Happy Endings

[stacer]

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?

[42]

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.

[Skar]

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.

[42]

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.

[House of Mustard]

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).

[42]

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.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I like satisfying endings. Usually for me this means happy endings.

[fuzzyoctopus]

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.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

/me drags a soapbox out and sets it up for Fuzzy.

[stacer]

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.)

[MsFish]

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.  

[Eagle Prince]

I like endings where the hero slaughters all opposition (be it to save the day or just spite), ie Fortress Of the Pearl.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

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...

[fuzzyoctopus]

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.

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

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.