Editing Great Expectations (section)

===Revised ending===
Following comments by [[Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton|Edward Bulwer-Lytton]] that the ending was too sad, Dickens rewrote it prior to publication. The ending set aside by Dickens has Pip, who is still single, briefly see Estella in London; after becoming Bentley Drummle's widow, she has remarried.<ref name="s260"/><ref>{{cite web|website=listverse.com|url=http://listverse.com/2013/01/14/deleted-book-chapters/|date=14 January 2013|title=10 Deleted Chapters that Transformed Famous Books|author=Symon, Evan V.|access-date=1 September 2014|archive-date=5 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905233130/http://listverse.com/2013/01/14/deleted-book-chapters/|url-status=live}}</ref> It appealed to Dickens due to its originality: "[the] winding up will be away from all such things as they conventionally go".<ref name="s260" /><ref>Charles Dickens, Letters, Letter to John Forster, April 1861.</ref> Dickens revised the ending for publication so that Pip meets Estella in the ruins of Satis House, she is a widow and he is single. His changes at the conclusion of the novel did not quite end either with the final weekly part or the first bound edition, because Dickens further changed the last sentence in the amended 1868 version from "I could see the shadow of no parting from her"<ref name="s260" /> to "I saw no shadow of another parting from her".<ref name="Dickens412">{{harvnb|Charles Dickens|1993|p=412}}</ref> As Pip uses [[litotes]], "no shadow of another parting", it is ambiguous whether Pip and Estella marry or Pip remains single. [[Angus Calder]], writing for an edition in the [[Penguin Classics|Penguin English Library]], believed the less definite phrasing of the amended 1868 version perhaps hinted at a buried meaning: 'at this happy moment, I did not see the shadow of our subsequent parting looming over us.'<ref>Great Expectations, Penguin, 1965, p. 496</ref>

In a letter to Forster, Dickens explained his decision to alter the draft ending: "You will be surprised to hear that I have changed the end of ''Great Expectations'' from and after Pip's return to Joe's&nbsp;... Bulwer, who has been, as I think you know, extraordinarily taken with the book, strongly urged it upon me, after reading the proofs, and supported his views with such good reasons that I have resolved to make the change. I have put in as pretty a little piece of writing as I could, and I have no doubt the story will be more acceptable through the alteration".<ref name = Brinton>{{cite web|url=http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/english-association/publications/bookmarks/dickens/D12.pdf|title=Dickens Bookmarks 12 – Great Expectations|author=Ian Brinton|access-date=25 January 2013|archive-date=4 November 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131104214453/http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/english-association/publications/bookmarks/dickens/D12.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>Charles Dickens, Letters, Letter to John Forster, 25 June 1861.</ref>

This discussion between Dickens, Bulwer-Lytton and Forster has provided the basis for much discussion on Dickens's underlying views for this famous novel. Earle Davis, in his 1963 study of Dickens, wrote that "it would be an inadequate moral point to deny Pip any reward after he had shown a growth of character," and that "Eleven years might change Estella too".<ref>{{harvnb|Earle Davis|1963|pp=261–262}}<!--[https://archive.org/details/flintflame00earl <!-- quote=an inadequate. -->]. Retrieved 27 January 2013.--></ref> John Forster felt that the original ending was "more consistent" and "more natural"<ref>{{harvnb|John Forster|1872–1874|p=9. 3}}</ref><ref name="s261"/> but noted the new ending's popularity.<ref name="d262">{{harvnb|Earle Davis|1963|p=262}}</ref> [[George Gissing]] called that revision "a strange thing, indeed, to befall Dickens" and felt that ''Great Expectations'' would have been perfect had Dickens not altered the ending in deference to Bulwer-Lytton.<ref group="N">George Gissing wrote: "''Great Expectations'' (1861) would be nearly perfect in its mechanism but for the unhappy deference to Lord Lytton's judgment, which caused the end to be altered. Dickens meant to have left Pip a lonely man, and of course rightly so; by the irony of fate he was induced to spoil his work through a brother novelist's desire for a happy ending, a strange thing, indeed, to befall Dickens."</ref><ref>{{harvnb|George Gissing|1925|p=19}}, chapter III, ''The Story-Teller''</ref>

In contrast, John Hillis-Miller stated that Dickens's personality was so assertive that Bulwer-Lytton had little influence, and welcomed the revision: "The mists of infatuation have cleared away, [Estella and Pip] can be joined".<ref>{{harvnb|John Hillis-Miller|1958|p=278}}</ref> Earl Davis notes that G. B. Shaw published the novel in 1937 for ''The Limited Editions Club'' with the first ending and that ''The Rinehart Edition'' of 1979 presents both endings.<ref name="d262"/><ref>{{cite book|author=Charles Dickens and Earle Davis|title=Great Expectations|location=New York|publisher=Holt Rinehart & Winston|year=1979|isbn=978-0030779008|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/greatexpectation0000dick_a6u1}}</ref><ref>For a more detailed look into the revision of the ending, see Calum Kerr, ''From Magwitch to Miss Havisham: Narrative Interaction and Mythic Structure in Charles Dickens’'' Great Expectations, {{cite web|url=http://salempress.com/store/pdfs/expectations_critical_insights.pdf|title=''Great Expectations'', Critical Insights|access-date=27 January 2013|archive-date=21 December 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101221222536/http://salempress.com/Store/pdfs/expectations_critical_insights.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

[[George Orwell]] wrote, "Psychologically the latter part of ''Great Expectations'' is about the best thing Dickens ever did," but, like John Forster and several early 20th century writers, including [[George Bernard Shaw]], felt that the original ending was more consistent with the draft, as well as the natural working out of the tale.<ref name=Orwell>{{cite book |url=http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/dickens/english/e_chd |author=Orwell, George |title=Inside the Whale and Other Essays |year=1940 |publisher=Victor Gollancz |location=London |access-date=7 December 2012 |archive-date=13 December 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181213211629/http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/dickens/english/e_chd |url-status=live }}</ref> Modern literary criticism is split over the matter.