excitement and suspense, not only elicit
pleasure or fun, but also negative or mixed emotions and so-called meaningful experiences
also. To clarify this key point, the present study set out to examine whether the survival or
death of the protagonist in a meaningful play won't be confusing to the audience to
understand it Reminders of one’s own mortality generate an urge to find meaning, which can
be provided by a meaningful play. The depiction of a protagonist who survives a challenging
life-threatening situation, a common topic in meaningful plays (e.g. a character confronted
with severe illness), may offer a buffer to the audience by symbolically overcoming the
inevitability of death. As the claim depictions of death such as, a protagonist who dies in a
challenging life-threatening situation.
After the claim that the audience prefers the protagonist not to die, there are many questions
he had in this article such as, why the protagonist is likable for the audience? Why the
audience is more affected by the close ending of the protagonist, which is dying or being
murder, and death evokes emotions, While if the protagonist still alive this will be linked to
being an open ending more than meaningful, it is more like dissection and investigation, or
even waiting for a second part/ season. The author's consideration in this article has not
overlooked the audience's impact on whether the ending is open or closed because this is
linked to the death and life of the protagonist, such as Chekhov the master of the realistic,
open endings, while in the Shakespearean plays, not all of them but most of them tend to end
up with the death of the protagonist. In this article, the writer provides that audience/readers
affected by death, and from his perspective death can be in two cases; to drive the plot
forward, second to save your story from being bored, so that you impress the reader. But in
general people like happiness, life, love, and the protagonist to live in a happy eve rafter.
They will accept the death of the protagonist at the end if it is meaningful.
Text 2:
ARTICLE: THE CHARACTER OF MEDEA’S EURIPDES:
By Arushi Bahuguna
Arushi comments on the character of Medea as the hero of a tragic protagonist in the context
of this statement, as Arushi presents in this article the character of Medea as a tragic hero to
the audience and that her escape at the end of the play marks the heroic end of a tragedy in
itself and indicated that it is one of the tragic championships that are critically disputed, as the
main claim, and how do Euripides and Medea control the audience’s expectations, draw the
end and achieve its goals. Does he pose several questions, such as Is Medea a foreign person?
How did Medea affect its reception as a tragic protagonist ever since Aristotle's Poetics?
Continuing that Medea was a different woman people in her society were respecting her and
afraid of her, including men. And because she never experienced being in love before her
husband. And when she experienced this type of love, she did what could not be done for
Jason. To protect her love for him she killed one of her family and helped him to achieve
what he wanted, she made him the legend of the Golden Fleece, and she left her home,
family, and everything she knew for him. Most women would not have done that far for love,
especially women during her time; but Medea was different from woman. All of the things
she did for Jason will come into play and partly account for her actions at the end of the play.
And this was a claim of some critics. The other critics see why she is so angry from another
perspective, which is her personality and pride are being broken by Jason. The outbursts of
anger that emanate from Medea are a counterbalance to Jason's actions with the sacrifices that
were made to him and the ruthless crimes that were subsequently passed by killing her
children as well. Medea's revenge stripped of her humanity and mind to the point of insanity,
and that revenge that she wanted to remain forever is the pain of her husband’s permanent
soul by killing her children, his wife, and his wife's father. That revenge cannot be
overlooked and leads to the point of insanity. Medea affirms her heroic personality, as she
does not care for the society to see her as loyal to her husband and dangerous to her enemy,
as long as she must think and act brilliantly to protect herself from the laughter and mockery
of others, and her desire to refer to her as a symbol of honor, pride and her suffering that
drives her to revenge. Another point that Arushi brings to a critic is that Medea is not jealous
of Jason's wife, because the anger that comes from a lack of justice and a lack of status for
women is much more dangerous than a feeling of jealousy, but many consider both feelings
interconnected.
Medea's anger is not from a helpless woman who emotionally responds to betrayal, but from
a hero deprived of honor and stature. Even in her anger, she invokes the Gods who swore
Jason and never mentioned "Broken Heart" even once.
Euripides sums up Medea's extraordinary figure through the chorus's views on her
misfortune. Women are surprised by the duration and intensity of Medea's suffering because
it is common for a husband to despise his wife. Media's high sense of honor also makes her
appear a princess to the crowd, and they understand that her anger is caused by a rupture of
her pride. The perception of Medea's character is gendered, and therefore they do not see her
as a hero who can only respond to this injustice by punishing the people who caused her pain
and harm.
Text 3:
ARTICLE: BEING DEAD IN SHEKESPEAREAN TRAGEDY:
By Mary Ann Lund. Chapter 2 / Hamlet
This article tends to explain the death of the hero in several texts from different perspectives
by two different writers, especially the evocation of Shakespeare's tragic writings, as Mary
Ann Lund presented Jim's novel from the biological perspective of the dead, also drawing
poems. As we shall see, the tragic drama of William Shakespeare (1564--16) has a similar
fascination with the experience of death, Hamlet is an example in this article to support the
claim, in which the tragic invested in the death of the protagonist, and ask such a question
‘‘what is death?’’, the answer explained in the last scene of Hamlet, that the phrase "you are
dead" sounds paradoxical, and we hear a similar word on the scene when Hamlet says
‘‘you’re dead. There is no medicine in the world that can benefit you. You don't have half an
hour of life.’’ (Hamlet, 5.2.266 - 268) The words were spoken by Laertes, who had killed
Hamlet in revenge for the death of his father Polonius and his sister Ophelia. After
challenging Hamlet to a duel, Laertes poisoned the tip of his sword so that it would kill him
by simply wounding him. The phrase ''you are dead'' and its repetition indicates the
importance of the death of the protagonist, which draws attention to the repeated repetition of
the death process in the play also frequently, but in this article, Lund presents contradictory
points about the death of the protagonist, as she brings the character of Horatio to talk about
the protagonist, in the last scene. The process of death in the last scene is one of the most
prolonged events by Shakespeare in the play, especially after the death of the protagonist, and
Hamlet dies more slowly than Laertes because Hamlet is the protagonist, so his death must be
effective. Lund evokes in her article, the Science of Medicine and Body, to talk about the
flow and effect of poison in these bodies (Hamlet and Laertes) to indicate that Shakespeare
took into account this method that takes time and, in which he could write more lines of
poetry while Hamlet catching his last breath, but the medical understanding of that period
was not limited to that the poison is the method of death, that takes a long time, and it is a
weak point for Lund to refer to because the reader does not care how much time the poison
will take to kill the character because his vision is superficial. They have clear reasons
leading to this end. As for the critics, they delve into the details to find out the reasons behind
this end of the protagonist, the reason for Shakespeare's choice of words and writing style,
and what were the theories in that period that prompted him to write such endings by asking
specific questions Such as, Why did Shakespeare choose the end of Hamlet fighting and
duelling? Some say that Shakespeare wanted Hamlet to appear as a gentleman even upon his
death, and perhaps Shakespeare wanted to reflect the death of the protagonist on his character
throughout the play, which is stubbornness and coldness in the blood and nerves, so the
poison took a long time until the poison spread in his body.
Another allegation or question discusses by Lund is what did Hamlet mean by the phrase “am
I dead”? Perhaps it is a more logical and objective statement than saying that ''I am dead'' or
''I am dying'' because the question is in a more colloquial, general form, according to what
Lund claimed that it indicates a lack of understanding of the process of death.
Lund uses a lot of studies and research to support her arguments, the English linguistic
research attached to the article says that the phrase “Am I dead?” reflects the dramatic aspect
of imagination, prediction, and lack of understanding of the idea (the idea of death), as
Shakespeare made Hamlet's concluding sentence more unique than the sentence that Laertes
said ''to be dead, not to be’’. Adding by the critics that, the versions are different, and
Hamlet’s ending is unambiguous in a way or another. There is no indication says that he
lingers in the last scene. Lund says ‘‘Indeed, between the three editions, and all editions of
Hamlet we can observe a combination of methods by which death is indicated at a textual
level in an English Renaissance.’’

Text 4:
Article: Anton Chekhov’s Selected Stories
Edited by Cathy Popkin, published in 2014
This article gives an overview of Chekhov's writings, styles of showing stories, and endings
by asking some questions such as, why do we read Chekhov’s texts? What is the purpose of
writing them? Why he focuses on short stories and short texts? And how we read Chekhov’s
literature until we reach the end? He was described by the master of endings and he had a
theory called Zero Endings discussed in this article.
This article discusses how to read Chekhov’s stories and texts. And this question is
persistently repeated in order to face Chekhov’s choices for a particular style of writing.
Chekhov’s texts are disturbingly short and the seriousness and certainty that Chekhov takes
in his texts, makes some critics see it as trivial. Other critics offer some of Chekhov’s advice.
For modern writing, which is to get rid of the introductory pages and the usual writing, (leave
the usual), and leave what leads the reader to boredom. Many writers adopt Chekhov's theory,
called (zero-ending) Where this theory takes the two writers outside the so-called usual and
repetition of the narration of events, reaching an end in which the reader wonders where the
events are taking us? Is this the end? Popkin also mentions the zero ending and states that
Chekhov's endings are open ends that put the desire to ask more questions in the last scene.
Chekhov was not afraid of his participation in presenting clear positions towards the world,
as Chekhov’s text was not limited to the endings, but rather how to choose the beginning to
be opposite to the end, and to be open and unexpected. Also, Chekhov chose a certain class of
people who are the weak and the poor in many of his stories he started with pain, being lost,
injustice, and then the ending full of hope, happiness, and second chances. Chekhov
emphasized his advice to the writers to leave the readers read as a critic and analyst and to
discover the causes and events by themselves.
Does this article express the diversity of Chekhov's texts where Popkin says Chekhov is
trying to be realistic in the sense that Chekhov like texts that examine certainty, such as
certainty in the existence or absence of God, as he yearns for moral clarity in particular, and
move away from the meaningless details that life faces in a more ambiguous way. For readers
who are concerned about this ambiguity, Chekhov's stories can only lead them to conclusions
in the form of questions, as Chekhov moves away from the endless complexity, that modern
writers followed to be smoother and simpler for the reader, but open endings are complex
endings for some readers. Chekhov has not finished recounting his advice, as he has many
theories about endings and texts that must be simple and understandable in order to make the
unusual writings is the normal writing.
To sum up, each article tends to examine certain topic but in order to serve the main topic, by
dealing with many claims and questions, and answer it, due to investigate the death of the
protagonist at the end of the play for different writers from different perspectives, and each
end of the two chosen plays has different end, whether it’s open ending or close ending.

Discussion:
This discussion reflects the secondary research that I have undertaken for my topic, which is
an analysis of how death is a possible solution for an author when creating the ending. And
how the life of the protagonist is a possible confusion for the audience. So, this discussion
will analyze the nature of endings from Medea by Euripides and Hamlet by Shakespeare and
A Story without an End by Chekov. Answering claims and questions, examining my topic,
these secondary works, and other related texts listed in my bibliography will inform my
research and provide me with a clear understating of the material relevant to my topic and
any areas that I feel need to be investigated.
Euripides wants to prove many specific theories and concepts such as feminism,
exterminating revenge, and life after death through his plays, so he has a special style in his
plays, which is to make the ending interesting to the audience and interesting, an open ending
that gives a space for criticism and discussion. Euripides differs from others in presenting his
point of view, as many have criticized him for the fact that the endings of his plays are
sarcastically unreal and unsatisfactory to the audience again. The writers did not make plays
to always satisfy the audience. It deals with specific ideas and issues and presents them in his
text. He is also known to shed light on the protagonist and the sequence of events until he
reaches how to form the end of this character, where he puts the title of the text in his name to
attract the attention, for example in Medea’s play. In addition to that, he tends to make these
endings open to be the focus of open discussions to conclude, and make the researchers and
literary critics come up with various results and analysis, and good evidence of this in his
text, Medea. The fact that Euripides aims at the end of this play are open discussions,
examine claims, ask questions, such as what contradiction and confusion this play caused to
the audience? Does the escape of Medea is the victory of good or evil? Why Euripides chose
such ending? Open, confusion.
Medea:
As it was mentioned in some studies that describe Medea figure that the desire of
mothers/females to kill out of revenge is greater than the desire of men, as this was one of the
themes that were focused on in the play. Euripides also focuses on the protagonist of the
novel and names the play in its name to highlight its revenge and crimes, and the main part
remains in the reader's hand until he understands how Euripides drew this character to the end
and what is the significance of drawing such an end, whether it is closed, open, or confused
for the reader and the viewer. Euripides provides us many lessons and turning points in this
play, as Medea is considered an independent, strong, and loving character, as she helped
Jason her husband to become a legend of the Golden Fleece and killed one of her family
members for this love so that this love would later abandon her for the sake of another
woman of more proportions and influence to turn into a mass of evil and a successor to the
demon whose ultimate goal is revenge, Euripides shows us that what is happening is more
than revenge, love, and jealousy in the protagonist, but rather to break the greed that grows
more inside the human being. Euripides's endings have always presented values, lessons,
reality, and human nature. There is a contradiction and confusion to the audience, whether the
end of the play represented by the escape of Medea is the victory of good or evil?
Scholars almost inevitably wonder why Medea fled at the end of her play and that her escape
is a victory for good or evil in the chariot of the sun. The answers they give to this question
are varied. Of these proposers, it seems to me that the least useful are those who attribute this
dramatic escape method to being a witch teal. Conacher's interpretation is a more accurate but
still representative school of this school, which emphasizes the "folkloric witch character still
associated with the Median in the exploits recycled to her in Greece". For him, "the only
significant point in the deity's end of the machine lies in the symbolic purpose that this device
fulfils." That is, "with this terrifying symbolic touch, the poet expresses once again the
transformation of a human heroine into the villain of the folk tale of magical powers.”
(Conacher. 129.). The Ending of The Medea, ‘‘we must assume that Euripides meant us to
understand by the chariot that Medea herself has become a God’’
As shown in the article, In defines of Medea: a logic approach of Euripides, (Leo. 17), that
Medea affirms her heroic personality, as she does not care for the society to see her as loyal
to her husband and dangerous to her enemy, because the feelings of revenge in Medea were
stronger than the feelings of motherhood as long as she must think and act brilliantly to
protect herself from the laughter and mockery of others, and her desire to refer to her as a
symbol of honor, pride and her suffering that drives her to revenge. Another point that Arushi
brings to a critic is that Medea is not jealous of Jason's wife, because the anger that comes
from a lack of justice and a lack of status for women is much more dangerous than a feeling
of jealousy, but many consider both feelings interconnected. I agree, because according to
(Multi Feminine Study by Raja Mohammad) ‘‘A woman’s feelings are a tree, begins with
roots, watered by love, roots become strong and difficult to uproot. If they are uprooted, they
become ruins in the ground.’’. Euripides made the ending centered around the character and
his only goal was to gain the audience's admiration for the mediocrity and sympathy with her
and to show the strength and title of the woman, as he wanted the audience to understand her
more than she is a witch, for she is a god and her escape is the end that will affect the
audience rather than killing her, especially after Jason has emotionally perished and that what
Arushi said in his article ‘‘In Medea’s character, he explores an idea that he feels needs to be
critically evaluated. The audience may see her as a “foreign princess”, but she subscribes
most strongly to an idea that the Athenians respect. The reward she gets for her acts takes her
to the very land that the audience is so proud of. By making Medea’s foreign identity
subservient to the heroic code, Euripides gives her a prominent place in Athenian history
which produces the desired response of horror and discomfort. He combines the Athenian
anxiety about the barbarity and powerful women in his heroine, making them rethink their
belief in Athens as the epitome of civilization. For this purpose, he presents his audience with
a protagonist’’, (Arushi Bahuguna. 789).
Why Euripides chose such ending?
In the article Greek dramatic, critics have found that ‘‘Euripides differed from Aeschylus and
Sophocles in making his characters’ tragic fates stem almost entirely from their flawed
natures and uncontrolled passions. Chance, disorder, and human irrationality and immorality
frequently result not in an eventual reconciliation or moral resolution but in apparently
meaningless suffering that is looked upon with indifference by the gods. The power of this
type of drama lies in the frightening and ghastly situations it creates and in the melodramatic,
even sensational, emotional effects of its characters’ tragic crises.’’. Euripides focuses on the
protagonist ''evoking sympathy for the figure of Medea,'' and drop the emotions in the
audience's mind to be on Medea side, rather than kill the protagonist, since he considers it a
tragic play, with the survival of the protagonist, and to make it as heroic as a God at the end
of the play serves to reveal the future fortunes of the characters. clarifying that ''Euripides
tends to be more with its accessible realism and its emotional, even sensational, effects.'' it is
an open ending and unexpected for some, but it's more effected, close to the audience. Since
Medea no more existed as a human after the crimes she committed.
Shakespeare is considered one of the most prominent examples of choosing a particular style
from the various stories that the tragic aspect brings together, especially the inevitable end of
most of the diamonds, which is death. Shakespeare chooses death in most of his plays
because he knows how to create an insulting word, death, revenge, and killing of the
protagonist are significant in his plays. Is death as an ending of his plays considered a
solution? And why Shakespeare chose such endings? How Shakespeare moves the
protagonist? And why he gives a lot of details about him? In many articles, the title or the
main question is that ‘‘Why everyone must die in Shakespearean plays?’’ The fact that not
everyone dies in his plays because no one died in ‘‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’’, or in
‘‘The Tempest’’. But because critics deal with the texts of Shakespeare's plays in another
way for discussion, analysis, and generalization that differ from the true method of analysis
of Shakespeare and the text he wrote, for example in Hamlet's play, the directors may change
the tragic end of the Hamlet family in another way, and this is another view to understanding
the difference of views between writers about what they deem appropriate, whether they want
to please the audience or not because when Hamlet wrote it, he did not write it to impress the
audience more than he wanted to discuss the issue of death, and the effect of the protagonist.
Hamlet:
With its complete events, Hamlet's play is considered one of the most tragic plays that
brought together a philosophical view, social and individual problems of human existence,
the bad values that control mankind, and the anger that leads to insanity. As Shakespeare
shows, the sequence of events in this play, which made it easy for the audience and readers to
understand what is happening with each character, and what makes each one reaches that end,
such ending ( death), especially the end of the protagonist, his actions are a natural product,
not a quick incoherent decision and to judge and criticize the character. Shakespeare's text,
far from the boredom and the philosophical outlook that he wants to show because he
precedes events and puts a purposeful end even if it culminated in the death of most of the
play’s characters. ‘‘The models of tragedy that influenced Shakespeare and his
contemporaries were not Greek (the great tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides).
unlike most of Shakespeare’s conscious heroes and wrongdoers. But they are driven by
passions which seem humanly uncontrollable like ghosts, Furies, and meddlesome divinities
spur them on and are often cursed by the consequences of evils rooted in the past; thus
despite their energies and their willfulness, they seem more the victims than the responsible
agents of their fate.’’ (TOM McLendon. 3).
With a serial event, Shakespeare begins by presenting the characters of the play from the
funeral of the king, so the audience must anticipate what will be the upcoming events, as the
play began with death, as well as the end. Shakespeare begins with sadness in Hamlet’s side,
while its wedding and joy around his mother and uncle, where the contradiction begins
between the characters and since Hamlet is a teenager with the intention of Shakespeare to
put the character such an age to suit with his ideas later, and his response to the appearance of
his father's spirit and ghost, Hamlet seeking to find out the truth and devise a smart plan to
discover the crime Alleged. The turning point that Shakespeare showed to Hamlet's character,
when he knew the truth, and let his love go, to prove himself. Hamlet cannot be called
intelligent for his plan because he wanted to prove himself more than the desire of revenging
to his father, and his curiosity in knowing what is another life after death, and to prove that
what he saw is real. But from the perspective of other characters, they describe him as insane.
The internal conflict in Hamlet and the desire to revenge, how he wants to prove himself and
the truth of his mother. The external conflict with his mother, his uncle, Polonius. Polonius
presents the pressure on Hamlet, as he made him think that they were plotting against him
and abandoned his daughter Ophelia, his only love, telling her that he did not love her to
reach his goal. As shown in T.S. Elliot’s article of Hamlet and His Problems. ‘‘Hamlet is up
against the difficulty that his disgust is occasioned by his mother, but that his mother is not an
adequate equivalent for it; his disgust envelops and exceeds her. It is thus a feeling which he
cannot understand; he cannot objectify it, therefore it remains to poison life and obstruct
action’’ moreover, the madness of Hamlet controlled by Shakespeare all over the play, in
response to the argument, how Shakespeare moves the protagonist? And why he gives a lot of
details about him? The fact that Shakespeare dealing with a tragic hero, the one who leads
the audience and the characters at the very end, which is what the audience/ readers are
waiting for, the purpose of giving Hamlet the long description, that ‘‘For Shakespeare, it is
less than madness and more than feigned.
Hamlet's levity, repetition of phrases, and puns are not part of a deliberate plan of
dissimulation, but a form of emotional relief. In the character Hamlet, it is the buffoonery of
an emotion that can find no outlet in action; in the dramatist, it is the buffoonery of an
emotion which he cannot express in art. The intense feeling, ecstatic or terrible, without an
object, or exceeding its object, is something which every person of sensibility has known; it
is doubtless a study to pathologists’’. (T.S Elliot, 67). This means that for Shakespeare it’s
acceptable behavior from Hamlet to prove the criminal and evilness, so Hamlet who moved
by Shakespeare decided that each of them deserved to be in hell or heaven due to their
lucidity by killing Polonius, then his friends and uncle after he had killed his mother and then,
well, Is death as an ending in Shakespearean plays considered a solution? This question
answered by another question, which is What Does the Ending of Hamlet Mean? ‘‘Hamlet
has spent the whole play debating whether to avenge his father’s death or to commit suicide,
and the finale effectively enables him to perform both acts’’, it is barely unclear for the
audience what kind of death, but still death, all these events carry the audience to the end and
to understand it well, not being confused because it's almost the ending was decided since he
began with the first crime to eight crimes most of them by the protagonist, as Mark Caboll
claims that the period when Shakespeare wrote Hamlet was the Elizabethan period where the
case of death effects on Shakespeare himself in writing such endings, Shakespeare chose to
end Hamlet's life as a victorious fighter, not a betrayed coward, and also with a small wound
and the inner poison, not covered in blood. Shakespeare chose a fair ending if we can say that
it's fair enough to the audience. But how all these events serve the end of the protagonist from
the perspective of Shakespeare as a solution, simply all these endings resemble Shakespeare
himself, whether showing the style of writing, or the period he lived in, and we can answer
this by referring to the article (Being Dead in Shakespearean Play), that Hamlet dies more
slowly than Laertes because Hamlet is the protagonist, so his death must be effective. So, I
agree with Lund in her claim that, ‘‘Shakespeare wanted Hamlet to appear as a gentleman
even upon his death’’, (Lund. 33) and perhaps Shakespeare wanted to reflect the death of the
protagonist on his character throughout the play, which is stubbornness and coldness in the
blood and nerves, so the poison took a long time until the poison spread in his body.

Why Shakespeare chose such endings?

‘‘It’s important to remember that Shakespeare lived and worked in a historical era where
death was more apparent than it is today. Infant mortality was higher. Old age came earlier.
Untreatable diseases were more prevalent. Capital punishment was accepted as judicious.
Death is always a serious issue, but Elizabethans encountered death with greater regularity
than today’s Westerners, living as we do with a higher degree of safety standards and civil
protection.’’. (1). Since death is the main theme that Shakespeare wants to end the play with
‘‘Death is the pervading theme of the play. The tragedy of Hamlet delves on life, love, and
tyranny. All the major protagonists and antagonists in the play die in the end. In the process,
they all redeemed themselves by dying because somehow their deaths advanced the cause
each of them stands for.’’ (2)

Chekov:
Chekhov was not afraid of his participation in presenting clear positions towards the world,
as Chekhov’s text was not limited to the endings, but rather how to choose the beginning to
be opposite to the end, and to be open and unexpected. Also, Chekhov chose a certain class of
people who are the weak and the poor in many of his stories he started with pain, being lost,
injustice, and then the ending full of hope, happiness, and second chances. Chekhov
emphasized his advice to the writers to leave the readers read as a critic and analyst and to
discover the causes and events by themselves.
Chekhov says about the protagonist in most of his stories ''when I'm finished with my
characters, I like to return them to life'', and what he means here is to reflect Jauss and how he
ends his series (The Sopranos), and says he could end it simply rather than whacking Tony or
put him in jail for the rest of his life, he could just let him back to his life and routine. and
said in the sense that the endings end similar to the phrase "And that life went on as before",
although in the reality in which we live, because life is changing, the protagonist might fall in
love, at the end they might get married, protagonist travel, also he might come back, but not
the death of the protagonist. We understand that Chekhov tends to the realistic end which is
closer to the reader's understanding, such as a large number of Chekhov's stories in which he
ends his stories in the way to show the changing events with the protagonist from the
beginning to the end. In his stories, Chekhov focuses on ending, referring to changing more
than his concern for failure in change or causes, such as Anne Friedman clarified the most
important points and strategies for Chekhov's endings, and Chekhov often reveals that
changing the protagonist either fails to continue or leads to the complexity of the conflict that
brings the authors to the climax of the story, so they make a radical change in The fate of the
protagonist is thus to a traditional end. Where Chekhov tends to a simple, real ending, far
from complexity, another point that Anne Friedman talked about, which is that Chekhov
tends to end his stories by bringing the protagonist back to life and ending the problems that
resulted from failure or change.
Before Chekhov, there were no such endings, because endings were traditional, and Chekhov
wants to change from complexity to simplicity. Jauss says that Chekhov was not sure if this
change in his endings will make that change with writers or they will be stuck with the
traditions and ignore what Chekhov gave, as his stories were criticized as incomplete,
meaningless and ridiculous, but Chekhov responds to these criticisms with a story he called
"A story without an End", Chekhov shows the point that Life can change in dramatic and
unexpected ways in order to draw the tragedy line, if the events needed, by letting the
protagonist lost but not dead, which lead us back to his words when he said ''' when I'm
finished with my characters, I like to return them to life'', this story leads the reader to the
impossibility of predicting what will happen in the final scene, "How will it end?", as he
chose this question the end of this story, it is the same question the reader will ask himself,
how will it end?
"A story without an End", says Chekhov "I am not at the moment writing a fairy tale, and am
far from intending to alarm the reader, but the picture I saw from the passage was fantastic
and could only have been drawn by death…everything except the softly glimmering lights,
were still as death, like the tomb itself.". This story begins to draw lines of the tragic and
attractive to the reader in the presence of blood and a picture of death, but soon Chekhov
takes us to the goal for which he wrote this story it and clarifies his goal from the dialogue
that takes place within the story, where the protagonist Vassilyev is the same one who wants
to suicide, "You would have asked. . . . It's what people always do. Though it would be no
use to ask. If I told you, you would not believe or understand. . .. I must own I don't
understand it myself. . .. There are phrases used in the police reports and newspapers such as:
'unrequited love,' and 'hopeless poverty,' but the reasons are not known. . .. They are not
known to me, nor to you, nor to your newspaper offices, where they have the impudence to
write 'The diary of a suicide.' God alone understands the state of a man's soul when he takes
his own life, but men know nothing about it.". (Chekhov), Chekhov continues through this
dialogue, which is that the traditional and closed ends that kidnap the protagonist, in the end,
are nothing but lies and falsifications of reality and this is explained by explaining the
protagonist to the narrator. " We admit it! But you know men do shoot themselves by
candlelight! And it would be ignominious indeed for the heroes of your novels if such a
trifling thing as a candle were to change the course of the drama so abruptly. All this
nonsense can be explained perhaps, but not by us. It's useless to ask questions or give
explanations of what one does not understand...."
"Forgive me," I said, "but . . . judging by the expression of your face, it seems to me that at
this moment you . . . are posing."
"Yes," Vassilyev said, startled. "It's very possible! ". Chekhov depicted in this story what he
was trying to do at the ends of his stories throughout his life and because this story came in
response to critics for his texts as incomplete and meaningless, every single word that
Vassilyev says, is word reflects what Chekhov’s end mean… changing, unexpected endings,
"Nothing more absurd and stupid than such a change could possibly be imagined. Chapter
one: spring, love, honeymoon . . . honey, in fact; chapter two: looking for a job, the
pawnshop, pallor, the chemist's shop, and . . . tomorrow's splashing through the mud to the
graveyard.", Vassilyev’ s desire to die is the same as the writers' desire to stick to traditional
endings "Everything in the world is transitory, and that transitoriness is absurd! A wide field
for humourists! Tack on a humorous end, my friend!", so Jauss clarify summarizes saying “A
Story without an End.” The narrator of this story—who is not-so-coincidentally a writer of
short stories—presents two portraits of his neighbor, the first showing him as he was a year
before after his wife died and he attempted suicide, and the second showing him now, playing
the piano and singing and laughing with a group of ladies in the narrator’s drawing-room.
Witnessing this change, which he compares to “the transmutation of substances,” leads the
narrator to realize the impossibility of predicting what his neighbor’s future life will be like.
Thus, this story without an end ends with the unanswered question, “How will it end?” (3).

Also, he focuses on what the protagonist began with, and what he comes to be, Jauss says
‘‘Chekhov was aware relatively early in his writing life that new kinds of endings were
necessary for literature. While writing Ivanov, his first full-length play, he wrote to his
publisher about the conventional endings of plays “Either the hero gets married or shoots
himself,” he complained, and he concluded, “Whoever discovers new endings for plays will
open up a new era.” And that is exactly what Chekhov did, both for plays and short stories.
Even now, 105 years after his death, we are still very much in the era Chekhov opened
Chekhovian endings have been adopted, and adapted, not only by the usual suspects,
Katherine Mansfield, Virginia Woolf, Sherwood Anderson, Ernest Hemingway, John
Cheever, Eudora Welty, Raymond Carver, Andre Dubus, and Tobias Wolff but also by such
otherwise un-Chekhovian writers as Donald Barthelme and John Barth. But while some of
Chekhov’s innovative strategies for closure (or anti-closure, as the case may be) are now
relatively commonplace, others have been largely overlooked or ignored’’. (3)
Chekhov's stories have endings, but not the ones that previous writers prefer, closed,
expected, traditional endings, Chekhov prefers like those of The Sopranos, which are
subversive endings that delegate the reader's / audience's expectations to concepts about
reality, life, and human nature, and which are the endings that modern fiction needs, far from
the usual, and the expected and, nearly closed ends. I agree with writers who support
Chekhov's theories, as Jauss that the time has come to look at Chekhov’s endings and learn
from them. Perhaps this innovation will give a new era that expands the scope of thinking and
discussion that also, leads to filmmaking because the director is also preserving the endings,
but keeping preserving the smooth and simple understanding that Chekhov wanted. However,
many of them ignored Chekhov's strategies and theories of endings and kept their traditional
expected endings.

To conclude, this discussion summarizes how different writers choose their endings, and I
explain that through their work like Hamlet’s end, Medea’s end, and show certain theories
about Chekhov endings. The writer takes certain criteria and strategies to choose what type of
end of the text he will write, as he takes into account many points that will come out as a
result at the end of the text, for example, the end of the story/play/novel are expected and
closed endings to some extent by the public so that the writer decide the end of the
text/protagonist since the first scene like Shakespeare. Another aim is not to be restricted and
give a wide space for the reader to discuss it and let critics ask questions and give the strong
and weak point of that text, and not to be limited, in addition, to let the readers drew their
vision of ending, and give different versions to directors, in case they turn the texts into
movies such as Euripides, and Shakespeare, reaching the last aim, which is influencing the
audience/readers, and take the modern writers out of usual and tradition writing, such as
Chekhov, through the protagonist, and all these points were investigated, by the primary and
secondary sources supported what given in this paper and served the topic.
Limitations:
Every time I took a step forward writing my paper, I face technical problems and even
problems in the place around me that help me to gather my ideas such as sudden internet and
electricity cuts. This was a permanent problem for me so that I need to go to Ramallah to
complete the work. Another problem is the sites that we are looking, I encountered many
articles that give me the cover and the first page, but it requires payment by credit card, and
one last problem I faced recently is that even if I want to quote from some academic sources,
I have to modify it linguistically, and of course, it will create another problem, that we don't
have time.

Further research questions:

If I had time, I would like to compare the endings of Shakespeare and Euripides with those of
Chekhov by reviewing more Chekhov stories. Also, without being controlled in the number
of pages, I would like to talk about Greek and classic tragedy and how these eras controlled
the decision of the writers in writing their endings.
Bibliography:

 Hofer, Mathias. 2017. The Survival or Death of The Protagonist in Meaningful Movies
& Plays, Death vs. Survival of The Protagonist. Published in University of Zurich.
Main Library, pp 23- 25. Zurich.

 Arushi. Bahuguna. 2003. The Character of Meade’s Euripides. JSTORE. Published in

The Journal of Hopkins University.

 Defilm. Leao. 2011. In defence of Medea: a legal approach to Euripides. Published at

The University of Colombia, pp55-72. Colombia.

 William Shakespeare. 1603. The Tragical Histories of Hamlet Prince of Denmark

Edited by Mary David. Published in London. 2004.

 Robert S. Miola, 1992. Shakespeare and Classical Tragedy: The Influence of Seneca
JSTORE. Published in Oxford, pp 23-36. London.

 Lund. Mary Ann. Being Dead in Shakespearean Tragedy, chapter 2. Published in

London. 1999.

 RAUEN MG. Shakespeare Endings and Affects: A STUDY OF FINAL SCENES IN

QUARTO AND FOLIO VERSIONS OF "THE MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR,"
"HENRY V," AND "HAMLET". Published Michigan State University. 1988.

 Louise. Schleiner. Latinized Greek Drama in Shakespeare's Writing of "Hamlet".

Published By: Oxford University Press. 1990.
 TOM McALINDON. What is a Shakespearean tragedy? Published in New York and
London: Harper and Bros. 1995.

 Eliot. T.S(1888–1965). Hamlet and His Problems. Published at Cambridge 1922.

 Lauria Maguire. Shakespeare and Death, video, pp23-45. Published 2018

 Marcus Geduld. Why is that everyone must die at the end of Shakespearean plays?.
Upvoted Jashua Angel the director and creator. Published at Harfard univesity. 2015.

 Eliza. Sally. Death in Shakespeare: How Characters Died in Shakespeare’s

Tragedies. LitCharts.com. published 2016.

 Lauria Maguire. Death in Shakespeare: How Characters Died in Shakespeare’s

(1)

Tragedies? Jun 25, 2016. https://www.litcharts.com/blog/shakespeare/death-

shakespeare-characters-died-shakespeares-tragedies/ access (May 2, 2021).

 Gwendolen Sheys. Analysis of Hamlet’s Death. Owlcation.com. Feb 22, 2018.

(2)

https://owlcation.com/humanities/HamletsDeathAnalysis access (Wed, May 18, 2021).

 Dived Jauss. Returning Characters to Life, Chekhov's subversive endings in this

(3)

insightful essay. Mar 31, 2011. https://www.writersdigest.com/writing-articles/jauss-

essay. access (May 20, 2021).

 Chekhov. Anton. 1886. A Story Without an End. Edited by Livros Grátis. Published at
Paris 2000.