It was on 27th January 2012, a Friday evening in the laboratory and a day before my 28th birthday. I wanted to take a break from my work and picked up the book, The Sense of an Ending, from the table of my senior and friend in the lab. I had heard about the book from my friends and I was eager to know if I would like the book or not. Some of my friends liked it while some did not. I was also eager to find out what would be the basis for my liking or not so of the book, once I finish reading it.
I started reading the book on the evening and it held my interest and I could not go to bed until I finished reading the book, slightly late into the night. The book is a narration of a set of events from life of a person named Tony Webster. The narration includes events from time as early as schooling of the narrator when his group of friends meet an intelligent and focused boy Adrian Finn and becomes friends with him. The narration goes on to include discussions amongst his friends, his late adolescence and teenage, his romantic episodes, break-ups, unfortunate death of his new friend Adrian, marriage, divorce and how life goes on. He is now an old man, who had lived his life and is retired from activity of life to a state of peaceful content. It is then by an unexpected event that his memories are stirred and the past is brought back in a new light. It is in this retrospective mood, that this narration is made and in the first person.
I completed reading the book in a single stretch and it was an interesting read for me. When I think back to find out what aspects of the book had greatest impact, there is no denying in the fact that I was struck by the narration of romantic adventures and fantasies of the young narrator, delicate and sometimes not so delicate. However, there are several other things from the book which also kept me thinking for long time after I finished reading the book. These are the things that I shall mention below.
In the beginning of the book, the narrator makes a confession that what he describes are what remembers as the truth and that he would not claim them to be the truth as they happened. This gave me an effect of authenticity and a sense of reality for this work of fiction. Many a time in the book, I would come across a statement from the author and felt that I too had felt in similar way, which gave me a sense of deja vu. The narrator seemed to have tried to give a disinterested view of the various events and of various things that he talked about. There is no attempt to force the views or ideas on the reader and the reader is left alone to think and form his or her own opinion. I was also struck with the right chords when it appeared to me that the narrator had an awareness and understanding of the scientific principles; which became apparent in at least two instances when he talked about the nature of time (or space-time) and about evolutionary significance of the ability of humans to feel nostalgic! There are several questions, philosophical as they seem, brought forward by the narrator in the book.
For instance, when we recollect an event from our past, does the memory include the details of the actions or the details of our mood or both? Are the details of the memory true to what really happened and existed originally or they are modifications of the original actions and moods by what has been slowly built by us over time?
Many of us would accept that our mood has a profound effect on perception of duration of time. A good mood and jovial time seemingly shortens a long duration of time while suffering and difficulties appear to stretch even a short period of time to eternity. If one's perception of time is so profoundly affected by one's mood, then how could one perceive history (one's own or otherwise ) which is nothing but the time that had past in an unbiased manner? Does it mean that what we think about our past is not what it actually is, but it greatly depends on our psychological and mental state of the past? Can we also extend this idea to the history (or past) of a society or culture as depicted by a historian or a group of historians?
It is remarkable that certain events in our lives bring up certain completely forgotten memories from the bottom of the mind to surface. It is as though, the sea of the memories is stirred violently but some specific events precipitate out. What comes back to memory might mostly be directly related to what had caused it to come back but it is not always necessarily so! How are these two- the causal event and the memory brought back to life related?
We act every moment in our lives whether willingly or not! Sometimes it is on the spur of the moment in a given situation but sometimes it could also be a pre-meditated response. Time moves on and we forget or push back several things to the back of our mind. On a fine day, suddenly something brings back a past action or response of ours to the front of our mind. And, we would wonder how could we possibly behave in the manner we did! Are we the same person as we were before? Where and when did the transformation happen? Did the transformation really happen or is it an effect of the mental state?
Every event in one's life (or in a society) has several contributing factors. Is it possible to attribute the happenings, good or bad, in one's life to various factors? If each factor is considered as a link in a chain, and a bad event is akin to breaking of the chain due to an unreasonable stretch, then to which link could one attribute the tragedy to? A weak link or a strong link? Is it of any use to think about the factors in this way?
How is our character built? Does it develop progressively with time in one's life or there is a final maturation of the character during the age of 23 to 30 years after which there is a stagnation as felt by the narrator?
In retrospect, I feel that the book gives several questions to think about (or reminds one of the questions already thought about) and in a few cases a possible direction towards some answers. The plot is slightly disturbing and the subject dealt with is not intended for a light reading but necessitates a minimum amount of attention from the reader to be able to understand what the narrator is trying to convey. And now if I ask myself again whether I liked the book, I would say that I am not sure! However I would definitely recommend one to read it with a bit of attention and deliberation.
