I think most of the reviewers here have missed Atwood’s point, instead believing the message of the story to be something else. This is not a story, more just an exercise to take down literature’s convention of happy endings. But this convention exists only in Atwood’s head, as many good books do not end with happy endings – it is unwarrantable for Atwood to write “so much for endings” given the importance of unhappy endings in many stories. The works of Flannery O’Connor are excellent examples. Even if Atwood’s assertion were true, this story would still be trite and boring. An affectedly “witty”, “creative” little essay that is blinded enough by its own “wittiness” and “creativeness” to overlook an obvious counter to its argument. If more people understood the true Big Message of this essay, its rating would likely be lower. I have to admit,Atwood is one of those authors that are really famous but of which I am not generally interested in. Happy Endings made me rethink this. I enjoyed this short story way too much. Not only was it very interesting but it was something I have never seen before. Just the idea to do something like this and the way it was set up blew me away. Things like this are what separate the good writers from the great. Bravo Atwood, bravo.
What do You think about Happy Endings (2000)?
Very clever prose, but what a depressing outlook on relationships. Who hurt you, Margaret?
—Dmn832
A short story or essay really, but as always cleverly written by Atwood.
—Gazz
What a poignant, staccato way of making a point.
—mb112109
