Main
Search This Site

« back to A CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES: IT’S A FABLE, RIGHT?
» forward to Now That Discussion Week is Over

Discussion Archives
Bel Canto
blindness
A Box of Matches
Bridge of Birds

a canticle for leibowitz
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Chronicle of a Death Foretold
A Confederacy of Dunces
confessions of an ugly stepsister
Coraline
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

descent into hell
The Dew Breaker
The Diamond Age
Doctor Zhivago
don quixote

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Fight Club
The Five People You Meet in Heaven
Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe

The Ghost Writer
good in bed

harry potter and the sorcerer's stone
A Home at the End of the World
House of Leaves

If on a Winter's Night a Traveler
invisible monsters

The Kite Runner

Life of Pi

memoirs of a geisha
Middlesex
Motherless Brooklyn
mysterious skin

Neverwhere
noir
Norwegian Wood

One for the Money

the poisonwood bible

revenge
Running with Scissors

The Secret Life of Bees
shopgirl
The Solitaire Mystery
The Stupidest Angel

Things Fall Apart
Thumbsucker
The Time Traveler's Wife
Troll

Veronika Decides to Die

The Wasp Factory
Watch Your Mouth
What is the What
A Wrinkle in Time
Wuthering Heights

 

August 29, 2002

A CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES: THE END?

Ignatius J. Reilly. Have you ever met anyone quite like him before in the pages of a book? I know I haven't; and I probably won't forget him anytime soon, either. He was unique, and uniquely over-the-top, but for me, he was never a cartoon. For all his weirdnesses and exaggeratedness, he never struck me as a mere invention; he rang true. Which is why, I think, I found myself relating to Ignatius no matter how much I disliked him, more so than I'd care to admit.

At one point, not too many pages from the end, Ignatius’s mother says this to him:

“You learnt everything, Ignatius, except how to be a human being.”

How absolutely true. And what kept him from learning how to be, let alone from becoming, a human being? In my opinion, what held him back was also his primary motivation: fear.

What really convinced me of this was seeing him seemingly begin (just begin, mind you) to “come alive” as he finally ventured out of the city, possibly farther than he’d ever traveled before, at the very end of the book. Afraid to venture out of the comfortable, familiar environs in which he’d spent all his life (with the lone exception of that bus trip to/taxi drive back from Baton Rouge), he only did so at the story’s end because he was essentially forced out by circumstances (his pending institutionalization). But because he took that step outside of his comfort zone, he began to benefit within the very first hours of his journey.

We have to change to grow; we have to deal with the unknown and other unpleasant realities in order to mature. But Ignatius refused to do that. And for that reason, he lived in a prison of his own making, subjecting everyone around him, most unfortunately for them, to the unpleasant results of his self-imposed incarceration.

He cried “perversion!” and “abortion!” etc., deriding people and things around him, when his truly was the aborted life. His existence was a perverted one; he resisted growing up, so he grew increasingly inward. That’s not normal. I believe he really was heading toward insanity, however much his mother may have been committing him to a state hospital for her convenience, or by the author for sheer comic effect.

In closing, let me quote the last four paragraphs of the book…

. . .

Now that Fortuna had saved him from one cycle, where would she spin him now? The new cycle would be so different from anything he had ever known.

Myrna prodded and shifted the Renault through the city traffic masterfully, weaving in and out of impossibly narrow lanes until they were clear of the last twinkling streetlight of the last swampy suburb. Then they were in darkness in the center of the salt marshes. Ignatius looked out at the highway marker that reflected their headlights. U.S. 11. The marker flew past. He rolled down the window an inch or two and breathed the salt air blowing in over the marshes from the Gulf.

As if the air were a purgative, his valve opened. He breathed again, this time more deeply. The dull headache was lifting.

He stared gratefully at the back of Myrna’s head, at the pigtail that swung innocently at his knee. Gratefully. How ironic, Ignatius thought. Taking the pigtail in one of his paws, he pressed it warmly to his wet moustache.

. . .

That, coming after what we’ve read before, is one of the sweetest endings to a story I’ve ever read. Because it’s full of possibility. And who would’ve thought Ignatius could ever really change? But that’s the very real possibility that I hear, clearly, from reading that passage. And it warms my heart, and makes me care about the big galoot.

That’s how the ending totally changed my impression of the book as a whole. For me, it puts it all into perspective. It’s almost as if Ignatius, in reaching out affectionately to Myrna (not that she’s aware of his gesture at that point, I don’t think), in seeing and appreciating someone for who they are, instead of just complaining about them or thinking of how he can use them to get what he wants, is for the very first time in the book -- and, presumably, for the first time in his life -- moving beyond the caricature of a life he’s been living, and becoming human before our eyes. Or is, at least, venturing into that (for him) uncharted territory for the very first time.

So I see the book’s ending not so much as epitaph, but as commencement. And seeing it that way gives me a much deeper appreciation for the book as a whole, and a much fonder affection for it, than I ever expected to have until I got to those very last hopeful pages.

How ‘bout you?

And also, please feel free to discuss anything else that I’ve failed to bring up this week. I know there’s a lot.



comments

My short answer to your first question is: yes, I used to work with someone who in many ways reminds me of Ignatius. The man was a buffoon who spent too much of his time bemoaning his pathetic place on this planet.

In terms of the ending being a new beginning, who knows? It's quite possible a person like Ig could just be moving his neuroses and convoluted sense of self to another place. It is all recorded for posterity in his tablets, and Myrna nostalgically brings them along as part of his baggage. She also doesn't seem to mind him much (other than his lack of what she thinks is social conscience), so she might not have had any intention of helping him become anything other than what he already was.

I most took away from the ending another confirmation of the old adage: there's someone out there for everyone.

For me it was tempting to see the end as a new beginning, but having seen how Ignatius was so good at defending his refusal to change over the course of the book I felt myself pitying Myrna for taking the lout in. Ig can't help but change from here out, given the expulsion from his New Orleans circumstances, but in many ways he'll go kicking and screaming, calling for lashings, invoking Fortuna and bellowing damnations, and Myrna will forever occupy ground zero.

But then they both seem to thrive on conflict, so perhaps that's what they both want... And certainly, saving Ignatius from himself was the subject of every letter she sent, so it's obvious Myrna cares. Then again, Myrna could wind up doing a Mrs. Levy on him...

Ignatius and Myrna. Heh. What a pair of names.

While I will admit that there is not a definitive ending, my gut tells me Myrna is in for one serious Ignatius roller-coaster ride. The "transformation" of Ignatius when Myrna first arrives smells to me of serious manipulation, much like other times when he tells people what they want to hear in order to win some favor. I think we see his true colors starting to poke back through when they reach the car and start their journey together.

Yes, the final paragraph is a little sweet, but I think his adoration is part fondness, part thankfulness. Smelling the salt air represents freedom from his impending dilemma, but I do not feel we are free of the monster yet. If anyone has a chance to alter Ig's course, it is Myrna. And with him removed from his place of solitude, forced to face aspects of reality, and teamed up with a woman seriously motivated to "save" someone, we do have a recipe for change.

I guess if Toole had lived to write another installment, we could have found out if Myrna and Fortuna together could actually redirect the glacier known as Ignatius. And his fondness for Myrna (despite his comments) might have proven to be the fulcrum needed to dislodge him.

Maybe in seeing the ending the way I did I'm just outing myself as a "glass-half-full" kinda guy. I don't know. But I felt that that scene on the very last page, where he's smelling her pigtail (hmmm... writing that just now, that sounds really "ew!"), was really sincere, and that we were seeing Ignatius being sincere for, I suppose, the first time in the novel. Even though I totally agree with you that just a few pages prior to that, when Myrna arrived at his house, he was totally laying a line on her; I don't think there's any question that you're right, Hunter, about his being out-and-out shamelessly manipulative of Myrna at that point, just to get her to provide him with a quick exit.

Still, that last page really strikes me as a sea change, both in terms of the tone of the book and Ignatius's temperament. And even if my take on it is what Toole intended -- although it's entirely possible, and maybe even probable, that he meant for the ending to be ambiguous, quite intentionally (to generate conversations like this one!) -- there's no doubt in my mind that he and Myrna would have a rock'em, sock'em future in store for themselves. He'd be up to his old tricks most of the time, certainly. But I think that that last scene in the book was a first step, and the sign of a turning point, a message from the author, perhaps, that there was hope and the possibility for change even for someone as reprehensible as Ignatius...

... which, although we're officially done with our discussion week, raises another question for me: Why do you think Toole wrote this book? What do you think his intention was, or what message, if any, do you think he was trying to communicate?

Or, more personally, what did you take away from the book?

I'll say this: Based on my take on the ending, Dunces reminds me of my need to step out of my own comfort zone more decisively and regularly. I see Ignatius’ story as both an absurdist fable and a cautionary tale, warning against the perils of living in isolation and being too inwardly-focused, which is, I think, very much a message for our times.

In my opinion, when we dwell too much on ourselves, become insensitive to the plight of people around us, and pridefully prize the knowledge we already possess more than we value and feed our hunger to learn, we become more like Ignatius than we'd care to admit. He used knowledge as a weapon, to try to make people feel inferior to him, and as a defense mechanism to keep people from getting too close; instead of using greater knowledge and enlightenment to build bridges between people, and bring people closer together (starting with himself to others), he used it divisively. (He was a divider, not a uniter. ;)

So for me, the book was not only a lot of fun to read, but it reminded me of some important basic human truths in the process.

Oh, and here's another topic, if anyone's interested (as if!), which I thought of because so many people (not so much here on our book blog, perhaps, but in general) say they hate the book and have, in many cases, stopped reading it in the middle:

The morality of the book: is it dispiriting? Demoralizing? Hateful?

Obviously, based on my positive comments thus far, I didn't find it to be. And I think that's largely due to a question I've raised and answered before: Did anyone really get hurt? No one was killed, certainly. And my impression is that, for the most part, the people who deserved it got their comeuppance, and those who’d been walked over and abused got some measure of real justice by book's end.

But apparently others feel quite differently, and think the book is mean-spirited, if not downright evil...

Yeah, I've known Iggy-like people. I'm related to a few of them. God help me.

I was feeling pretty vengeful by the end of the book, and I wanted Ig to pay. So I was actually disappointed -- he got away with it! I don't think he's going to change -- I think he's just going to use Myrna for as long as she lets him. Granted, she's pretty diststeful as well, so it could be worse. It's like my two "Showgirls"-afficianado friends marrying each other -- at least the contagin isn't spreading.

I'm a native New Orleanian, the same age as
Toole would have been. I know the city and the characters about which he wrote. Every store had a Jones back then, leaning on a broom. I played music on Bourbon street and
observed the life on that street during that period. The book took New Orleans by storm cause everybody felt the same way. We all recognized Toole's characters in our own milieu.
But, Toole amplified them and gave them a new
vibrancy. The book is amazing. Everyone laughs out loud while reading it.
You'd have to be an anal-retentative twit to dislike this great story.

 

Advertisements
 
 
Author:
Title:

Keyword:
Additional Features:
 First Edition
 Signed
 Dust Jacket
 Any Binding
 Hard Cover
 Soft Cover