great expectations

(Dickens 259 . According to critic Albert Hutter , it is because of this unchanging nature of Estella 's personality that the revised ending cannot be accepted . In the revised ending , Estella 's personality undergoes a change and acquires a heart that she had earlier said she would never have . Dickens 's friend and biographer , John Forster supported the original ending and felt it was more consistent with the draft . Other such as George Gissing , George Bernard Shaw , George Orwell , William Dean Howells Edmund Wilson and Angus Wilson also agreed with Forster

I

personally prefer the second ending as it falls in place with an underlying pattern of motifs in the novel- motifs of union , separation and reconciliation . It is a positive thing that Pip and Estella come back together after many years of separation and salvage the relationship they once shared . Like Bulwer-Lytton , I too believe that "disagreeable or unpleasant elements have no place in a novel and especially in its ending (Eigner 106 . The original ending in which the Estella sitting in a carriage talks to Pip with a lot of warmth before they finally part is more of pathos and less of romance . There is no openness among them to express whatever they are feeling . There is still the barrier of the past between the two characters . Though they have both changed , there is no mutual understanding . The setting on the street is also lacking in emotion . But , the second ending is well written with continued setting of the garden and the mist (Meckier 1993 . This revised ending also seems to connect the past with the present through Pip and Estella 's meeting at Satis House . Seen from a humanistic viewpoint , both the protagonists have suffered deeply and hence they deserve to be happy at this point in their...