This page was created by Alison Morgan.
Artist Statement: Brendan O’Brien
It’s pretty clear that the setting in “The End” is a dystopia, and this is no accident. A dystopia is classified as a place in which everything is unpleasant. This definition shows the subjectivity involved in story. The narrator clearly thinks of this mega center world as a dystopia, but it seems he is the only one who thinks this. The technology in the story is outstanding and people live comfortably. All of their needs are satisfied and pretty much all of their wishes are granted; they can eat any food from around the globe, they can travel anywhere in the center, and the entertainment industry is booming. The narrator does not focus on any of these things about his world. Instead all he can think about is the extremely poor condition of the environment outside of the mega center. The narrator is unique because he can see past his everyday joys and struggles and focus on environmental problems. This is a challenge Brendan tries to present his readers indirectly. Environmental change is huge problem that is consistently getting worse every day and the vast majority of people don’t even think about this problem for a minute in their lifetime. People tend to get caught up in their everyday lives and harm the environment by doing things such as littering simply because they cannot find a waste can. Everyone except the narrator represents these people in the story. In the story they have created a center that heavily pollutes and eventually kills the earth. People who litter and harm the environment don’t nearly have an effect of this magnitude, but Brendan has accentuated this problem in hopes of making people looks at their own behavior. A dystopia is the best vehicle to draw attention to the problems he wants his readers to think about. After all, the first part of fixing a problem is recognizing there is a problem.
The title of Brendan’s story, “The End,” sums up the most important and climactic part of the story. The world ends. People should not take this ending as the human race should give up on the environment because they are hopeless and doomed. Instead people should be inspired to prevent this ending from becoming a reality and actually give a shit, unlike the people in the story besides the narrator. Our environment is mediocre and only getting worse whereas the environment in the story begins on the brink of death. The earth has been abused due to popular opinion of intense anthropocentrism. People need to realize the human race cannot abuse the earth for their own advancement, for this will ultimately lead to the destruction of the world. People should learn to respect the earth and give back as much as they take, if not more. Brendan states “I could have saved the imaginary earth, but I feel an ending of that sort bails people out.” People would read this ending and see that the earth can be saved even when the earth is on the brink of death and think they do not have to implement changes in their lifestyle because someone will come along and save the earth anyways. The purpose of the green literature is to change the behavior of people and an ending where the world ends scares people into this action. No one wants the world to end, and the solution presented by this story to avoid that is to take action. Brendan states “I am not normally bleak and depressed like this story may be, but I felt this tone and plot best achieved my goal of getting people to change bad environmental practices. I hope you all enjoyed reading, but more importantly, I hope you were inspired to give back to the environment.”
Brendan tries to do this by…
-Showing a not so bright future if mass consumption and waste continues inspiring a change in attitude towards human interaction with the natural world
-Forcing readers to look at their practices and see if they are causing deterioration
-Showing readers be thankful for their connections with nature by showing nature is on its way to destruction and we ought not to take it for granted
-Portraying attitudes of personal wants are more important than the health of the environment; consequences of an anthropocentric approach to life
