Jason's Reviews > The Sense of an Ending
The Sense of an Ending
by
by

Tony Webster is a shallow douchebag.
First of all, let’s get something straight. I don’t believe people should be judged too harshly for behavior they exhibited in adolescence. That’s not to say that people are not responsible for actions they committed in their youth; it just means that their actions as teenagers do not necessarily reflect the kind of people they will become as adults. So my problem with Tony Webster isn’t that he was an asshole in high school. In fact, I’d probably be a bit hypocritical to judge him in that context because I might have been a asshole myself at that age. Maybe. But I can assure you I am not an asshole now and if I’m to be judged on the kind of person I am, I’d like for that judgment to consider me only in my current adult state, please. No, the problem with Tony Webster has nothing to do with his high school self—it’s the fact that over the course of forty years, he has not changed one single bit.
As Tony divulges the circumstances surrounding a pivotal juncture in his youth, he would have you believe that his best friend was a disloyal SOB, his girlfriend a , and he perfectly justified in telling them both to fuck off. And perhaps he was. Again, that is not the problem I have with Tony Webster. Even that he holds on so tightly to warped memories as reasons for his past behavior (which are really justifications) is something I do not hold against him—we all do that to a certain extent. It’s called self-preservation. But where I start having issues with Tony is where he begins to dwell on these events and obsess over these people he hasn’t seen in decades in a way that is not normal or healthy. If his reasons were sincere, if he actually felt like he needed to atone for something, then I might understand. But that is not what he’s doing. No, he wants to ingratiate himself into these people’s lives, forty years later, just so they can be left with a positive impression of him! See, Tony might think he has you convinced he’s grown and matured into a considerate human person, but the only one he’s convinced is himself, because Tony is in fact the same self-serving bastard he was when he was fifteen. It does make you reconsider his life details in a new light, though: his failed marriage, the distant relationship he has with his daughter, his pathetic lack of friends. I mean it’s one thing to be an unreliable narrator, but here we have one who’s delusional, too.
This book does present an interesting supposition, though—that past events are easier to understand from the historical perspective, the fact that one can see an event in its entirety, more objectively, and from various angles with the passage of time, which allows for a more accurate account of that event. In other words, it’s hard to maintain a clear perspective on something while in the thick of things. Although the narrator uses this to justify his own shallow behavior, I thought it was a pretty enlightening concept nonetheless.
First of all, let’s get something straight. I don’t believe people should be judged too harshly for behavior they exhibited in adolescence. That’s not to say that people are not responsible for actions they committed in their youth; it just means that their actions as teenagers do not necessarily reflect the kind of people they will become as adults. So my problem with Tony Webster isn’t that he was an asshole in high school. In fact, I’d probably be a bit hypocritical to judge him in that context because I might have been a asshole myself at that age. Maybe. But I can assure you I am not an asshole now and if I’m to be judged on the kind of person I am, I’d like for that judgment to consider me only in my current adult state, please. No, the problem with Tony Webster has nothing to do with his high school self—it’s the fact that over the course of forty years, he has not changed one single bit.
As Tony divulges the circumstances surrounding a pivotal juncture in his youth, he would have you believe that his best friend was a disloyal SOB, his girlfriend a , and he perfectly justified in telling them both to fuck off. And perhaps he was. Again, that is not the problem I have with Tony Webster. Even that he holds on so tightly to warped memories as reasons for his past behavior (which are really justifications) is something I do not hold against him—we all do that to a certain extent. It’s called self-preservation. But where I start having issues with Tony is where he begins to dwell on these events and obsess over these people he hasn’t seen in decades in a way that is not normal or healthy. If his reasons were sincere, if he actually felt like he needed to atone for something, then I might understand. But that is not what he’s doing. No, he wants to ingratiate himself into these people’s lives, forty years later, just so they can be left with a positive impression of him! See, Tony might think he has you convinced he’s grown and matured into a considerate human person, but the only one he’s convinced is himself, because Tony is in fact the same self-serving bastard he was when he was fifteen. It does make you reconsider his life details in a new light, though: his failed marriage, the distant relationship he has with his daughter, his pathetic lack of friends. I mean it’s one thing to be an unreliable narrator, but here we have one who’s delusional, too.
History is not just the lies of the victors; it is also the self-delusions of the defeated.The final straw for me was when he (view spoiler) .
This book does present an interesting supposition, though—that past events are easier to understand from the historical perspective, the fact that one can see an event in its entirety, more objectively, and from various angles with the passage of time, which allows for a more accurate account of that event. In other words, it’s hard to maintain a clear perspective on something while in the thick of things. Although the narrator uses this to justify his own shallow behavior, I thought it was a pretty enlightening concept nonetheless.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
The Sense of an Ending.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
November 10, 2011
– Shelved
April 7, 2012
– Shelved as:
for-kindle
May 20, 2012
–
50.0%
"We live in time, it bounds us and defines us, and time is supposed to measure history, isn’t it? But if we can’t understand time, can’t grasp its mysteries of pace and progress, what chance do we have with history—even our own small, personal, largely undocumented piece of it?"
Started Reading
May 28, 2012
– Shelved as:
2012
May 28, 2012
–
Finished Reading
May 29, 2012
– Shelved as:
reviewed
Comments Showing 1-35 of 35 (35 new)
date
newest »


My problem in a nutshell. I never finished the book because of it.


Actually, it's what I liked about it. I like hating characters.

But I think Barnes's successes with me immunized him from a thorough hating. Like literary cowpox.

You bring up good points about his failure in his relationships with his ex-wife and his daughter, though. There wasn't much evidence of growth or self-knowledge until the very end, if even then.

This is true. A lot could have been avoided if Veronica weren't keeping secrets. But in her defense, she didn't owe Tony anything. Frankly, I don't even understand why she agreed to meet with him. The thing that nauseated me about Tony was how badly he wanted to get on her good side again. It was pathetic! If he felt the need to self-edit due to some perverse sense of 40 year-old remorse, then just do it and move on. But I don't think his goal was to actually amend anything, it was more to make things so that nobody could have anything bad to say about him, and that's an interesting difference.
Steve wrote: "There wasn't much evidence of growth or self-knowledge until the very end, if even then."
Exactly. In fact, it almost seemed like he was deluding himself into thinking he had grown when he clearly had not.
I think a lot of people in life take the "peacable" approach to things, and that's fine...I mean it's boring and sorta sad, but I think we all do it to a certain extent, so it's understandable. But Tony takes it a step too far and he never really seems to ask himself, "Why am I doing this, exactly?" I think this is what made me less sympathetic toward him, even if it were really just me trying to distance myself from a possible side of myself that I don't want to know.

Thanks, Caris. The thing that's concerning, though, is that I think it's possible he does fit into the real world, or at least partly. I think it's good to recognize that horrible character flaw, though. It makes it easier to keep it in check.
Tony Webster: the guy you do NOT want to emulate.

"Hedges? Hedges? We don't need no steenkin' hedges!"

I also agree that he’s an unreliable narrator � but so does he: he constantly tells us how unreliable memory is, including his own (I picked out numerous quotes in my own review). For me, that made quite an interesting dynamic, but each to their own.
A different opinion often makes a more interesting review.

He's probably not too unusual in the sense that he dwells so much on being well-thought-of by people from his past, but to me it's sort of a loser-ish, juvenile quality that doesn't make him appeal to me as a character. If we are supposed to identify with Tony, then the author has failed because I definitely don't. But actually I had assumed that we were meant to find Tony repulsive, but I guess I can't speak for Barnes on that one.


message 20:
by
Jennifer (formerly Eccentric Muse)
(last edited Jun 14, 2012 06:54AM)
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars

I love to hate hateful characters and usually see that as a sign of authorial mastery. But here, I felt the whole thing was icky. Almost like Barnes himself liked his character way more than the reader did. Intended his readers to feel the sympathy for him that Barnes does, in fact.
Somehow, in my mind, it's not enough to be a really good character portrait ... especially an accidental one.

That is the head of the nail right there, which you just hit. I agree the writing is good, and I do love a good character study and even enjoy hating hateful characters if they are , but you're right about that icky feeling. I do like this book, I just don't love it.


What the book doesn't answer for me is my 'So what?' question. He's just described half of the human race, in the shadow of 20 years of lit fic writers who've done the same thing.
As a user of language, he is undoubtedly a wonderful writer. I just wish he, like a lot of other contemporary lit fic writers, would apply their writing skills to something I care about.


I don't really agree with you on this. I didn't think that this was a perfect novel by any means, but I thought Tony's character was a fairly accurate portrayal of a man caught between the past and the present. In terms of character development, Tony is first depicted in the novel as a young, proud, and entitled person (but I don't think that this is very different to many adolscent boys and girls today, especially those attending private schools as he did). He gets married and his wife cheats on him, yet they are still good friends - I think this shows he has developed at least a little and shed some of his pride. He is retired and yet he still works at a hospital library, visiting sick and dying patients recommending books for them - facing others and his own mortality regularly also shows a certain level of humility. In his correspondence with Veronica, he apologises a few times about the contents of the letter he wrote when he was younger - again,showing lack of pride and humility in his ability to recognise his own faults.
You were rather critical that he wrote to Veronica through emails, though Tony did ask his solicitor for her contact deatails and she refused to give them, after Mrs Ford left him some things in her will. He found her number in the phone book, though she didn't seem interested in striking a conversation with him (fair enough). But I don't believe that feeling a 40 year remorse is "perverted"; it would be perverted if Tony didn't feel remorse over the contents of the letter he wrote. And perhaps more perverted is Veronica who still blames and is angry with Tony (who genuinely wants to understand and make things right again) for a letter he wrote in his foolish youth; not to forget her vengeful acts of giving him a single page of Adrian's diary that ends when his name is mentioned. The fact is, even if Tony hadn't written the letter telling Adrian to speak to Mrs Ford it is possible that he would've met her anyway and the same outcome might have eventuated. I personally found Tony a little pretentious at the beginning of the novel but as he becomes increasingly reflective and critical of his past, he become more endearing and easier to sympathise with. Also he becomes increasingly desperate to atone for, or at least understand, the past which i think signifies a great development in his character.

I'm already a little hazy on the details, but the letter I remember Veronica being angry about isn't something I'm sure she's still angry about in her adult years. I think we find out at the end that she has reason to be angry for a huge host of other issues for which Tony plays no part. Like, in her world, Tony is nothing. And to me, Tony is conceited for believing he plays a significant role at all in Veronica's world. I think that's what I'm critical of him for. I don't identify with that grandiose sense of self and so I therefore don't really identify with Tony at all.



These days, I think it is possible to do that by accident.


In the UK this is often known as "Whig History". Although few academics practice it, there are plenty of popular writers and TV programme makers who have no hesitation in adopting it.


I know you already read this, but I'm holding off reading your review of it until I finish.