So we are all aware by this point that the ending of Yonnondio wasn’t exactly, well, an ending. It more or less just stopped. Now, I understand that Tillie Olsen was young when she started the novel, but out of this lack of conclusion comes the “interpretive tension” that bothers me. We have spent so much time talking about the politics behind the story, and how Olsen’s communist ideals are heavily present. The idea that as individuals, we are nothing, but if all of the “little” people on the factory floor team up, then we can overthrow the villain in charge is something that the story tried to advocate. However, because there is no ending, it’s almost as if Olsen was either afraid to let her literature take a stance, or that she didn’t know her audience. On the one hand, we can all assume that the Holbrook family will not have a happy ending. Maybe Olsen thought that making their story one of “rags to riches” or just “rags to sort of nicer rags” would have lost the tension and tone of the hopeless struggle she thought the American workforce and lower class was facing. On the other hand, I bring up Olsen’s audience because I’d like to know what she wanted to accomplish in telling this story. If she wanted it to be a lesson to the lower class(es) then by not finishing the story, she implies that the struggle for a better life might in fact be hopeless. If the novel was intended for the upper class, something to be used to show just what was happening during the Depression, and the plights of capitalism, then maybe not having an ending to this story would have been a plus. Like I said, we all know that the Holbrooks probably struggled their entire lives. It’s unfortunate that the story wasn’t published until decades after it was written, because by the 70s, Olsen’s audience was much different. It saddens me that this story never saw the light of day in its intended time, but no ending regardless, I’m left wondering just why Olsen wrote this story in the first place. Are you all comfortable, now knowing who Olsen was, with the story that was told? The tension for me comes from the fact that Olsen was apparently a strong communist, but her work (at least this story) did nothing to try and fix the problems of the 30s, other than point out what was already obviously wrong (on top of the fact that it is unfinished and went decades without being published).