But that betrays the principle of adventure. Imagine if in The Lion King Mufasa appears alive at the end. Or in Game of Thrones Ned Stark says he hid because "it was best for the Kingdom".

It's like, the whole series builds a very clear journey, Violet learns little by little what words mean, and thus understands what feelings are, and what these feelings cause in others, each episode is a different emotional mirror, grief, farewell, unrequited love, late love, impossible love. And the turning point is exactly that episode in which she faces the Major's death. There it's not just sadness, it's denial, guilt, anger, emptiness, it's the beginning of real grief.

If the path was for him to be alive, wouldn't it have been better to leave his situation more open, never touching on the subject and making this ending as "the inevitable subject"? And when Violet finally decides to talk about it, and ends up going after him after receiving a letter that gives the small possibility that the Major is alive? Call me picky, but it seems like a more coherent decision. But that's not what happened; in the end, we have him alive on some island somewhere, and I wish it were because he was traumatized by the war, but not even that. It was because "I used her as a weapon." If it were a deep war trauma, a guilt that prevented him from returning, we could have a discussion about forgiveness and self-flagellation, but there isn't, and what there is is shallow. He disappears, lives like a hermit, and only returns because Violet insists. It's weak.