Discuss whether the ending of two works you have studied is satisfactory.

The ending of a work is crucial as it concludes the plot and reiterates key ideas of the
work. A satisfactory ending is often memorable, and elicits an emotional or critical
response in the reader. Both The Outsider (1942) by Albert Camus and The Great
Gatsby (1925) by F Scott Fitzgerald utilize the ending of their novels to great effect, and
hence are both satisfactory, albeit in differing ways. The Outsider is a philosophical
novel set in 1940s French Algeria and serves as a medium through which Camus
explores the absurdist philosophy, which espouses the notion that there exists a tragic
disharmony between man’s desire for a meaningful existence and the inherent
meaninglessness of life. Its ending is satisfactory in that this philosophy is effectively
demonstrated through Meursault’s cathartic epiphany and his acceptance of society’s
rejection of him as the eponymous outsider. The Great Gatsby is a social commentary
on the decadent lifestyles of American Society in the 1920s following the end of World
War I where many tried to compensate for the horrific suffering they had endured. Its
ending is satisfactory because it recognizes Gatsby’s propensity to hope in spite of
extenuating circumstances, and inspires readers to do the same.

In The Outsider, Meursault’s rejection of the Chaplain’s religion allows him to finally
come to terms with the inherent meaninglessness of life and embrace the absurdist
philosophy, hence it is satisfactory. Meursault’s confrontation with the Chaplain occurs
in Part 2 Chapter 5, when he has a “great release of anger” toward the Chaplain, who
tries to forcefully impose religion on him. This is closely linked to the context of 1940s
French Algeria where the French Colonizers who primarily believed in Catholicism
incorporated religious judgement into their judicial system. Appeal to religion or
“philosophical suicide” as Camus coined it in The Myth of Sisyphus (1942), is one
possible response to the absurd, through which humans evade the reality of the absurd
through constructs of higher beings. The Chaplain’s incessant promotion of religion and
its false certainties, such as that “the justice of man was nothing, and the justice of God,
everything”, incites Meursault’s retaliation that “it was the former that had condemned
him”. The loftiness of the Chaplain’s religious ideas sharply contrasts with Meursault’s
strong grasp on physical reality, and this catalyzes his rumination on the inevitability of
death. It is this certainty “of himself, of everything, of his life, and of his impending
death”, that empowers Meursault to go on to embrace the meaninglessness of life. In
accepting the absurd and “opening himself up, for the first time, to the tender
indifference of the world”, Meursault comes to terms with the inconsequentiality of his
death in the macrocosm of human existence, and this completes the development of the
absurdist philosophy. The ending is thus made satisfactory as the development of the
dynamic main protagonist comes to a close, and he arrives at the utter realization of the
absurd, one of the main thrusts of this philosophical novel.
Furthermore, the ending can also be considered satisfactory because Meursault comes
to terms with the unresolvable tension between his absurd nature and the rational
society. In fact, the main reason for Meursault’s castigation and subsequent sentence to
execution is his unconventionality and refusal to conform to rational society, instead of
his criminality. Most significantly are his actions at the funeral parlor in Part 1 Chapter 1,
as he drinks coffee and smokes a cigarette while observing vigil in the wake of his
mother’s death. This becomes a key evidence for the prosecutor’s assertion in Part 2
Chapter 3 that Meursault’s has “a heart so empty that it forms a chasm which threatens
to engulf society”. During the court proceedings, Meursault felt a sense of overwhelming
loneliness, even “having a ridiculous desire to cry for the first time in many years
because he could sense how much all these people hated him”. However, as the novel
reaches its end, there is a stark difference in the way Meursault perceives society’s
rejection. Having embraced the absurdity of life, Meursault finally comes to terms that “it
did not matter if accused of murder he was executed for not crying at his mother’s
funeral”. In embracing the absurdist philosophy, Meursault also embraces the
consequences of living out this philosophy, such as being rejected by the purely
rationalist society. In the closing lines of the novel, he desires that “there would be many
spectators greeting him with cries of hatred”. It could be argued that this is the most
significant demonstration of his firm belief in the absurdist philosophy; if rejection by
rational society was a measure of the extent to which his unconventionality embodied
the absurdity of life, he was willing and in fact joyful to receive the greatest extent of
hatred from society. This was closely linked to the intellectual movement in the 1940s,
where there was an uprising of nihilistic or fatalistic philosophical notions, and the
philosophers of the time were unafraid to voice their views, even if they were subject to
disapproval by society. Meursault’s utter and bold acceptance of the absurdist
philosophy is thus what makes the ending satisfactory.

On the other hand, the ending of The Great Gatsby is satisfactory because Nick’s
framed narrative creates a hopeful undertone to the tragic ending. Gatsby’s death
presents an avenue for Fitzgerald to conclude the plot through the narrative voice of
Nick. His ruminations in the ending lines of the novel evoke reflection in the reader, and
universalize the experiences of the characters. In particular, Nick’s concluding lines
places emphasis on Jay Gatsby’s capacity to hope, and his fervor in pursuing his
dreams, instead of his character flaws. This propensity to dream is reminiscent of the
idea embodied by the main protagonist Gatsby himself: the American Dream, which
was the belief that anyone in the American Society can achieve financial success, social
advancement and fulfilment through hard work and determination. Nick affirmed that
“Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before
us”, the green light referring to the one on Daisy’s dock. This symbolizes his never-
ending pursuit for Daisy’s approval despite its futility. Pertinently, instead of focusing on
the unattainability of these noble dreams, Nick’s emphasis is on how Gatsby’s pursuit in
spite of these obstacles inspires us to “run faster, stretch out our arms further”, and this
is why Nick’s opinion is that “Gatsby turned out all right in the end” as seen in Chapter 1.
The last line of the novel concretizes this notion of relentless pursuit, as Nick directly
address to the reader with the use of the inclusive pronoun “we” – “so we beat on, boats
against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past”. The uplifting and optimistic
tone in the metaphor draws the reader into the text, allows one to appreciate the
inherent greatness of Gatsby for his pursuits, and this makes the ending satisfying to
the readers.

Above and beyond this, the ending is made more satisfactory because poetic justice is
not served. The characters with the inclination to hope and pursue ascension of social
classes: Myrtle, Gatsby and George, are faced with a tragic fate by the end of the novel.
Myrtle is run over by Daisy, and Gatsby is shot by George who then ends his own life. In
sharp contrast, Tom and Daisy departed from the carnage unscathed, having “smashed
up things and creatures and then retreating back into their money or their vast
carelessness”. This behaviour is only possible because of their exploitation of wealth
and upper social class, reflective of the Roaring 20s, where there was mass
consumerism and a heightened emphasis on material possessions in the economic
boom post-World War I. At a superficial level, this could appear highly unsatisfying;
however, it is especially because of the ability of the rich to leverage their social
influence and wealth to make things go their way that Gatsby’s determination in
pursuing his dream is made especially powerful and great. The futility of his dream as
suggested by Nick’s observation that “his dream was already behind him”, in turn
elevates Gatsby’s pursuits. Hence, the ending is made satisfactory because the reader
becomes cognizant of the various oppositional forces against Gatsby, and this
reinforces his undeterred perseverance in his pursuit for Daisy’s love.

In conclusion, both authors have used the endings of their novels to leave a lasting
impression on the readers, and revisit the key thematic concerns. It could be argued
that the ending of The Outsider is made especially compelling by the powerful line that
Meursault’s “great release of anger had purged him of evil, emptied him of hope”. This
succinct line signals the completion of his character development in two crucial ways as
earlier examined – both relieving him of contempt towards society for isolating and
castigating him for being an “outsider”, as well as bringing him to acceptance of his
inevitable death and the absurdist philosophy. Camus’ ability to tie up the loose ends
and express the philosophical concerns of the novel with an economy of words and in
an implicit manner is what makes the ending of The Outsider all the more satisfying to
the reader.