There is no clear historical reason to favor one of these endings over the other. the second ending seemed "psychologically wrong" but "artistically much more congruous than the original, for "the scene, the hour, the atmosphere are beautifully touching and exactly right." These two endings are not just romantic and unromantic, can always be called optimistic and realistic endings. The first ending was writen according to the typical Victorian novel in which there is always a happy-ending. In the nineteenth-century people prefered a less realistic and romantic ending rather than a sad one; maybe because they had enought problems and they and their only joy was to enjoy an amusing book. The romantic ending reinforce the idea that Victorianism had a great influence uppon the writers. The melodrama, in which in the end the victim is rescued, is used in “Great Expectations”, one of the narative strategies, typical to the Victorian Age.
Professor Laurence Tribe and Michael Dorf have written that Bulwyer-Lytton convinced Dickens to change the ending of "Great Expectations." According to them, Dickens originally planned to have Pip's love for Estrella remain unrequited. On Bulwer-Lytton’s advice, "Dickens changed the ending, uniting the hero and his love". Some critics have felt that the original ending of Great Expectations is more true to the tone of the novel, that the process of Pip’s redemption as a character is exactly the process that would make his continued love for Estella impossible. Others have felt that the original ending is too harsh, that their common past has destined Pip and Estella for one another, and that the main story of the novel is the story of their mutual development toward the conditions in which their love can be realized.
The opinions of the critics are different and I tend to believe that everyone is right. There are a few critics who have taken a third position; the novel should stop before Estella's final appearance. They note that Dickens, in his working notes on the novel, follows Pip's later career but does not refer to Estella. Miss Havisham referred to Estella's marriage many chapters earlier, so that there is no need to bring her up again; her fate is known. I prefer the version that has no happy-ending, because it is the version that Dickens write first and it represents the way he saw this ending. The fact that he changed the ending, Sems to me like a compromise, prefering to sell the book and not writting the way he felt. Then we can presume that all his happy-ending books were just written for earning money and not for transmitting a message to the reader. But on the other hand, judging from the period he wrote this novel, we can say that he was writting for his readers, persons that were buying his books, because they were happy-ending books.
The title of the novel may be interpreted in at least two ways. One of them is related to the ending of the book. Dickens may be ironical related to the first version of the ending. The reader is expecting to be a happy-ending, but is wrong, and he gets an unromantic ending. Writing to friends about the revised ending, Dickens seems positive: "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" and "Upon the whole I think it is for the better." The second ending has generally been published from Dickens's time to our own, so that it is the one which most readers know.
Its good to have a novel with two endings because you can choose the one you prefer. I think that it depends on the reader’s personality, if he/she is pesimistic or optimistic.
Biblography
Ciugureanu, Adina Victorian Selves (A Study in the Literature of th Victorian Age) pp.44-45, 47 Constanta: Ovidius University Press.
Galea, Ileana Victorianism & Literature pp. 65-67, 71, 78-79 Cluj-Napoca: Dacia, 1996.
Meckier, Jerome Charles Dickens's 'Great Expectations': a defense of the second ending.
Roland, Carter The Penguin Guide to English Literature: Britain and Ireland pp. 145-149 London: Penguin
Schad, John Dickens Refiurated. Bodies, Desires and Other Histories, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996.
http://www.bellmore-merrick.k12.ny.us/greatex.html
Jerome Meckier, “Charles Dickens 's 'Great Expectations': a defense of the second ending”.