Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: stacer on January 12, 2005, 10:43:15 PM
-
I've finally had the time to go through old listserv emails today, and the subject of happy endings came up. This is the message that started the conversation:
I had a conversation the other day about the characteristics that distinguish 'popular' and canonical novels. As far as the last hundred years is concerned, one feature that emerged is the presence or otherwise of a happy ending. Clearly neither Jane Austen nor Dickens had any problem with this concept, but somehow (and I'm not sure how or why) it seems that an orthodoxy had emerged over the last century or so that happy endings are shallow and escapist, and that the canonical novel should end in a deeply ambivalent or unequivocally bleak way.
First question: is this true? And, if so, why?
And now the children's lit bit. It also seems to be an orthodoxy that children's books (with the significant exception of YA ones) ought to end happily.
Again I ask, is this true? And, if so, why?
And, if it's true, has this feature of children's literature been a factor in its being ranked below the serious/important adult literature of the last century?
So, I throw it out there for discussion. What do you guys think?
-
See, I think that saying happy endings are shallow is kind of near-sighted in its own right.
The truth is, happy endings do happen in real life. Things do end, sometimes that ending is happy and other times it is not.
It think the issues more directly involves the concept of endings in literature.
Often we do not notice when something has ended in a our lives. However, it is the job of a writer to consruct a story that has somekind of ending (unless you are Robert Jordan). It think how the writer depicts this ending reveals a lot of about how they view life. If they leave it ambivalent, I think it shows a kind ignorance or confusion about what goes on around them or in the world they have created. If it ends happily or sadly, I think it shows a positive or negative attitude towards the events in their own lives.
Course, this is quite a lot of psuedo-psychology. However, based on that thinking, children's books should end happily to promote positive emotional development in children.
Mind you, there is more that influences the emotional well being of children than just stories and books. Yet stories and books are not entirely uninfluencial on the minds of young readers.
-
I think that happy endings ended up with a bad name because authors felt they had to strive for them no matter what and would do silly plot things like Deus Ex Machinas and the like in order to achieve them. We've now gone to the other extreme.
There are just some stories that do not end well. They are valuable too and should not be cheapened by tweaking them into a happy ending.
I am of the opinion that childrens books should follow the same rule. Stories with sad endings, even abrupt ones, (The dragon ate the little boy with the light blue hat with one snap of his massive jaws and muttered under his breath after he had swallowed, "Impertinent little imp.") teach things to children that are just as valuable as those that end happily. They're just different things. Like how to deal with loss and disappointment. Deal with it in a book that has sucked you in and you're better able to deal with it in real life.
Of course there's a fine line. No one wants to read sad grim things all the time or even a single story that has no lightness at all. But it's a line that, I think, must be crossed in both directions multiple times to make a good story.
-
I am of the opinion that childrens books should follow the same rule. Stories with sad endings, even abrupt ones, (The dragon ate the little boy with the light blue hat with one snap of his massive jaws and muttered under his breath after he had swallowed, "Impertinent little imp.") teach things to children that are just as valuable as those that end happily. They're just different things. Like how to deal with loss and disappointment. Deal with it in a book that has sucked you in and you're better able to deal with it in real life.
See I don't entirely agree with that. Yes there are bad things that happen in real life. The point of a story is to show that bad things happen but also how to deal with those bad things. Ending on a sad/depressing note isn't really teaching children how to deal with bad things that happen in real life. It's just saying that things are bad and that's it.
-
I read a book yestersday that made me think about this -- it's an example of why happy endings have a bad name. The book was very interesting, and dealt with a lot of hefty issues: premature death, suicide, morality. But at the end, every single character, with the exception of the Bad Guy, had a very happy resolution wherein they found love, found spiritual enlightenment, and found monetary increase. Even characters who had only been mentioned in passing had big happy resolutions. It was pretty funny (unintentionally).
-
I think that there are a lot of happy endings that are done poorly. But I think a poorly done happy ending is usually better than a unhappy ending that doesn't bother to resolve anything.
-
I like satisfying endings. Usually for me this means happy endings.
-
I agree with Ookla.
I have more to say, but I can't do it without getting on my soapbox, and stacer, to be completely honest, a lot of it involves why I don't like 24. Amusingly.
-
/me drags a soapbox out and sets it up for Fuzzy.
-
Heh. Just because I like 24, doesn't mean I don't prefer happy endings. Or at least, hopeful endings. I don't like having to go through hoops to tie it up with a bow, but I do like believable, hopeful endings, leading me to believe that things will be all right eventually, even if they aren't right now.
But I just plain prefer happy endings, overall. (And that's one thing about 24 that drives me crazy, fuzzy. But I still get totally addicted to it when I watch it. *shrug* Either way, I rarely ever watch it.)
-
Has anybody read The Witch Must Die? It's a book about fairy tales by Sheldon Cashdan, and it's amazing.
He talks about the psychological purpose of fairytales, that they are stories that don't teach direct lessons, but instead provide a stage where children can play out their inner psychodrama of the conflicts they experience in their lives.
He says the reason "the Witch must die" (the bad guys must be punished and the good guys must succeed) is that the bad guys represent the negative psychological traits in the child (vanity in Snow White, envy in Cinderella, etc.) If the bad guy wins, the psychodrama fails, and the child doesn't have the opportunity to overcome their vice.
Cashdan says it alot better than I can, but I think he has a good point. I think that stories have a huge psychological purpose, and when stories end badly, there's no inner triumph.
That said, I don't think stories should all have rosy endings, because life doesn't always turn out okay in the end, neither does it turn out all bad. I like endings that are realistic but hopeful, like Stacer said. Sort of a mix of both, I guess.
-
I like endings where the hero slaughters all opposition (be it to save the day or just spite), ie Fortress Of the Pearl.
-
Has anybody read The Witch Must Die? It's a book about fairy tales by Sheldon Cashdan, and it's amazing.
I'll have to now...
-
But I just plain prefer happy endings, overall. (And that's one thing about 24 that drives me crazy, fuzzy. But I still get totally addicted to it when I watch it. *shrug* Either way, I rarely ever watch it.)
See that's the thing. And I know the problem is how I *react* to my dislike of the plot - I watched the first two seasons all the way through. The first season I was fairly ok until the end. (and would you believe my husband and I have had more fights over the end of the first season of 24 than any other thing?) The second season (as my husband can attest) was even more problematic, because I was FURIOUS. I started yelling at the TV and getting extremely violent. If I could have reached into the show, I would literally have killed several of the people in it. It took me hours to calm down and stop being angry after we would watch an episode.
And it's just really ridiculous to voluntarily watch something that only makes me upset and angry. So I gave it all up.
I'm going to try and be vauge because of spoilery things.
I HATE the end of the first season of 24, more than I hate just about anything I can think of. Why? It was pointless. I tried to make the contrast to the movie "Life is Beautiful" (the ending of which my husband hated). There was *reason* in that tragedy - there was no reason for the end of 24 other than.... none. No reason at all. If Jack's wife had been forced to sacrifice herself to save him and Kim? Ok, see that would have been a good reason. It still would not have been a happy ending, but it would have been a correct ending.
And if they hadnt' chosen to actually physically *end* the show right when they did it might have been different. Because inevitably someone is going to bring up the "well it's trying to be like real life" point - which I find to be crap. Ok, things like that don't normally happen in real life - but when they do, they don't end there. If Jack Bauer were a real person and that happened to him, it wouldn't END there for him - there was no closure, which I find to be horrifically bad writing.
Closure would have been blowing out the brains of that stupid double-crossing whore. Which apparently took 4-5 years in the show, (my husband told me he finally got around to it in season 3).
See? I can't even *write* about this subject without getting all worked up about it - like I said. It just violates everything I believe about the way things work and the way things should work. My worldview simply cannot accept the way that 24 has the world working. Of course why my reaction to this is anger is probably a matter for a therapist, but there you go.
I feel was poor writing, throwing a tragic and horrible death in as an afterthought and giving no closure. Like they just did it for the shock value.
That's why I think UN-happy endings have a bad rap.
-
actually, fuzzy, I have to disagree. It's not as phenomenally bad writing as you say. I seem to remember you having the same response to Canticle for Liebowitz, which certainly wasn't bad writing.
First of all, the bad writing in that season was the whole amnesia thing.
But here's how the ending of season one works. First, it's NOT the end of the story. The characters keep coming back. What you're asking is for everything to be wrapped up so we need to introduce all new characters and/or all new conflicts each season. THAT is unrealistic. People seek closure, but Jack doesn't GET closure. We don't always get closure that quickly. And blowing out her brains isn't the best way to get closure. I mean really, that's just plain vindictiveness. the conflicts and problems keep coming back, just like they would in a real person. They influence their behavior forever.
The immediate issue it brings up is how much control Jack has. He has spent the last 24 hours killing, running, hunting, basically running on adreniline, worrying for his family who've been kidnapped and lost and held hostage and had their lives threatened. He's pissed and no one would think less of him for acting on emotions. So when Nina kills his wife, only a person of amazing character would not shoot her in the face with his full clip right then and there.
And Jack doesn't do it. He has to be talked down, but he doesn't do it. Because despite his willingness to kill people and mutilate them and break laws to reach the goal of national safety, he's a good guy. And he doesn't do that stuff when it won't accomplish anything. And killing Nina wouldn't make him feel any better.
I think it's an excellent example of how sad elements mixed with success can make for a good ending.
-
Has anybody read The Witch Must Die? It's a book about fairy tales by Sheldon Cashdan, and it's amazing.
I haven't, but I've heard it talked about quite a bit in children's lit circles. He's actually not the first to talk about it, though. Bruno Bettleheim is the one that first talked about it, if I remember right. But either way, I agree. I think it's Cashdan that tells the story about how an altered version of Little Red Riding Hood, in which the wolf didn't die, gave his daughter nightmares--but then when he told her a version in which the wolf died, she was fine. She needed to feel like the wolf couldn't come back.
-
I haven't, but I've heard it talked about quite a bit in children's lit circles. He's actually not the first to talk about it, though. Bruno Bettleheim is the one that first talked about it, if I remember right.
The last I heard, in my myth class at BYU (I think you were in that with me SE) Bruno Bettleheim had been discredited for having made up most of his research out of whole cloth.
She needed to feel like the wolf couldn't come back.
See, I have a problem with that. The wolf can always come back. Learning to deal with that fact is a big part of growing up and we're lacking it in our society. Think about how many people you know who have already gone back to their smug belief that a terrorist act like 9-11 can't happen on American soil. It's what they believed before 9-11, they were shocked and horrified by 9-11 but now they've gone back into their imaginary womb.
They don't wish to believe that the wolf can come back so they don't.
-
Yes, but it's a developmental process. The girl that needed to feel that the wolf wouldn't come back was 5 or something like that. The older you get, the more realistic endings tend to get, I think.
But that's also why I vote for hopeful endings, rather than always-happy. Sometimes it's not going to be a happy ending, but I still want that hope.
-
Yeah, I was in the class. To digress (as I always do), and because I remember the stupidest things, I remember a conversation wherein I mentioned that I thought Star Wars was the best movie ever, and you construed me to mean Ep. I (it being very recent). To clarify, I meant the original Star Wars (Ep IV).
See, I have a problem with that. The wolf can always come back. Learning to deal with that fact is a big part of growing up and we're lacking it in our society. Think about how many people you know who have already gone back to their smug belief that a terrorist act like 9-11 can't happen on American soil. It's what they believed before 9-11, they were shocked and horrified by 9-11 but now they've gone back into their imaginary womb.
They don't wish to believe that the wolf can come back so they don't.
well, I think it's understandable behavior. It's a radical worldview change people are asked to make, and most of them have not seen first hand the results of that act. It's very hard to internalize and even harder to change your world to something where you can't be safe. It's much easier to deny reality and go about your business. I suffer deeper depression cycles, for example, if I think too much about all the things that need to be done for the homeless and the hungry and so forth. Perhaps that's a personal failing. But it exhausts me emotionally to think about what I can't fix. So I do what I can: give to charity, esp through church, volunteer when I can (again mostly through church) and let people know my stance on things, offering to help when I can. People are like that, and while I admit it may be a failing, it's not one I can fault anyone for.
-
I'm sorry, SE, but you're wrong. Like I said, I fully admit that it has a lot to do with my own personal worldviews, and I fully expect to never be able to convince you that I'm right.
He is the ultimate suffering hero and what is he rewarded with for all he goes through? Misery. Death. A heroin addiction. I'm sorry, it just doesn't WORK that way. That's not how heroes are supposed to be used.
Jeff set up the soapbox for me, and I can't tell you how sick I am of people telling me I'm wrong for not wanting to watch 24. I dislike it. It makes me angry and violent. Therefore, in my mind, there is definitely something wrong with the show - no other show, movie, book, ever made me angry and hateful as 24 does.
-
I'm not telling you you're wrong, I'm just telling you that your interpretation is very limited, and that using "unrealistic" as a complaint is invalid. It's not about rewards and punishments. That's not thematic to the story they're telling. So I'm not bothered at all that he's not rewarded. He deals with the real life psychology of loss and the problems of the world he deals with.
Feel free to hate it -- lots of people hate things I watch, it doesn't bug me. But don't think I'm not going to disagree when I disagree with teh basis of your opinion.
-
SE, I agree.
What you do to avoid depression cycles is not denying that the wolf can come back. It sounds like you, instead, acknowledge the limitations of what you can do personally. Denying that the wolf can come back would be you refusing to give to charity because there weren't really any homeless.
Maybe more people would be willing/able to look at the world's problems realistically, like you do, if they had been exposed to more of that reality when they were children. Raising them on stories that never force them to deal with the fact that things don't always end well for everyone has got to be bad.
Like Stacer said, there's a developmental path there, 5 year olds don't need to be subjected to misery, but misery is a fact of life and there aren't very many youth books out there (I'm talking through my hat here as it's been a long time since I did any looking in that genre) that give it realistic screen time.
And another thing (here I go again) I think the trend for sappy sweet stories may have been heavily influenced by teachers who either didn't want to take the time or who just plain had too many students to have the time to explain the bad things to the kids.
-
To digress (as I always do), and because I remember the stupidest things, I remember a conversation wherein I mentioned that I thought Star Wars was the best movie ever, and you construed me to mean Ep. I (it being very recent). To clarify, I meant the original Star Wars (Ep IV).
Whew. I'm glad I was wrongly construing. I feel better about you man. :'(
-
I think Ms. Fish summed up exactly how I feel about endings. (And I am definately going to read that book). If I'm going to go to the trouble to read a book or watch a movie, I'd like to feel uplifted in some way when I reach the end. It doesn't have to be all happiness for everybody either. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Dead Poet's Society come to mind. They are a little heavy to want to watch over and over, but I still enjoy them.
-
But Skar, that's the thing that BUGS me about realistic YA literature. I'm going to be taking a YA realistic fiction class this semester, and all the touchstone books I have to read for my preclass readings are so DEPRESSING. Take what another woman on that listserv said her son said after Columbine:
On the whole issue of happy endings, my son was about 15 at the time of the Colombine shootings. One day he told me in utter frustration, "The media keeps saying that video games make some teenagers violent. Mom, it's not the video games, it's the fiction we read in school! In video games, we're the GOOD guys. But what they make us read in school is all so bleak and depressing. The schools are drumming into us, year after year, that life has no hope." He added that the last time the school required him to read a "happy" book was in 5th grade, when he read "The Sign of the Beaver." That had been 5 years earlier; no joyous school reading since then. He went on to rattle off the usual required curriculum fare for 8th through 10th grade. I don't remember all the titles, but they were ones I read in those grades, too, way back in the dark ages--they included Lord of the Flies, The Pearl and as optional reading, The Grapes of Wrath. And more along those lines.
Ross went on to comment that most of his tenth grade friends took anti-depression medicines, and that for out-of-school reading, virtually all the depressed kids read fantasy only, because "they're desperate for hope."
Ross' comments made me decide to end my own books on hopeful notes. I distinguish hope from happiness--somewhat. But there's certainly a big overlap. Happy endings can ring false, but as a writer, I feel I owe our kids hope.
I don't know that I'd blame teenage depression on the literature, but man, I hated those books when I was a teenager, and I hate them now. It doesn't help that most of those problem novels use such a preponderance of the Lord's name in vain. Drives me crazy, and it's so hard to skip.
-
I remember an editorial Doug Stay wrote for TLE, in which he said that one of the greatest benefits of storytelling was the ability to put your reader through bad things. Sympathetic characters who die, for example, are often very hard to read about but quite often become your favorite part of the story when you have time to look back and reflect. The death of Boromir, for example, is possibly my favorite part of the entire LotR trilogy despite being a very sad ending to that storyline.
-
Yes, but it wasn't hopeless or senseless. There was a reason for his death. And the whole story didn't end with the death of Boromir--there was still hope that the overall journey would succeed.
-
I don't want to come across as saying that sad/depressing endings are the only way to go either. I think we should all strive for a "middle way" in our storytelling.
All bad is as bad as all good. If you take my meaning.
Also, the books you listed I remember as being realistic but with hope in them. If the kids didn't get that then I suspect it's because their teachers and parents didn't take the time to help them grasp the material. Heck, their teachers probably didn't grasp the material. They were probably following some set curriculum that they had never thought to alter much less understand themselves.
-
I think there was hope in Boromir's story. He didn't just die after trying to harm Frodo and steal the ring. He died trying to protect Frodo's friends, trying to redeem the bad act that he had done. And the scene with Aragorn just before he dies ends the story on a hopeful note. That is also the moment that Aragorn seems to start to accept/consider his birthright.
I think one of the great things about using literature to take someone through a tragic circumstance is to take them through the steps of recovery that follow. I still remember Dave Wolverton remarking that readers were generally more sympathetic because of the unique way that a reader experiences the failures and successes of the view-point characters. I think there is so much we can learn just by reading "useless" fiction.
-
Endings should not be chosen on the basis of whether they are happy or sad, but whether they are satisfying (in terms of appropriateness to the events and setting and personalities of the characters) and what will develop the theme.
one of my favorite teachers told me that "Sentimentality is the enemy of all art." What I think he meant was creating events based on what people want to see. To be memorable, there has to be meaning in what happens. That's what Stacer and MoD are saying here, I think.
-
He is the ultimate suffering hero and what is he rewarded with for all he goes through? Misery. Death. A heroin addiction. I'm sorry, it just doesn't WORK that way. That's not how heroes are supposed to be used.
I have to say I agree with her to an extent...
Jacks, tortureous life on 24 is just too much, and too forced. I dont like him, he's not even an anti hero and I fail to see why anyone lets him do his job. He breaks laws, acts recklessly and makes stupid choices. In real life, he would have either been promoted, transferred or fired.
Granted I've only seen about half of each season, but Jack has no growth, or almost no growth in the series from season to season. I just wish they'd try something different in the format..
you know
Jack is discredited and despised
Jack plays his own game and saves the world
Jack is a hero
Jack backslides and erodes all confidence in his abilities
jack is discredited and despised
after 4 seasons its a little tired
-
Yeah, Bettleheim did it first, in his article "Uses of Enchantment." But my understanding is that Bettleheim defined the principles, but Cashdan did more work applying them in his book. I think he wrote more about it than Bettleheim, but I could be wrong about that.
I've used Cashdan in several of my lit classes, because he's a theorist I can handle. Maybe because his theories are actually about psychology, but apply well to literature, rather than being strictly literary theory. Most literary theory seems like alot of mumbo jumbo to me.
-
I agree. My undergrad is in marriage, family, and human development, so a lot of times I'm looking through that lens when I look at literature. Which means I want studies, and proof, even if it is qualitative. But it's fun to talk about and hash out the theories that really can't be proved, too. Like our love for happy endings in this country.
-
The thing is, a happy ending can be many different things. It can be "they lived happily ever after," which is one of the simplest "happy" endings, but a happy ending is also when the hero triumphs in the end, even if horrid and tragic things happen all along the way.
For example, I've been reading a lot of David Weber books lately (I'm *extremely* impressed with his books--excellent writing, wonderful characters, engaging plots, funny narrative and dialogue...good stuff). In one of his series, the Honor Harrington series, quite a few characters (that I really cared about) died horribly. Honor herself ends up with tons of mental and physical damage through her adventures. But she *triumphs* in the end. Lots of good things happen too, but they all come with a price. No matter how many tragic and depressing things happen to her and her family and friends, she finds the will to keep going, to keep trying, and she wins out over the evil forces plotting against her.
In many ways, it's more of a happy ending *because* of the sacrifices made to get there.
I love happy endings. I HATE HATE HATE depressing literature (I'm the one who has a passionate, burning hatred for Canticle for Lebowitz. Seriously. I hate that book more than any other book I can think of at the moment). I hate books like that because there is no triumph. They have all the terrible, tragic experiences without any of the hope, determination, love, or triumph to go with it. Their message is "Life is really, really, really terrible. Oh, and then you die." I prefer books with a message saying "Yeah, these are terrible and tragic things. But there's a reason to keep going. There's always hope. There's always the possibility of good. And it's *worth* all the pain and suffering."
With my penchant for happy endings, it might seem odd that one of my favorite books is a post-Apocalyptic book (Wolf and Iron, if anyone cares). The thing is, even though everything has fallen apart, there's still life and love beyond, through, and because of the pain and suffering.
I guess I just like to read books that share my worldview, which makes sense, I suppose.
I know that bad things happen, quite intimately, but I don't believe for one second that the bad things trump the good. In many ways the bad things enhance the good, because then the good things are all that much more precious and important.
-
*points up to Brenna's post*
'Zactly. I'm with her.
-
Guh...I could not STAND the first Honor Harrington book (on Basilisk Station). Terrible writing, characterization, dialogue...can't see what people see in it. Thus haven't read any of the rest.
-
There's a lot of really depressing works that I love, including tragedies like King Lear--they're depressing and far from hopeful, but they're cathartic. Then there's stuff that isn't even cathartic--Hunchback of Notre Dame (the book) is about the most dismal thing I've ever read, but it's just so good that I can't help but love it.
And if you really want a depressing world in which life sucks and then you die (violently) check out some film noir. An old Robert Mitchum movie has one of my favorite lines in it: "I'm afraid to die." "So am I, but if I have to I'm going to make sure I die last." I'm inexplicably thrilled by the concept a world so depressing that the best you can hope for is to die last.
-
Hey, if any of you actually do read Cashdan's book, let me know what you think of it. I've never been able to discuss it with anyone, because I'm the only person I know who's read it.
I agree. My undergrad is in marriage, family, and human development, so a lot of times I'm looking through that lens when I look at literature. Which means I want studies, and proof, even if it is qualitative.
My minor is in MFHD, and I've been amazed how easily alot of the theories fit with literature. It's kinda fun.
Literary theory would probably be fun to debate, if I understood what the heck it was talking about.
-
The Honor Harrington books get better every book. Ashes of Honor (I think it's the fifth or sixth book) is one of the best in the series, in my opinion. On Basilisk Station is definitely the weakest, though I didn't think it was that bad.
His epic fantasy series is really funny--very clever narration, in my opinion.
-
Literary theory would probably be fun to debate, if I understood what the heck it was talking about.
Xac'ly.
-
Happy, happy endings usually annoy me, depending on my mood. Usually I don't like endings in which absolutely everything sorts itself out and so on. I prefer endings that are realistic, as in they involve resolution and/or some triumph of a character, but are not unrealistic. This is probably a direct reflection of my world view (Life's a bitch and then you die, but there's enough good bits to make it worthwhile. Usually...)
An example of this is the ending of The Great Gatsby. There is a definite sort of resolution (which you feel has to happen as the book progresses) but the ending itself is quite sad. Nonetheless, I finished the book deeply satisfied because I thought it was real. I enjoy having my emotions manipulated by a novel, no matter how depressing, because it means good writing. Happy books I soon forget; lit that makesme cry tends to make a real impression.
I think that the same sort of thing applies for children's books, because I don't like the idea of kids only seeing a positive, all-turns-out-well-in-the-end view of life. In fact this can be quite closely connected with religion (life may be hard, but being good = redemption). Being an atheist this sort of simplistic rewards for good behaviour type thing irritates me, including when you find it all the time in books (the good guys always live happily ever after etc.) I'm not saying happy endngs are always bad - happy endings do happen in real life so they are perfectly realistic. What gets to me is when lit is overwhelmingly full of happy endings that either give you a false sense of security about the world (sort of like "it couldn't happen to me") or else make you angry ("Why *isn't* life like that - why *don't* the good guys get rewarded? And what have I done to deserve the bad stuff?")
More ranting on this later.
-
I'm sorry but I'm not evil, I just don't like happy endings...they are just no good anymore. I enjoy and cliff hanger or just a bad ending for example this book never has "happy endings" http://www.lemonysnicket.com/index.cfm
-
Sure it does. The orphans always escape from Count Olaf, safe and whole, with the hope of being placed with a better, kinder relative.
Oh, and next time you post a link, you may want to make sure it actually works.
-
Also, since the series is not yet over, the hope of a happy ending is never quelled. I've read 11 books so far (I believe the plan is to end on Book 13, just as every book ends on Chapter 13), and at the end of each one I hope that things will get better. In fact, you can't say that the end to Chapter 11 isn't happy. But that's all that I will say so as not to spoil anything.
-
Sure it does. The orphans always escape from Count Olaf, safe and whole, with the hope of being placed with a better, kinder relative.
Oh, and next time you post a link, you may want to make sure it actually works.
Worked for me...
-
You're right. It works now. Site musta been down when I tried it before.
-
I'm coming to this discussion late, so I have several things I want to comment on.
Cashdan says it alot better than I can, but I think he has a good point. I think that stories have a huge psychological purpose, and when stories end badly, there's no inner triumph.
The reason we read stories is to simultaneously escape from reality, and make sense of it. If the story doesn't do either of those things for you, then it's got problems. If it doesn't fit with your worldview, or at least the worldview that you want to have, then it leaves you feeling unsatisfied. If it's really good literature, that dissatisfaction might lead you to a new (hopefully better) worldview, but if it's not great literature or a better worldview, then you continue to be dissatisfied.
Endings should not be chosen on the basis of whether they are happy or sad, but whether they are satisfying (in terms of appropriateness to the events and setting and personalities of the characters) and what will develop the theme.
There are times when a happy ending is right. There are times when Deus ex machina is right. There are times when a sad (but satisfying) ending is right -- think of Shakespeare's tragedies. All through the DiCaprio version of Romeo and Juliet (which I really enjoyed) I was thinking, "Maybe they'll change the ending, maybe it will come out happy this time" but at the same time I was also thinking, "I'll hate them if they do change it."
The problems come when the happy or sad ending is the wrong choice, or so unrealistically executed that you can't even pretend to believe it.
There's also the topic of balance. Any given novel can have a sad ending as the right choice, and be excellent reading. If that's all you read, though, it gets depressing. Likewise, if you only read books with happy endings, it gets sappy. Your brain wants your books to fit in with your worldview which ought to realistically acknowledge that both happy and sad things happen.
One of my friends teaches 5th grade and has what she calls her "Dead Dog Unit" She divides up her class into groups and has one group read Where the Red Fern Grows, and another group reads Old Yeller and so forth. At the end of the unit she gives extra credit to the kids who also read No more Dead Dogs by Gordon Korman to lighten the mood.
Jeff set up the soapbox for me, and I can't tell you how sick I am of people telling me I'm wrong for not wanting to watch 24. I dislike it. It makes me angry and violent. Therefore, in my mind, there is definitely something wrong with the show - no other show, movie, book, ever made me angry and hateful as 24 does.
I haven't watched 24, but I did decide a couple of years ago not to watch TV that made me depressed. I gave up ER and CSI and Law and Order (All excellent shows at times) because all I was getting from them was sickness, and death, and violent crime, and infidelity, and so on. I think if I'd had a better ablance of shows, they wouldn't have been such a problem.
I'm sorry but I'm not evil, I just don't like happy endings...they are just no good anymore. I enjoy and cliff hanger or just a bad ending for example this book never has "happy endings" http://www.lemonysnicket.com/index.cfm
Lemony Snicket has a great balance. Not only do his books have tragedy, the kids do come out on top (sort of) through their own endeavors, and they are growing more empowered as the series progresses. The balance is so perfect though, that I really would not be willing to bet 25 cents either way on the series having a happy ending -- or even having the kids survive.
Sorry this was so long
-Karen