Show Posts
1
Writing Group / A General Theory of Satisfaction
« on: October 15, 2007, 12:24:19 AM »
Kid: [upset] Grandpa! Grandpa! Wait, wait. What did Fezzik mean, "he's dead?" I mean, he didn't mean dead? Westley is only faking, right?
Grandpa: Do you want me to read this or not?
Kid: Who gets Humperdinck?
Grandpa: I don't understand.
Kid: [annoyed] Who kills Prince Humperdinck? At the end, someone's got to do it! Is it Inigo? Who?!
Grandpa: Nobody. Nobody kills him. He lives.
Kid: You mean he wins? Jesus, Grandpa! What did you read me this thing for?
-- The Princess Bride, scene 12
Recently I have been trying to figure out what makes stories satisfying (or, conversely, what makes some stories unsatisfying), and I came up with the following theory. Comments, questions, criticisms, and refutations are all welcome.
My general thesis is that satisfying stories are those that slake our thirst for justice; defining 'justice' here very simply as "people getting what they deserve". Thus, if we have a story with a hero and a villain, the story will be satisfying if, in the end, the hero receives a well-deserved victory and the villain receives a well-deserved defeat (defining 'victory' and 'defeat' broadly in terms of the fulfillment or the thwarting of one's desires, plans, and goals).
The key in that previous sentence is the 'well-deserved' part. In a satisfying story, much of the characterization and plot development will be designed to ensure that the hero 'earns' his victory and the villain 'earns' his defeat. Typically a person deserves a reward (such as a victory) because they are virtuous (or because they become virtuous). Thus, much of the story will have the purpose of demonstrating the hero's virtue (via a series of tests or challenges), or of providing the opportunity (which is then taken) to become virtuous. For instance, this may explain why the heroes of satisfying stories often have flaws and failings, yet they manage (after much struggle) to overcome those flaws and failings -- because the tenacity and courage to face and overcome such internal obstacles is a virtue that we tend to admire and think is worthy of praise and reward.
If the hero is victorious merely by luck (rather than because of his virtues), or indeed in spite of his many vices, then (I contend) the story will be unsatisfying. This may be why 'Deus Ex Machina' are generally reviled as unsatisfying means to resolving stories: the victory of the hero is unearned, received not because of his virtues but because of the unforeseen whim of the gods (or in other words, because he was lucky).
Similarly, satisfying stories will also provide ample opportunities for the villain to earn his defeat. This tends to mean demonstrating how the villain is both wicked and dangerous, since (generally speaking) you usually need to have both evil intent and the (demonstrated) capacity to carry out your evil intent in order to deserve punishment. In stories without villains per se (i.e. with antagonists who are not 'evil', but rather are simply in conflict with the protagonist), the focus will only be on allowing the protagonist to earn his victory, and won't have to bother with making sure the antagonist earns defeat.
To illustrate my theory, consider why the reaction of the 'Kid' (played by Fred Savage) in The Princess Bride seems so natural. At that point in the movie, he thinks that the villain (Prince Humperdinck) is going to get away 'scot-free' and that the hero (Westley) is not going to be victorious (because he seems to be dead). The Kid expresses great disappointment and disatisfaction with the story, and his reaction is both relatable and natural. Why? I content that this is because, by that point in the movie, it was clear that Westley deserved to be victorious and that Prince Humperdinck deserved a thorough ass-kicking (if you'll pardon the expression). Think back to the stories that you found unsatsfying -- did the characters not get what they deserved (or not deserve what they got)?
As a corollary to my theory, the more a story satiates our desire for justice the more satisfying it will be. That is to say, a really satisfying story will involve the hero deserving and receiving a really great victory, and the villain deserving and receiving a really nasty defeat. Since the sweetest victory is one that is snatched from the jaws of defeat (i.e. where one wins out even though it seems all is lost), and the bitterest defeat is one snatched from the jaws of victory, really satisfying stories will tend to have an underdog hero defeat the villain 'against all the odds' -- i.e. when for most of the story it seems certain or highly probable that the villain will win.
Anyway, what do you think? Agree? Disagree?
Grandpa: Do you want me to read this or not?
Kid: Who gets Humperdinck?
Grandpa: I don't understand.
Kid: [annoyed] Who kills Prince Humperdinck? At the end, someone's got to do it! Is it Inigo? Who?!
Grandpa: Nobody. Nobody kills him. He lives.
Kid: You mean he wins? Jesus, Grandpa! What did you read me this thing for?
-- The Princess Bride, scene 12
Recently I have been trying to figure out what makes stories satisfying (or, conversely, what makes some stories unsatisfying), and I came up with the following theory. Comments, questions, criticisms, and refutations are all welcome.
My general thesis is that satisfying stories are those that slake our thirst for justice; defining 'justice' here very simply as "people getting what they deserve". Thus, if we have a story with a hero and a villain, the story will be satisfying if, in the end, the hero receives a well-deserved victory and the villain receives a well-deserved defeat (defining 'victory' and 'defeat' broadly in terms of the fulfillment or the thwarting of one's desires, plans, and goals).
The key in that previous sentence is the 'well-deserved' part. In a satisfying story, much of the characterization and plot development will be designed to ensure that the hero 'earns' his victory and the villain 'earns' his defeat. Typically a person deserves a reward (such as a victory) because they are virtuous (or because they become virtuous). Thus, much of the story will have the purpose of demonstrating the hero's virtue (via a series of tests or challenges), or of providing the opportunity (which is then taken) to become virtuous. For instance, this may explain why the heroes of satisfying stories often have flaws and failings, yet they manage (after much struggle) to overcome those flaws and failings -- because the tenacity and courage to face and overcome such internal obstacles is a virtue that we tend to admire and think is worthy of praise and reward.
If the hero is victorious merely by luck (rather than because of his virtues), or indeed in spite of his many vices, then (I contend) the story will be unsatisfying. This may be why 'Deus Ex Machina' are generally reviled as unsatisfying means to resolving stories: the victory of the hero is unearned, received not because of his virtues but because of the unforeseen whim of the gods (or in other words, because he was lucky).
Similarly, satisfying stories will also provide ample opportunities for the villain to earn his defeat. This tends to mean demonstrating how the villain is both wicked and dangerous, since (generally speaking) you usually need to have both evil intent and the (demonstrated) capacity to carry out your evil intent in order to deserve punishment. In stories without villains per se (i.e. with antagonists who are not 'evil', but rather are simply in conflict with the protagonist), the focus will only be on allowing the protagonist to earn his victory, and won't have to bother with making sure the antagonist earns defeat.
To illustrate my theory, consider why the reaction of the 'Kid' (played by Fred Savage) in The Princess Bride seems so natural. At that point in the movie, he thinks that the villain (Prince Humperdinck) is going to get away 'scot-free' and that the hero (Westley) is not going to be victorious (because he seems to be dead). The Kid expresses great disappointment and disatisfaction with the story, and his reaction is both relatable and natural. Why? I content that this is because, by that point in the movie, it was clear that Westley deserved to be victorious and that Prince Humperdinck deserved a thorough ass-kicking (if you'll pardon the expression). Think back to the stories that you found unsatsfying -- did the characters not get what they deserved (or not deserve what they got)?
As a corollary to my theory, the more a story satiates our desire for justice the more satisfying it will be. That is to say, a really satisfying story will involve the hero deserving and receiving a really great victory, and the villain deserving and receiving a really nasty defeat. Since the sweetest victory is one that is snatched from the jaws of defeat (i.e. where one wins out even though it seems all is lost), and the bitterest defeat is one snatched from the jaws of victory, really satisfying stories will tend to have an underdog hero defeat the villain 'against all the odds' -- i.e. when for most of the story it seems certain or highly probable that the villain will win.
Anyway, what do you think? Agree? Disagree?