A General Theory of Satisfaction

[Arterial Spray]

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?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I'm going to venture to disagree. I think your theory enshrines a single principle -- justice -- beyond the importance it's given. Certainly a "just" story is often satisfying, assuming that we care in the first place. If we had no feeling for the characters in the first place, we wouldn't care who got what they deserved and who didn't. Honestly, from an objective stand point, Westley didn't deserve to win -- he was a notorious and murderous pirate.

So for starters, I think the "deserving" part of your theory is off. It's not true justice, it's who we feel for. I've often found myself routing for clear villains, simply because I liked them more.

secondly, I don't think that justice is the only principle which can satisfy. Certainly mercy is just as well. The Power and the Glory is immensely satisfying to me -- the protagonist is the best person around, but even he will confess that he is hardly deserving of hero status: he's a Catholic priest who drinks far too much and has fathered at least one child since taking his vows. Yet, when he shows mercy, returning to give last rites to a murderer, insuring in the process that he'll be caught and there will be no one left to minister to the believers in his area, we are incredibly pleased with his character and how he's grown. I guess you could call it justice that he's caught and executed, but that is hardly what satisfies.

And certainly love is another. There's an entire genre of books that don't concern themselves with deserving other than in an oblique sense. Just fantasy fulfillment. (OK, not all romance novels fit that description, but many of them do -- they rely on reader identification with a character rather than what the character has "earned.")

I guess I would summarize by saying that your theory describes ONE WAY in which a story can satisfy, but it does not comprehensively describe all satisfying stories. Nor do I think that The Princess Bride is necessarily a good example of justice winning out unless you do some serious adjustment to what defines "deserving."

[Arterial Spray]

I'm going to venture to disagree.

Please do...

I think your theory enshrines a single principle -- justice -- beyond the importance it's given.

Probably, but if my theory is mistaken then hopefully it will be mistaken  in an useful way -- that is to say, in such a way that revealing why it is mistaken will lead to a deeper understanding.

Certainly a "just" story is often satisfying, assuming that we care in the first place. If we had no feeling for the characters in the first place, we wouldn't care who got what they deserved and who didn't. Honestly, from an objective stand point, Westley didn't deserve to win -- he was a notorious and murderous pirate.

So for starters, I think the "deserving" part of your theory is off. It's not true justice, it's who we feel for. I've often found myself routing for clear villains, simply because I liked them more.

Actually we don't know if we was in fact murderous  or if it wasn't all just clever marketing (so to speak).  Indeed, the only person who he actually kills on screen is Vizini, and he only does that because Vizini has a knife to Buttercup's throat.  Compare this to Prince Humperdinck (who brutally tortured Westley to 'death' only hours before) -- rather than kill him Westley tricks him into being tied up.

But your larger point is well taken.  You may be right in saying that the justice at issue is not "true justice" (i.e. 'objective' justice, if such a thing exists).  However the kind of justice at issue may indeed be subjective justice, wherein we feel that certain characters deserve to win precisely because we like them.  Of course, the connection between our liking a character and our feeling that they deserve victory may be spurious: which is to say, the fact that we like a particular character and the fact that we feel they deserve to win may both be the result of a third fact -- i.e. that they have certain traits we admire (which are more commonly known as virtues).  If you think back to villains that you have liked more than the respective heroes of the story, ask yourself why you liked the villain more than the hero.  Many villains have numerous virtues (they wouldn't be a credible threat otherwise), such as being proactive, goal-oriented, clever, and so on.  They may in fact deserve to win because of those virtues, especially if the hero lacks virtues; for instance, if the 'hero' is an annoying, whiny, self-righteous, hypocritical twit.

secondly, I don't think that justice is the only principle which can satisfy. Certainly mercy is just as well. The Power and the Glory is immensely satisfying to me -- the protagonist is the best person around, but even he will confess that he is hardly deserving of hero status: he's a Catholic priest who drinks far too much and has fathered at least one child since taking his vows. Yet, when he shows mercy, returning to give last rites to a murderer, insuring in the process that he'll be caught and there will be no one left to minister to the believers in his area, we are incredibly pleased with his character and how he's grown. I guess you could call it justice that he's caught and executed, but that is hardly what satisfies.

I haven't read The Power and the Glory, so I cannot comment.

And certainly love is another. There's an entire genre of books that don't concern themselves with deserving other than in an oblique sense. Just fantasy fulfillment. (OK, not all romance novels fit that description, but many of them do -- they rely on reader identification with a character rather than what the character has "earned.")

Well there are genres that my theory does not necessarily apply to, such as comedy and erotica.  However I do think it applies to Romance fiction (insofar as Romance fiction is more than simply erotica).  For example, look at Pride and Prejudice.  The novel is primarily taken up with demonstrating how Elizabeth and Darcy deserve one another, in that they both muster the strength and integrity of character (i.e. are virtuous) to overcome their personal failings (his pride and her prejudice).  Indeed, in the end all the marriages that occur in the book are just, in that each couple deserves each other: Elizabeth and Darcy deserve each other, Wickham and Lydia deserve each other (in a bad way), Jane and Bingley deserve each other (in a good way), even Charlotte Lucas and Mr Collins deserve each other.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I'm not sure that I would consider P&P romance genre fiction. To my shame or credit, I've read a few. And I don't think that "deserving" comes into it.

I do think, however, by adding the word "subjective" you have added a good deal of credence to your theory, but that you should further develop that, and divorce it from the loaded word "justice" and focus on describing it as "deserving"

[Arterial Spray]

I'm not sure that I would consider P&P romance genre fiction.

R...really?  I was under the impression that P&P was practically the paradigm for romance fiction (again, insofar as romance fiction that is more than erotica) -- though perhaps it is more of a 'romantic comedy' than a straight up romance.  Could you give some examples of books that you think are romance novels?

To my shame or credit, I've read a few. And I don't think that "deserving" comes into it.

OK, but ask yourself: did you want the love-interest characters to end up together?  If so, why?  What about them and their actions throughout the course of the novel made you think they deser...were right for each other?

I do think, however, by adding the word "subjective" you have added a good deal of credence to your theory, but that you should further develop that, and divorce it from the loaded word "justice" and focus on describing it as "deserving"

You may be right, though I think the word "justice" has fewer connotations of objectivity for me than it apparently does for you.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

P&P is more social fiction. It uses romance/love story as a vehicle, rather than the end.
The romance genre is romance for the sake of romance. You want the protagonist to get her man because you're reading it for a love story. I'm trying to remember the title of this book, the protag does things to deter a relationship, because she doesn't want one. Speaking in terms of "deserving," well, she deserves not to have one. She doesn't want one, and she's doing the things to ensure that. Yet what the reader of romance fiction is thinking is "Oh, she'll come around."

[pengwenn]

Well, if you've read The Princess Bride you will know that the parts with the Grandfather and boy are written into the story.  In fact they are part of the story.  You could even argue that their story is the main story of the book.

Anyway, have you read Of Mice and Men?  I love that book but I wouldn't say that "justice" was served.  Lennie didn't get his rabbits and George didn't get his farm.  You could even look at it that the "bad" guys won because of what George had to do in order to survive.  (I'm not giving details because I don't want to ruin it for anyone.)

For me a "satisfying" story is all about the expectations.  How the story starts gives you expectations on how it "should" end.  If the writer doesn't meet those expectations than the story is going to feel "unsatisfying."  If the writer meets those expectations (and even surpasses them) then the story will be very "satisfying" to you as a reader regardless if justice was served.

$.02 given

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

in all fairness, while I will concur that Of Mice and Men is a fantastic book, I believe that most would argue it's not "satisfying."

[pengwenn]

I can understand why you would think that but in my opinion/experience I think it is.  Hear me out.

It would have been lovely if everyone lived happily ever after but that didn't happen.  Steinbeck had to write an ending that would stay true to the characters in the story.  If he had ended it with Lennie getting his rabbits and/or George getting his farm it would feel like a cop out in that Steinbeck didn't go for the truth.  By not going for the happy ending (with justice served) Steinbeck is able to reaffirm an aspect of life that, while not a fuzzy feeling sort of satisfaction, is satisfying to our understanding of mankind and how society works.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

i guess I can see that point of view. I just remember a quote from my Grail Literature professor: "Sentimentality is the enemy of art." I find that what makes books like OMaM so pleasing is that they avoid satisfying you.

[42]

I can't believe I haven't responded to this thread yet.

So here's something for Arty to consider:

Many psychologists/sociologists/anthropologists/philosophers contend that "justice" and the desire to see justice fulfilled is a very masculine trait. A more feminine trait is "caring". So when the dragon is slain and the princess rescued, men are satisfied that justice is fulfilled by the wrong-doing (the dragon) being punished, whereas women are satisfied that the princess was cared for by the daring knight who rescued her.

Obviously it's a lot more complicated than that (most of these people use very specific definitions of justice and caring since the two words are very similar), but the theory does seem to hold up across many cultures.

One theory I heard about a year ago seems to work for me regarding story satisfaction. This theory proposes that satisfying stories involve the world entering into a state of entropy and then restoring itself into order. The theory is based on the assumption that all people are inherently afraid of entropy. So satisfying stories alleviate the feeling that the world is falling apart.

So going back the knight rescuing the princess example, entropy is caused by both the existence of a dragon and the life of the princess being endangered/disrupted. Entropy is removed when the knight slays the dragon and rescues the princess. Course, if you've read too many knights rescuing princess stories, you already knew the knight would slay the dragon and save the princess so your sense of entropy does not develop as much unless you're hearing the story being told by a really good storyteller.

[Sigyn]

I read a lot of mystery novels where "justice" is definitely a big concept.  I've discovered that the mystery writers I like are those who have a similar sense of justice as I do.  I tried P.D. James, for example, and didn't like her sense of justice at all.  On the other hand, I love Ellis Peters who I always seem to be in line with.  However, I would guess that P.D. James is a much better seller than Ellis Peters (even when Peters was still alive), so most people must disagree with me.  It's so hard when it's a question of individual tastes.  I don't like depressing books as a rule because that isn't what I read for.  If I want something "real" I'll watch the news.  When I suffer with a character, I want them to have a happy ending because otherwise I'm still just suffering with them.