Here is the scene of Vivian and Ashford:
You're welcome to look at the very end of the film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_208943&feature=iv&src_vid=eucAdWW-4HM&v=64Q5SXWDx7w. Personally, I don't like the film version's end. The violence to Vivian's body by the code team seems toned down, compared to the play's description. And Vivian's ascension, for lack of a better word, is cut. But you might disagree. The play, I think, still leaves Vivian's ascension ambiguous. Is she going to rest with the angels? Does she gain God's forgiveness? Is there—and this was one of my questions when reading Vivian's lecture to her class—even a God? Much to consider as we finish this play.
We'll keep this simple tonight.
1. What is your reaction to the ending? Satisfying? Not satisfying? What are you left thinking about, pondering, after the conclusion of the play?
2. We've been batting around the question of a worthwhile life vs. a...well, whatever the opposite is. What do you think the play is saying about this? Go ahead and quote once in your answer.
As always, please feel free to respond to what your classmates write. You folks are really smart. Let each other know when a comment enlightens you or makes you think more deeply than you had been.
We'll see you all tomorrow.
1. I didn’t love the ending as much as I did the rest of the play. I knew that she would die at the end, but I somehow wanted her to come to terms with her life, to die in a if not happy at least peaceful way. Instead, she dies and then there is chaos. The ending changed my outlook on the play, changed the way I thought Edson wanted the audience to react. After Vivian dies, her story, her life, which we have spent the whole play attaching ourselves to, does not matter. Life goes on, yes, but in a brusque, rude, harsh manner with machines and people running and yelling. The ending of the play is so dramatic, and I don’t think that the rest of the play is dramatic (I know that it’s a drama but it is more subtle, a quiet sort of provocative as opposed to the in-your-face ending). The ending made me think about the play as less of a story about Vivian and more of a story about cancer, about doctors and hospitals and death. Vivian is just a fascinating vessel for that larger story. I do think that the play can be interpreted either way (since I myself have thought of it both as a story about Vivian and as a story about cancer). Jason is so vulnerable, so raw, howling “I MADE A MISTAKE!” and then collapsing on the floor (84)—he is realizing for the first time that humans refilled with mistakes and that he is human. He is, in a way, learning what we all hoped Vivian would learn before she died. Her death and his incorrect Code Blue give him the opportunity to perhaps become less of a researcher and more of a man who cares for sick people, dying people. We of course do not know what happens to Jason later in life, but the ending made me think that he becomes a kinder person and does what Vivian never did: develop genuine human connections.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the play is saying that all lives are worthwhile. It is an inherent quality of life that it is valuable (like Moey mentioned in class today), and just living, being alive, makes you worth something. Vivian may not have been a nice person. She may not have developed emotional connections to others. But she was smart and she taught her students something (even if the only thing they got from the class was that they really don't like John Donne). And, I believe, she left a significant impact on Jason and perhaps Susie. I think that Jason is going to change because of Vivian; treating her allowed him to see his reflection and, through the events surrounding her death, realize that he is human and he needs love and support and friendship just as much as everyone else does, that he can be a great researcher or doctor or whatever in addition to caring for people on a personal level. Before Vivian’s death, Jason tells Susie that “you can’t think about that meaning-of-life garbage all the time or you’d go nuts” (77). This is true to some extent because if we thought about anything all the time it would drive us nuts. But perhaps we need to ponder it at least a little, on occasion. He makes it pretty clear that he does not believe in a higher being, yet at the end of the play he has the last line: “Oh, God” (85). It seems like there is a real change in him and that is something, something that might give Vivian’s life some tangible worth.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. The conclusion is satisfying to me. We see that Susie cares about Vivian because she is upset when the doctors try to resuscitate her. It seems like Susie truly wants the best for Vivian (even though that means dying). Also, when Ashford visits her, we see that Ashford also cares about her. It seems she did have people who cared if she lived or died, even if it they weren't the people you might normally expect. So in that respect, it feels nice to think that she didn't exactly die alone. The fact that she walks toward the light at the end was an interesting choice. It implies there is something after death, and I didn't know if Edson would make that jump.
ReplyDelete2. I think the play kind of tears down the idea of worthwhile life. It shows multiple types of lives, but doesn't point to one being more worthwhile than the other. In fact, it seems to say that by focusing on details we lose the big picture. Vivian focuses on her poetry and fails to see the roles she could play outside of a researcher. By focusing on meaning too much, people can forget or lose the point of what they are doing. Jason says, " You can't think about that meaning-of-life garbage all the time or you'd go nuts." and I think there is truth in that. There is almost a paradox (I'm not sure if that's the right use of that word) that goes on in the story. Humans seem to need to keep a eagle's eye view of their life in order to "live it to the fullest", however they also need to focus intensely on certain areas to succeed. It's unclear how to create a balance.
1. I don't know what I think about the ending. Her death went unnoticed by everyone but Susie. Sure the code team and Jason knew she died but the only one who cared about her –not her contribution to cancer research– was Susie. But if that's the case, then that would suggest that her life was not meaningful enough for the people in the room to acknowledge it as A loss of a life. The ending also had a simplicity that the play has not had up until now which I think is fitting. From Vivian refusing to spend what she probably knew were her last few hours (or minutes) hearing something by Donne to Professor E.M. Ashford finding a children's book “clever”, the ending solidified the notion that when death comes nothing that comforts you is ‘not profound enough’.
ReplyDelete2. A life can't be deemed as a worthwhile one based on the impact the person has on others or how many people care about them. But when I read the ending, I thought it said the opposite. As Vivian died no one seemed to see her as a life except for Susie who was the only person she had a connection with. To Jason Vivian’s life was only worth what her cancer could provide for his research. Susie told Jason that Vivian was “DNR”(82) but Jason said what he saw Vivian as: “She's research” (82). On top of that, the code team was so removed from Vivian as a human that once they found out, they weren't needed, they got annoyed instead of taking in the fact that a life was lost.
The code team becoming irritated raises an interesting question - Vivian's death doesn't mean much to them, so who does it mean something to? We keep talking about the worth of a life, but who is it worth something to? And if, I'm guessing it's multiple people, then who gets to make the ultimate decision on whether that life was worthwhile?
Delete1. I didn’t find the ending satisfying at all, but I think that was the point. Death is inconvenient, and its timing seldom lends itself to an elaborate, pre-planned wrapping-up of the action. Like Vivian says, “It came so quickly, after taking so long. Not even time for a proper conclusion.” Yes, the ending was abrupt and rather unsatisfying, but anything else wouldn’t have been very honest. Stylistically, I enjoyed the juxtaposition between the newfound peace of the disembodied Vivian and the chaos of the code blue fiasco. The use of the movement towards the light as an analogy for death seemed a little cliched, but, since I can’t think of any better way to end the play, who am I to judge? I was definitely left thinking about the significance of The Runaway Bunny story. This may be a bit melodramatic, but my current theory is that the Runaway Bunny trying to evade his mother is analogous to Vivian (or any person) trying to evade death. Regardless of what mechanisms we devise to outwit death, it is always one step ahead of us and relentless in its pursuit. So, the Runaway Bunny eventually acknowledges that he might as well just not bother trying to escape death and just submit to the inevitable.
ReplyDelete2. I think the play doesn’t really come to a conclusion on the issue of what constitutes a worthwhile life. At first, it’s easy to find fault in Vivian’s choices, seeing as the play emphasizes her loneliness in the face of an incurable cancer. But truth isn’t that simple. I certainly don’t think Vivian’s life is worth any less than that of any other individual, whether that individual is a hermit or a socialite. I also don’t think our value can be measured in the number of connections we forge with friends, since the connections only last as long as the friends do. If I had to choose one way to measure whether or not a life were worthwhile, I suppose it would be the happiness one feels when looking back upon his or her life. And, by that measure, I think Vivian lived a very worthwhile life. My evidence for this conclusion comes from Vivian’s last words to Susie: “I’m a teacher.” Clearly, her profession is the cornerstone of her identity, and she seems perfectly content with that. Her last sober words are not words of regret or sadness, but rather of pride in her life’s work, at least the way I imagine them being delivered. And, as for the fact that she dies without any family surrounding her, we are all alone at the end anyway. You can’t take your beloved husband or dog with you when you die, so presumably the family is only at the deathbed to provide comfort. And if Vivian can achieve this same level of comfort from her pride in her profession and in herself, then more power to her.
1. I did find the ending satisfying, but not I suppose in the way I thought I would. I think it accomplishes something by showing us both the everlasting life she’s entering as well as the literal life she’s leaving behind. The one thing it’s missing, in the comma…death itself. That said, I’m glad Edson didn’t include it, because that might have just been too much for me. To actually witness death…there’s something about the idea of imitating death on stage that really doesn’t feel right to me. It’s too sacred and interpersonal to be exploited on stage. Even though we’re with her while her mind and body start to fade, death is something everyone faces alone, no matter how many friends and family you have beside you. She’s been so exposed this whole time, and at the end, she’s supposed to be physically bare, but it’s that second, that comma or semicolon, whatever it is death is to you, it’s that moment that we have no right to bear witness to. This may seem to be a sort of round a bout way to answer the initial question, but I think it explains my satisfaction in that the ending shows us all it can of what happens after death. If this play is, in some way at least, about how to face death, then it’s only right that the resolution comes in the “after”, the post death continuation of all the life surrounding it, the doctors and whatnot, as well as Vivian’s own state, be it everlasting life or something else entirely.
ReplyDelete2. I realize that I’ve been pushing the idea of her life not being worth much, or anything, a lot in class, but upon further contemplation, I’m not quite so sure anymore. The way that she dies, she seems so at peace. I can’t decide if that peace comes from her understanding of “the meaning of life” or from her acceptance of her own failure. Is it even failure if she can come to terms with it? Wouldn’t the true failure be the delusional belief that she lived a fulfilling life? If her own worth reflective of her realization that she was wrong? I know I said a lot about how life is about making connections, love, and growth, and I stand by that, but what if the meaning or purpose of life is different than the purpose of death? These aren’t questions that I have definite answers for, but I think they’re the ones this play begs us to ask and explore. When it comes down to it, I don’t think we can ever be sure about the answers until we become intimately familiar with death the way that Vivian has, and I’m glad for it.
ReplyDelete1. I was kind of shocked by the ending, especially after having watched the film clip of the scene with Vivian and Professor Ashford. It really struck me that Vivian – this character we’ve been debating and talking about since the beginning of the play – is no longer here, even though I knew what was going to happen. I was extremely touched by the last few scenes – merely imagining Vivian reaching toward the light when I was reading was powerful for me, I can only imagine seeing it on a stage. Because I was touched, I don’t find the ending particularly dissatisfying. I think it’s quite fitting to have Vivian’s life end with the chaotic attempt to resuscitate her from the code team clashing with Susie’s protests. It shows that people neglect Vivian (or that she pushes them away, in this particular scene, her wishes are ignored) but that she still makes an impact on people, such as Susie and Professor Ashford. While I found the ending satisfying enough, I think having Vivian die (or having the play conclude) with her surrounded by more agitating figures (such as Jason and the code team) would be more irritating than having her die surrounded by Professor Ashford. At the end of the play, I was thinking a lot about time and the effect we as people can have on the surrounding world.
2. I think the subject of worthwhile lives is a point of competition between the science and literature aspects of the play. This is prevalent in both Vivian’s and Jason’s thoughts about the work that they do and their contempt towards the other’s field. I think it is natural for the audience to wonder if Vivian’s life really is ‘worthwhile’. She is a teacher, which is an inspiring and meaningful profession, but many would argue that she is not a good teacher, which might make her less valuable if she is not impacting anybody in a meaningful way. In addition, the field to which she has contributed is so miniscule; many would say it does not matter. I think this brings up the question of people doing work because they like it versus because they feel they need to ‘make a contribution to this world’. I think Vivian pursues a career in what she loves (or at least what we can assume she enjoys) by studying John Donne. But many would argue she makes no contribution to the world as a whole – she does not do anything to better this world, or the people in it, especially considering her lonely and reserved character; we know she is not affecting many people because she is not close to anyone. Jason, however, is doing the ‘nobler’ profession (trying to save people’s lives through research) but doesn’t enjoy it: “I wish they could all get through it at full throttle. Then we could really have some data” (75). Furthermore, he fails to see how his job can help people – so if Jason isn’t helping (or I guess impacting is a better word) people, is his life worthwhile either? I think the play pushes the audience to question what a worthwhile life is, especially regarding professions people choose to pursue. I think Edson wants the audience to consider that having a worthwhile life is not just defined by the job someone has but rather what a person chooses to do with this job and how they choose to affect other people.
To respond to the last part of your first answer - I think you're right that the activity is irritating, and I think it says something important that the activity doesn't end with Vivian. If the play ended when she was in a calm and personal environment, I think it would disregard the importance of the other characters.
Delete1. The ending seemed as much an exercise in emotion as in wit, which is both fitting and (ironically, given our discussion of Vivian’s tendency to hide using the latter) distressing. After so long with Vivian as a teacher, even as she devolves she maintains a semblance of self. She asks for a popsicle, but defends the integrity of the decision by saying that it is one of the few things she can digest at the time - “Just so you know.” Her pride is still with her, after all this, even as she says she doesn’t want to be resuscitated. This ending, however, was not just Vivian’s death - though that is a key and indeed central part of it - but also a bit of further insight into Susie and Jason. Jason is desperate to continue his work, and orders Vivian’s resuscitation, insisting that she’s “Research!” Susie is similarly desperate, continuing her emotional quest to honor Vivian’s final wishes and to treat her as a person instead of a test subject. I can’t say it was satisfying because I tend to connote satisfaction with happiness, and this was not a happy ending. Vivian dies. Jason is mumbling to himself in distress. Susie has just spent the latest moments of her life trying to keep a team of people away from the body of her newest friend. No one is having a good time. Yet, from a story perspective, it was a good ending (good meaning well made) because Vivian gets a light at the end of the tunnel. Vivian’s end, despite the paramedic’s attempted interference, was a peaceful one, lulled to sleep by her professor, with a promise of salvation. Jason and Susie for their part have just had a deeply formative moment - distressing, complex, Jason has made a mistake and lost research while seemingly also finally understanding that Vivian had been a person. Susie continued to fight for Vivian, even though she was gone, and fought for Vivian’s right to leave when she wanted. Jason and Susie have TIME for formative moments - Vivian’s moments were the last of her life, but these two medics have enough time left for these thoughts to shape them as individuals. It is satisfying in that it both ends the story, and implies a continuation of the story. Not a happy ending, but a well done one.
ReplyDelete2. It seems to me, that after everything said in class and in the book, even after every argument that Vivian had no connections, had very little impact, didn’t make a difference when compared to the achievements of others etc. etc., any life is worth something. If it is worth something to someone, even the person who it belongs to, doesn’t that means it’s worthwhile? Is a life only worthwhile if it’s worth something to someone OTHER than that individual? Vivian’s life certainly meant a lot to her. Who is anyone else to decide she wasn’t worth anything? She was certainly worth something to Jason (though not in a mushy feelings kind of way), to Susie, and definitely to E.M. Ashford if she went to the trouble of coming to read to her. She even brought a children’s book, which she quickly compares to the idea of God saving even those who don’t want to be saved. “Look at that. A little allegory of the soul. No matter where it hides, God will find it. See, Vivian?” E.M. Ashford, perhaps THE most influential, and most important person in Vivian’s life, has come to tell her that God cares about her too. If we are looking for connections between people to evaluate a person, would God count? Isn’t the idea that God loves and has mercy for everyone? I think that the play is emphasizing the worth of even a single life, impact or no. Really, if a single life is worth nothing at all, who would ever go to the trouble of writing a play about it?
I loved the ending. In the second to last scene where Professor Ashford reads to Vivian, I couldn't help but feel a sense of resolution to the first scene in which the two discuss Donne. On her deathbed, Vivian refuses Ashford's offer of reciting Donne. Instead, she regresses to the origin of her passion of words- children's books. But when she says “no” to Ashford's offer, I also felt a sense of rejection of her own studies of Donne, essentially a rejection of her life's work. In the first scene with Vivian and Ashford, Vivian poses a question: Are simple human truths and uncompromising scholarly standards connected? The answer eludes her, so she goes back to the library to work and study, and maybe find that simple human truth. But here, on her deathbed, Vivian realizes that her work to uncover that human truth with her rigid, ruthless, and uncompromising standards has failed. There is no connection. To complete the resolution, the “Runaway Bunny,” the story Ashford reads to Vivian, responds to and contrasts Donne, thematically and stylistically. While Donne bemoans the impossibility of God ever forgiving him, running to hide behind his wit, the “Runaway Bunny” assures us, as Ashford says, “no matter where it hides, God will find it.(80)” And while Donne sets up his aforementioned complaint with layered and complex lines, the “Runaway Bunny” responds to it in simple language.
ReplyDeleteThe very end, where Vivian ascends from her bed, was reassuring. No doubt that the presence of an afterlife is left ambiguous, but as we established in class, Vivian seems scared of the unknown- yet at the end, she is described as attentive, eager, and beautiful. Vivian is no longer scared of the death she faces. The conflict of death and its impact is resolved.
Most of our discussion of whether a life is worthwhile has been based on either objective or external measures. But it seems that in the case of Vivian's life, who seems to have a relatively small effect on others outside of her field of study, shouldn't the measures be both subjective and internal? Or, shouldn't Vivian be the arbitrator? And to some extent, Vivian answers the question of whether her life was worthwhile. In the scene where she reads “Flopsy Bunnies” as a five year old, she remarks that the words in the story “seemed like magic (43).” And she goes on to imply that John Donne's use of language was even more evocative. Vivian's life dedicated to his works, and she loved it. Shouldn't her life be worth a good deal if she enjoyed it? I believe so.
1. I liked the way Edson ended the play. I found the scene when Ashford came to visit interesting, because instead of letting Ashford read her Donne, Vivian let her read The Runaway Bunny. The Runaway Bunny is a story about a very deep love between a mother and a child. Unlike Donne’s poems, The Runaway Bunny doesn’t mask what it is trying to say in layers of barely understandable phrases. In her current condition she is craving something real, just like she was wishing she could be a cheerleader on her way to spring break earlier in the play. The Vivian we saw in the classroom would not have thought highly of The Runaway Bunny. She probably would have thought it was a superficial work created to please those who were less intelligent than herself. Yet now she strongly desires even the superficial because superficial things are realer than Donne’s sonnets because there is nothing real hiding underneath his wit. In the end I also like what happened to Jason because he finally realized that he went too far by getting code team to come in. The physical reaction of Jason’s mistake was great. JASON: (howling) I MADE A MISTAKE. (Pause. The code team looks at him. He collapses on the floor.)
ReplyDelete2. I definitely think that we humans believe that every life has intrinsic value just by being a life and I think this is supported in the character of Susie. Susie cares deeply about Vivian, and it is probably not because of a deep emotional bond with her or even respect for her. Vivian is actually cruel to Susie sometimes, yet Susie still makes sure she feels like someone cares about her. Susie says, “Jason---I think you need to talk to Kelekian about lowering the dose for the next cycle. It’s too much for her like this.” [45] What other reason does Susie have to care about Vivian in this way except for her respect for life itself? I’m really unsure about any other ideas related to life’s meaning in the play. I don’t know if it’s possible to determine what Edson thinks constitutes a meaningful life, but I’m pretty sure she thinks life itself is meaningful.
I found the ending to the play, save the ascension, strangely satisfying. While it was incredibly sad to watch Vivian lose her intellect and devolve into a child-like character that she would have despised, it felt like the only logical ending to a play about a woman rethinking her life choices. While it would have made me happy to see her realize she could have lived her life differently, I think that, ultimately, this would have been unrealistic. Vivian, although she felt things akin to either regret or curiosity about her earlier life choices, never really had moments of lucid thought that I think would be necessary, especially for someone as intellectual as her, to truly change her view. Because it would have also felt unsatisfying for nothing to happen to her and feel like the whole play was an exercise in futility, I think her becoming child-like like she did is a good way to show that she’s rethinking her choices, but probably not enough. It shows that it’s not all going over her head, but altho the same time she never really got it all either.
ReplyDeleteI also loved the no code-code scene at the very end of the book. While it seems obvious that “I MADE A MISTAKE!” wasn’t Jason suddenly realizing that everything he's ever done is wrong, I think he did rethink, even if it was just for a second, how he treated Vivian and possibly other patients. While this probably won’t do much in the long run, it was really nice to see him truly use his eyes.
I didn’t like the ascension scene. I though the point of the book was that death was absolute, and we only really get one life: the semi colon scene made it feel like that was the point, and wit was a sneaky way to try and avoid seeing the truth. To throw in the ascension at the end just felt like a cheap shot designed to make the ending less sad.
2. I think the play is conflicted: while the doctors show no regard for individual lives, they are working to try and help everyone. Is Vivian’s life expendable if we want to help people? Can we force Vivian into pain that’s “too much for her” if we have a larger goal in mind? I think the answer to that is no: by forcing us to bond emotionally with Vivian and then showing the pain caused by a research oriented healthcare system, Edson tries to show us that individual life is the most important, even if there’s a larger goal. That’s why Jason screams that he “MADE A MISTAKE!” in the end. Because, in Edson’s eyes, I think it was.
1) It hurt. The ending hurt so much to read. The way Jason violated the code like that shot straight through my heart. I'm left with a few things to think about. First, what happens to Jason? Not just what the hospital decides to do with him for his mess-up, but also what he thinks of the situation. Originally he stands by his belief that she's research, but her starts to regret his decision later. I think this incident could have a large impact on mentality of just wanting to be a researching and treating his patients along the way horribly. I also wonder what happens to Vivian. The question of life everlasting is something we've pondered on for the whole movie, and Vivian for her whole life. Does she go on to some kind of Heaven or does she just lay unconscious forever.
ReplyDelete2) Whether Vivian’s life fit our definitions of a worthwhile life or not, I like the way Ashdord looked at it. “A little allegory of the soul. No matter where it hides, God will find it.” No matter what kind of life you lived, your salvation is still guaranteed. God still values you. It's also very interesting how Ashford can see this in this simple story of a bunny, while some struggle with the idea (“salvation anxiety”) when reading Donne’s work. Speaking to Jason, maybe he was right that Donne was complicated so that you couldn't understand anything, unfortunate for someone such as Vivian who chose to study her for a living.
1. The end of the play was really uncomfortable to me. I liked the fact that Vivian somewhat gained closure in a way, but it was awful the way the doctors treated her. I was so mad when Jason violated the code the way he did for the sake of research. It really said a lot about his character and was almost like an epiphany for him (at least I hope it was) when he recognized what he had done to Vivian. The treatment was painful enough and for him to try to bring her back into her world of sadness and pain was amazing in the sense that he's so intelligent yet so completely blinded by his own logic. It's like he literally couldn't see what was right in front of his face and because of that he called the wrong code and disrespected Vivian's wishes and her body. It's like he had no limit and this made reading and watching this scene really hard for me, because regardless of the worth of someone's life, they still shouldn't have been dealt with the way Jason handled Vivian.
ReplyDelete2. I don't think the play is telling the audience what it thinks necessarily, rather I think it's actually asking us what we think and what values and achievements make up a life that is valuable. I think in giving us a character that's emotionless and somewhat harsh and then killing her in a pretty cruel and sad way, we're forced to reconsider what we believe to be a valuable life. I know that when Jason says, "She's research!" I automatically take offense to the fact that he's reducing this dying woman's life to medical research and that he's not taking into consideration her last request at all. But what I realized later after reading this section was that in that moment I was thinking about how demeaning of a teacher Vivian was or how arrogant she was throughout the play or whether or not her life was worth living. I was only thinking about her well-being and how I wanted for her die the way she requested. I think this is what the play is calling attention to, this internal battle within the mind of the audience about what makes a life valuable and who determines this.
1. This is an ambiguous ending. Vivian dies childlike, but her "ascension" leaves a lot of questions. At first it seems like Vivian's salvation, but the lights go out. When she dies, Vivian is vulnerable and childlike, a long way from her at the peak of her power. But in this "ascension," we see her "attentive and eager," "naked and beautiful" (85). She seems so different from the sickly, doubtful woman we see just a few pages before. She walks towards this light but never reaches it. This ambiguity demonstrates Margaret Edson's own lack of confidence. Donne never figured out the mysteries of life and death, and neither could Vivian or Edson. This fits the play.
ReplyDelete2. E.M. Ashford visits Vivian as she dies. Ashford is another scholar, a stickler for punctuation, and uncompromising at times, but she seems to have something Vivian never got. She has a family. She was in town to visit her great grandson. Unlike Vivian, Ashford could balance her work and her home life. Ashford also shows that somebody does care for Vivian Bearing. If Vivian had told Susie to call Ashford, she would've come to visit. In this simple but delicate scene, we see that Ashford really does care for Vivian. Ashford has had the picture of a worthwhile life, but doesn't disdain or condemn Vivian for living differently. She's there for her, she cares, even though Vivian is no cupcake. Vivian may not be satisfied with her life. It may not be a life we would want to live, but that is very different from it being pointless.
Sorry this is in so late, I just got home.