Printable View
I agree that it depends, but too often the happy endings are like some 'we're good-everything is wonderful' kind of thing.. I don't know how else to say it.
Piquant (or azmuse) referred to Crime and Punishment I think (if that was what C+P meant :D)), that's one of the books I love most but the ending doesn't really fit too well...
I know what I said was meant to lead somewhere, but I forgot. (I need some sleep :D)
Yes kik, that's exactly it. Thanks for the help. Doing it in fiction is one thing, but when you start switching POV in real life everything gets confusing, and its impossible to discern right from wrong, good from bad, protagonist from antagonist.
With this, we have a total dissolution of right and wrong because right and wrong are relative.
I see what Sidhu is getting at with her no unhaooy endings half of the debate, but to counter that--
A protagonist who just had a happy ending can look at the happy ending of the antagonist, and thereby have a certain sweetness stolen from their happiness.
On the other hand, an unhappy antagonist, in most cases, can not glean happiness from the protagonist's happy ending. Therefore an unhappy ending remains possible.
Perhaps, the best ending would be one in which both the protagonist and the anagonist are empathetic enough where they each experience a piece of the other's happiness/unhappiness. It would produce a balanced yin and yang, a resonating stability.
My LoTR reference is gandalf, "Many who deserve to live, die; and many who deserve to die, live. If we can not bring life to the one, then should we bring death to other?" (or something to that effect.)
I guess what I am in favor of is a complete abandoning of moral judgement, a ture empathy where every person's sin is our sin, and where every person's guilt is our guilt, and every person's joy is our joy. We are all human. We were all born. We are much too similar to have any vantage point from which to judge another.
Eeek! Did I really ramble this long? Did this start out having something to do with Happy Endings?
Happy ending stories (like those stories by the Grimm brothers) are only good as bed time stories. Which is actually bad for kids' brain in the future.
Sometimes I don't really like happy ending story, especially when I think the character who is considered as the bad guys, is somehow in the right track.
I see your point, why is it always be a game of winner and loser, good and evil..and so on!Quote:
Perhaps, the best ending would be one in which both the protagonist and the anagonist are empathetic enough where they each experience a piece of the other's happiness/unhappiness. It would produce a balanced yin and yang, a resonating stability.
Because it makes little kids fall asleep better. If the hero only showed up a second later and the Dragon ate the maiden, but the hero was ok cause that made the Dragon less hungery and not want to eat the hero, and the maiden always wanted to see the inside of a Dragon's stomach, and everyone who loved the maiden was happy because she could finally see the wonderful glorius afterlife... well thats a crappy ending!
Not crappy...,but silly.
I'm not saying that i don't like happy ending stories. But there are too many stories like that. Boring!
Sorry, another necrobump; I'm new here, so forgive me if I go back through the forum and bump ancient threads.
Anyway, on topic:
I really dislike happy endings.
I don't view it as a cop out (which it can very well seem to be) as much as it just doesn't leave any kind of lasting impression on me.
Say I read a book and in the end it basically adds up to "blahblahblah and everything worked out and they lived happily ever after. The end."
Now, am I going to remember something like that?
No, because it's not unique nor is it exciting in any way.
I'll give you an (extreme) example of the type of ending I like--
(Read: this is from a movie, not a book, but it's still the ending of a story and could very well be the ending to a book.)
Take the movie "Combat Shock".
It's about a guy just out of Vietnam (a POW) who loses his mind on account of the way his life is going.
Anyway, in the end, he's had enough and so he kills his wife, takes his deformed (from Agent Orange) baby, turns on the oven, puts the baby in it, and then blows his brains out.
It's an extremely depressing ending, but one that I will never forget as long as I live.
To me, that's what a good story should do; it should stay with me for a long time.
That's one of the (many) reasons why I disliked Dracula.
"And we had a little baby and we named it after Quincey, blah blah blah, all is right in the world."
Booooring.
There is a quote from an author I admire very much about a second rate tragedian being worth less than a third rate comedian. At first I didn't quite agree but then I realized what--I think--he meant.
I think tragedy is the first love of the, not intelligent, but intellectual type. I think there is a bias for things that are sad or depressing for many reasons, one of which--maybe the most prevelant--being that intellectual/artistic types tend toward pessimistic outlooks--sorry for the generalization but I firmly believe it--and they thus attribute tragedy to being more real and even more just to the world, giving an accurate assessment. I think also these types steer clear of comedies--specifically 'happy' ones--because it is so popular among the 'vulgar' crowds.
Now what I think the quote means, and have come to agree, is that it is false to think that sadness is 'deeper' or more 'realistic'. From creative writing courses I remember reading a hundred weak stories in which the author attempts some grandiose tragedy, but I can remember none of them clearly. However, I do recall the simple, honest stories of some that are not sappy but celebrate some of the joys, small victories of life--courage and unexpected, simple kindness.