| Nov. 10th, 2009 @ 10:57 pm Roadside Picnic - Ending - Discussion Requested |
|---|
I did not see my prof today. I slept, and I probably needed the sleep anyway. I will try to see him Thursday. When I ask him how I'm doing in the course, he will likely ask to see the work I've done on my research paper, which is worth 45% of my total mark.
Thinking logically, if I want to determine whether or not I should drop the course, and if the VW date is Nov 18, then I should have rigorous knowledge of my research subject and a complete plan drawn up well before then for how the paper is to be written, including a first draft of the introduction and conclusion by November 17th to visit my prof during his office hours and get a clear answer at that time. (I will still try to visit him this week.)
So I need to hammer out at least a rough idea of my research paper when I go visit him this week, and have a clear plan of attack formed by this weekend.
I want to write my research paper on Arkady and Boris Strugatsky's "Roadside Picnic." It's a mind-blowing novella (and of all things, a Russian SF story set in Canada, written from behind the iron curtain) and if you're interested, a free pdf of the English translation can be found here: http://www.cca.org/cm/ I found a side-by-side Russian/English translation here: http://www.shnaresys.com/roadside/picnic/parallel.htm
I can't recommend this novella highly enough. Some people have commented that the Strugatsky brothers' work is the highest level anyone has ever taken SF, and that no one else has yet managed to top what they've accomplished. "Roadside Picnic" really is amazing. It has so much to say. It makes you think. And, like many stories that make people think, the ending is ambiguous.
The novella is highly ethical and deals with a whole range of morality/ethics questions. It's also a very tight, gritty, intense narrative with vivid images and some amazing social commentary regarding a huge range of things including technology, Chernobyl-ish environmental horrors, the psychological trauma or things we can't understand, love and humanity.
But the ending is the most brutal and breathtaking of all of it, and I don't know if anyone ever truly "understands" an ending like that but it does generate a multiplicity-of-truths type of situation. What I want to know is, those of you who have read it - what do you make of the ending? - What do you think actually happens? I'm going to toss my thoughts under a cut in case anyone wants to read the novella but doesn't want to hear the ending ahead of time (although because of the way it's written, I don't think the ending would make any sense unless you'd read everything that came before so I don't even know if it *can* be "spoiled.")
( Roadside Picnic - ending questions )
In reality, I'm in English Lit. I can make the book say anything I want as long as I'm convincing. But I don't want to do that. I want to be true to the spirit of what the Strugatsky brothers created. I want to decode that final gutpunch in a way that isn't "THE WAY" but that gives one or a few of the many truths (or lies) the ending is giving the reader.
So that's why I'm asking, oh friends list, and any other denizens of the interwebs who might want to chime in... What do you feel that the authors are expressing by ending this novella the way that they did? What does that say about the book? What does it mean to you? What do you think the ending *is*?
As this is an ethical criticism research paper, I'm particularly interested in hearing any ethics commentaries, but I don't really care if what you have to say is related to ethics or not - I just want to know what other people think about the ending. Most criticism regarding "Roadside Picnic" stays away from the ending, I think because a lot of people don't have a definitive stance. I don't need definitive stances - if you think it means 4 things, I'd like to hear all 4, even (especially) if they contradict each other.
Thanks in advance to anyone willing to give me a hand here.
|