Happy Endings

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

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

[MsFish]

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.  

[stacer]

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.

[Brenna]

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.

[fuzzyoctopus]

*points up to Brenna's post*

'Zactly.  I'm with her.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

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.

[Fellfrosch]

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.

[MsFish]

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.  

[Brenna]

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.

[Mistress of Darkness]

Literary theory would probably be fun to debate, if I understood what the heck it was talking about.  

Xac'ly.

[Master Gopher]

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.

[MasterShake]

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

[Oldie Black Witch]

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.

[Mistress of Darkness]

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.

[Skar]

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...