SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
And they all lived happily?
I just prefer it’s well written, whatever the ending is :P
Yup. Journey before destination. No general preference where it ends - as long as it fits what ever story it's a part of.
In view of the present state of this sad world, satisfying endings will not be in the majority, but happy endings will be even less frequent. I would rather have a story be a realistic one, however bad it ends, than be a feel-good, unrealistic one. One example of unrealistic, feel-good ending stories are the typical books written by Tom Clancy, where American technical and military superiority always make the USA end up on top despite some poor or even dumb political decisions, with the stories often ending in victories that involve what I could call 'Deus Ex Machina' kind of victories. In reality, if you look at recent history, the USA has fared rather badly in terms of the final results of various conflicts. The Vietnam War ended in a humiliating withdrawal and defeat; the Iraq War was a military victory that was completely undone by an inept, incompetent handling of post-war Iraq; the American intervention in Lebanon in 1983 ended in disaster in Beirut, while the Afghanistan War has been a long, bloody stalemate, with the USA now forced to negotiate peace with the Talibans. Nice endings may be more agreeable for the readers, but I would rather have a book that is realistic and offers real-life solutions. I am sorry for the pessimistic viewpoint, but I am a realist and I would like to see authors come with stories that offer plausible solutions for our problems.
There's absolutely no reason a book can't have an ending that makes the reader feel comforted / happy / hopeful and also be a well-written book with an ending that fits to the end of the journey.And that's all I'm going to say now because I need you-all to see and consider that perspective, instead of going on and on about how bleak is realistic.
Cheryl wrote: "...And that's all I'm going to say now because I need you-all to see and consider that perspective, instead of going on and on about how bleak is realistic...."Oh, how I dislike the idea that bleak is 'more realistic', almost as much as I detest bleak as a supposed indicator of 'more substance'.
As with everything else...it depends and it also completely depends on your version of happy. I just scrolled through the last 20 books I read and I think only a couple would fit my definition of happy ending. This is
After contemplating a bit, what I prefer is an emotional ending that fits what the book has been pushing towards. If the story has been building for a tragic ending (view spoiler) then I prefer it hit that note. One of our other recent books, the ending could be described as happy but it was incongruous with what I thought the story was building towards and I was less pleased with it.
If the story has been building towards unicorns and rainbows at the end or at least that is what you are hoping for (view spoiler) then it is much more satisfying if it ends that way.
I think what I love about Mark Lawrence is that his endings always leave me with a sense of justice. Not everyone survives but I always feel like those who died, died for a reason. Those who live are changed but I am happy with how they did.
(view spoiler) built up to a happy ending but the way it got there was crap and it did not make me happy or satisfied.
As Inigo would say, to sum up, I prefer an emotionally satisfying ending, not necessarily happy. I don't know the difference between happy and satisfying because I can't articulate what happy ending means right now.
Hank wrote: "...completely depends on your version of happy... I prefer an emotionally satisfying ending, not necessarily happy..."This. Well put, Hank.
I don’t want a story to have a plastered on happy ending or sappy ending for the sole reason of having a sappy ending. I also don’t want things to be unreasonably dark, but a “sad” ending or a bad ending could mean a number of things. I listen to a lot of true crime. The victim’s already dead, there’ll be no “happy ending”, they may even never catch the killer. It’s the story or narrative I’m interested in. It could be about the injustice of the judicial system for POC in America, that’s definitely nok likely to have a happy ending, but it *will* be educational. So may any gut-wrenching, heart tearing fictional story. I’m rarely interested in the ending but rather the journey. I just want a story to be organic and tell its story, whether or not that leaves me in pieces or uplifts me. Both have their merit. I can’t be more specific because what those things are for each person are entirely individual and subjective but those are my main pointers on this.
I prefer an ending that makes sense in terms of the book itself. Some books but will either have a bittersweet ending (view spoiler) and some will have open endings like a lot of Andre Norton books where you can imagine for yourself what will happen to the main character in the future, but they do have a future. These are satisfying endingsThe trend in most American movies recently (last 20-30 years) is to have happy endings even when the book they're based on doesn't have one. Because of that and the recent discovery of Romance authors that paranormal romances and sci fi romances have a big market, I think more and more books are having an obligatory happy ending.
I don't need to have a sunshine-and-rainbows happy ending, but I do want a positive one, with at least some sense of a goal being achieved, either on a personal or societal level. If the world still sucks but the protagonist ends up in a better place than they started, that works for me. If everyone dies but they manage to change things for the better by doing so, that's fine, too. But if the story ends with nothing changing for the better and no sense that it ever will, well, there are enough of those stories in real life. I don't need them in my fiction.
I’d go with satisfying, I think. I don’t need all my books to have happy endings (though I prefer a happy ended book to a despairing/bleak/hopeless one) but I do need to know what happened. I despise open/ambiguous endings. I respect that other people can enjoy them but to me, having to imagine my own ending for a character(s) never feels like the right ending because I will default to the happy ending, which may not be in tone with the rest of the book. And I’m just not the sort of person who is okay with not knowing. Sort of like Alice down the rabbit hole- I just gotta know.
I recently talked to someone who honestly believed that any love story (we were talking about Jane Austen and why he refuses to read her despite of being a literature professor)... any love story that ends happily with the couple getting married is (according to him) utterly unrealistic and fake. Considering how many billions of couples across human history have met, fallen in love and gotten married, feeling very happy about it - I just cannot imagine what could possibly be more realistic. No, according to that literature prof, a story needs to end in death, ruin, destroyed lives and relationships (such as Anna Karenina) in order to be realistic and have substance. Anyway, I very much believe in the idea that almost all stories follow the basic plots stories have had since the first ones were told around a fire (hero's journey, comedy, tragedy, overcome the threat, there and back again, rags to riches, journey to a destination, coming-of-age, and combinations of these).
One aspect of the modernist movement was that people felt so shaken in their beliefs after the wars that at least in high literary art, even the basic story structure that had been followed since antiquity was questioned and rejected. That lead to many literary works which intentionally aimed to have no such structure at all, to just start somewhere and end somewhere arbitrarily, or to follow e.g. the traditional 'overcome the big threat' structure, only to subvert it at the end with a (surprising) crushing defeat - the hero dead, the threat still there and no solutions or sequel. While I do appreciate the value in such experiments and in questioning everything including even the basic building blocks of narrative arcs, I do think 1) the modernist movement is over, and 2) the result of these experiments was that human psychology responds well to properly begun and completed narrative arcs - whether tragedies or journeys or comedies which end in a coming together.
It's non-sensical to elevate these experiments to the status of 'the only acceptable literary art' (together with the tragedy, which weirdly wasn't questioned along with the other basic plot types) - a development which lead to a widening gap between the 'literary' and genre fiction 'for the masses'. Even today, authors fear that they immediately lose their litfic cred if they give their stories a proper ending that matches the basic plots of their novel, they feel obligated to end before the plot is resolved, or to write a limp squid of a non-resolution, or to just stick to the (still universally accepted) tragedy plot and forget about all the other possible plots. I'm glad that post-post-modernism is finally questioning this and rediscovering plot, narrative arcs and how to leave readers satisfied, which is also bringing genre fiction back into the accepted fold of 'art' instead of being forever condemned to the 'obviously pulp' category.
I'm also very curious why so many literary snobs sneer at any story that is according to them 'wish-fulfillment' (which to them usually includes mysteries in which the murderer is actually caught, love stories in which the couple ends up together, or fantasy novels in which the world is saved in the end). What I find funny is their lack of self-awareness and how they approach novels simply with different wishes and demand that the book fulfills those. E.g. they may have a very cynical, depressed worldview and want from their novels to agree to that and reinforce it, instead of contradicting or questioning it.
One final observation: according to studies, people who live hard lives in difficult circumstances and are struggling with the very big problems in their real lives almost always prefer funny or uplifting entertainment choices. This can be observed during The Great Depression, in developing countries, and by looking at entertainment choices during wars or personal illness. Whereas people in very comfortable, happy circumstances often want to read about war, death, ruin, tragic, hopeless fates and dark endings.
So it could also be a psychological balancing system: reminding you that there are also good times and that sometimes things work out when your life looks bleak, and reminding you that happiness is fleeting and bad times and tragedy are very possible when your life seems very comfy.
Unfortunately, this also puts literary snobbery with its disdain for happy endings in a classist, ablist and privileged light: one's own preference for bleak darkness and depressing novels is then just another distinguishing factor proving one's elevation over those masses whose harder lives make them prefer more uplifting works.
Sarah wrote: "I despise open/ambiguous endings. I respect that other people can enjoy them but to me, having to imagine my own ending for a character(s) never feels like the right ending because I will default to the happy ending, which may not be in tone with the rest of the book. And I’m just not the sort of person who is okay with not knowing. "the Andre Norton books with the open endings end usually with the protagonist(s) leaving the problems/bad places/trials behind them looking towards a future. It may be unknown to us, but there is a future instead of a dead end.
and even a happy ending could be open ended with two people walking off into the sunset together. You don't know if they got married, split up or were hit by a passing asteroid and died in the next minute
@Eva Funny, as a person who knows depression and alcoholism close to my life and is born hyper sensitive to moods, touch, sound, smell, light and change in general (uninvited guests? Immediate panic attack), and therefore does not live a “happy, comfortable, easy life” but am intimately aware of every ups and downs of my own inner emotional life, I am inherently annoyed by superficial happy, sappy stuff, because I cannot relate. I do consider myself a fun, cheeky and happy person, I can laugh at literally all bad jokes, but I am allergic to sentimentalism and what others may consider feel good films, like Christmas family movies or whatever. I’ve seen hard stuff, I need what I read or see reflect that. I don’t mean the *exact* same stuff, but some level of conflict I can relate to, or a realistic portrayal of something I know of. Or even something I don’t know of so I can learn.I’m probably an odd one out, though, as I do have several friends who are my opposite who are drawn to melodrama and romantic comedies because they have enough to deal with in their own life. They have literally told me so. So I acknowledge that is a thing XD It’s just not me and I do feel I need to make people aware of the fact that it’s not always true.
@CB- that’s of course true, but if I spent 300+ pages reading about the events of a book I want a conclusion to the events of the book. I don’t expect a whole detailed epilogue. Don’t tell me about the human-alien intergalactic war and not tell me who won. What happens after those events is a story for another day.
to me a valid ending of one of those books could be like the ending of the first Star Wars movie, where Luke, Leia and the rebels were hopeful and continuing the fight. There's wars enough on this planet that have never ended but flare up again and again and again with no one winning (Northern Ireland, North/South Korea, Pakistan/India, Syria, etc)
@Dawn: Thank you for your thoughts and sharing your own experiences. I was only referring to general cultural trends that can be measured by statistics, not individuals who can always be exceptions. I also wasn't necessarily referring to sappy and sentimental stuff as examples of happy endings - but e.g. if you're reading a mystery that starts with a murder and follows the detective - do you dislike it if the murderer is identified and caught or killed in the end? Or do you prefer it if he's never found and the novel ends with more and more people dying and still no clue or resolution? @CBRetriever: Well, the first Star Wars movie was not a stand-alone but part of a series, right? So it was okay to leave some strands open to be explored further in future movies and novels etc. Moreover, if you look at basic plots: the main threat of this story was the Death Star, which was successfully overcome at the end. The coming-of-age plot with Luke was also completed: from a dependent, immature teenager stuck in a backwater, he turned into a valued, adult hero of the war against an evil oppressor. Same with Leia's arc: in the beginning, she is captured and made helpless, in the end, she has regained her freedom and power. The war between the rebellion and the empire was already in motion at the beginning and remained in motion at the end: it was merely the background of the overall narrative arcs, not the story itself, which is why it didn't need to be completely resolved for a happy ending.
Since when does a book that takes place in the future or in a fantasy realm need to be like our current day world? I am a proud escapist. I believe with C. S. Lewis that those who oppose escapism are jailers. I want to see heroes who try to do the right thing. I want a world where it seems like the hero's goal is possible. That's my idea of a hopeful ending.
@Shomeret: Thank you - what a beautiful quote by C. S. Lewis, that's exactly what I'll tell the next person who tries to argue that escapism, imagination and characters I can admire and root for are somehow reprehensible.
@CB The way the “first” Star Wars movie ends isn’t really the kind of open endedness I’m referring to either. I don’t know that the first book in any series/trilogy would work for what I mean. If I know a story is going to continue on, I don’t need all the answers in book one, (and since the story is expected to continue, having all the answers in book one would be kind of disappointing).I think what you are getting at is that there is some degree of ambiguity to every story because anything could happen to the characters after the book closes, which is understandable.
I’m referring mostly to stand alones (I’ve never really seen a series or trilogy end inconclusively in the way I mean) when the status of the characters/state of the world at the end of the book is unknown, or questions that were posed in the beginning of the book, questions that drive the plot forward, go unanswered.
The worst offender of this I’ve seen in the past year or so is Louise Erdrich’s Future Home of a Living God. But I read Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West this year too, and I also disliked the ambiguity of that ending, but not as strongly as I disliked Erdrich’s.
My answer depends on how invested I get in the characters. If the book is more heavily story-driven and I either don’t like the characters or never form any attachment to them, I mostly just want a clever story with some twists and surprises and a believable ending, which could be either happy or sad or somewhere in-between. Either way, I want some sense that something has been accomplished by the end.
I’m with Sarah in disliking ambiguous endings. The main plot threads that were introduced need to have some sort of conclusion by the end of the book, or by the end of the series if it's part of a series. Ambiguous endings make me start ranting and raving that if I wanted to imagine my own ending, I could have imagined my own story too and skipped the book altogether.
If I get very attached to the characters, then I do want a happy or at least hopeful ending. I hate getting invested in great characters and then ending a book or series in a funk because the characters I cared about are dead or miserable. No matter how much I enjoyed it up to that point, it changes how I view the entire story. I don’t need everything tied up in a nice fluffy package with rainbows and kittens, but I want to end with the general sense that the characters I care about are still out there in the fictional universe living reasonably happy lives. Sometimes I can get attached to a secondary character as much as if not more than the main character(s), and that often gets me into trouble because authors are more likely to kill them off for emotional impact.
I do have trouble suspending my disbelief when a large variety of plot threads all tie up into a nice, neat bow with everybody getting exactly what they want and ending up destined to live happily ever after, especially if there are too many coincidental events. And I absolutely hate when an author thinks that happiness means pairing every character off, especially if a character who seems to have a happy and fulfilling single life suddenly meets their “soulmate” and realizes they were actually miserable all this time but now they’ve discovered the true meaning of happiness.
I always dig out this quote from the main character in State of Nature by Ryan Winfield in discussions like these, because it articulates so well the thoughts I’ve always had about both fictional and real-life stories. The term “happy pause” has stuck in my mind ever since I read it: “I find myself hoping for a happy ending, but really it’s only a happy pause, because if you let any story play out long enough, they all end.”
So what this whole post boils down to is this: If I care about the characters, I want the story to end at the happy pause.
David Weber tends to be quite frustrating to read, especially in his Honor Harrington Series. In these books, Weber bombards the readers with multiple disasters, defeats, mass deaths and acts of cruelty while the bad guys seemingly win most of the time. Then, near the end of his books, he will make his heroine(s) pull a rabbit out of their hats, or the bad guys will do some unbelievably stupid move and lose. Other times, we are left in utter suspense at the end. I found him very frustrating to read (apart from the endless dialogues and tons of unnecessary techno-babble) and I thus ended up quitting entirely on his books.
Mod
A good ending is definitely a plus because it allows me to give the story a positive farewell.And ending should, first and foremost, make sense. Good ending in a story that doesn't lead there is weird and vice versa.
YouKneeK wrote: “Ambiguous endings make me start ranting and raving that if I wanted to imagine my own ending, I could have imagined my own story too and skipped the book altogether."This is what I’m getting at- thanks YouKneek! If it’s open enough that I have to imagine my own ending to get to a conclusion, I don’t want to read that book. As you say- I’d rather just make up my own story at that point. I picked the book up because I wanted to be told.
Amanda wrote: "I don't need to have a sunshine-and-rainbows happy ending, but I do want a positive one, with at least some sense of a goal being achieved, either on a personal or societal level. If the world stil..."My favorite post of the thread so far. Ty, Amanda.
Shomeret wrote: "Since when does a book that takes place in the future or in a fantasy realm need to be like our current day world? I am a proud escapist. I believe with C. S. Lewis that those who oppose escapism a..."Yes.
Also, when I think about literature, I think about the stuff Eva explained so eloquently.
Also "happy pause." Terrific.
At this point in my life I prefer a happy or hopeful ending. Real life has enough tragedy, darkness, etc in it and I am reading for enjoyment most of the time.
Hank wrote: "After contemplating a bit, what I prefer is an emotional ending that fits what the book has been pushing towards."Unfortunately everybody else has said what I might have wanted to say. Hank's quote here about sums it up for me. A story can have any ending it needs to. Bring on the tragedy, stories about the futility of war or vengeance, steampunk mystery-adventures, cozy magical realism stories...
I'm in the "it really depends" camp.I mean, I love all of Philip K. Dick's SF novels. There's a universe of ambiguity in the endings of those, but to me they feel right for the stories.
As long as the ending fits the rest of the story, I'm fine with it.
I'm troubled, however, by the darkness in modern fiction (books, TV, movies). Given the troubled times we find ourselves in, I wonder why we don't go in more for escapist happy stuff. I mean look at the music and movies of the 1930s. With all of its horrible war, racism, and economic depression it produced some of the most uplifting music and cinema ever. Yeah, there was some heavy literature done in that time but there was also Agatha Christie, JRR Tolkien, and a lot of popular works of that time at least had feel good ending.
I worry that our arts and entertainment help put us deeper into dark times rather than help lift us up from it.
Frankly, I've never really been a happy person and I've never really gone for the happy escapist novels. Even the novels I read with redemption in them tend toward power fantasy type escapism. I don't know if there's an Uncanny Valley type situation there for me, but happiness obtained with other than great hardship isn't really satisfying escapism for me.Even with TV, the happy shows I watch are so ridiculous as to bypass the Uncanny Valley. In fact, I think the only happy shows I watch tend to be cartoons, or animes, or ridiculous sitcoms. Hmm, I've never thought about that before...
I am a proud escapist reader. I have a tendency to get rid of or DNF books that I think will lead to a bleak ending. I don't understand nor do I want to understand the love of GrimDark. I don't need my Science Fiction or Fantasy to be realistic. In fact, the very reason I read SFF is for the lack of realism. I have newspapers for real life.
I look at my life, at the news, at the lives of the people around me. At my country's reality...and I think "Damn. I need a good book. Something that will take my mind off this shitshow."
It's been proven that reading reduces stress and allows us to become more empathic. I honestly wonder how all this "realism" like consistent rape, murder, death, destruction and the bad guy winning the day effects the brain and emotional life.
I heard that Stephen King once said that the difference between a happy ending and a sad ending is where you decide to end the book... Overall, I'm going to agree that it's more important that the ending fit the story - but I'll also say that I gravitate towards stories with happy endings. Like others have said, there's enough darkness in my life and in the world, I want my stories to have some sense of rightness at the end.
How that's defined will depend on the book. For a romance, obviously I want the couple to get together or, if not, at least end on good terms. The good guys beat the bad guys. The heist comes off. The mystery gets solved. So on and so forth.
I would say the difference between a happy ending and satisfying ending, for me, seems to be more about whether everything is tied up neatly - or whether there were some losses along the way.
I also agree with being against the idea that bleak = realism and despair = depth. As has been said - there are relationships that end well. There are success stories. There are stories of vindication and justice.
And, yes, there are stories where the system failed, too, but I feel like those stories should still end on a note of what we can do, where we can go, what we can do to be better. Because if the story is just about failure, then what's the point? For me, it has to be about teaching us, somewhere, how to be better. Not just reveling in pain and suffering.
And, lastly, I am not a fan of the ambiguous ending. Sometimes I'm ok with it - but mostly only when I'm pretty sure about what I think the ending actually is. Like in Pan's Labyrinth, to use a movie, there was ambiguity about whether (view spoiler) But, even still, I tend to prefer solid endings over open-ended ones - unless it's a choose your own adventure book. ;)
Mod
I'd say "happy" endings though are preferable for me, which is not to say that every reward and joy has been handed out to the protagonist. I would say for me a happy ending is one that answers the question "what is the pay off for all of the things that just happened?"
If the pay off is "nada, sometimes life isn't fair" then I likely will be more disgruntled than if the ending is relative. For example, the end of Return of the King they've stopped Sauron, destroyed the ring and rescued Gondor...but our heroes have a hard time going home, the stewards of Gondor are mostly dead, Rohan is still a mess, the Ents are still wifeless and the elves all leave. That's not *happy* stuff, but I'd still call it a happy ending because we've come through it all, we know what we were fighting for, the characters feel like they've accomplished something noble, and we leave them in places where we know they can prosper.
Allison wrote: "I'd say "happy" endings though are preferable for me, which is not to say that every reward and joy has been handed out to the protagonist. I would say for me a happy ending is one that answers the question "what is the pay off for all of the things that just happened?" "So, there's this book series that ended, for me, really badly. In my opinion, the author created too many threads, couldn't tie them together, and, ultimately, just decided not to bother and was like, "Well, real life is like that. You don't always get the answers you're looking for. Not everything gets resolved."
And I was so absolutely livid that, despite enjoying much of the series, I now rank it as one of the worst things ever.
Some people laud it because, well, real life is like that. And I'm like, "If I wanted to be disappointed by real life, I wouldn't be reading a freaking children's series."
The book/series: (view spoiler)
Allison wrote: "For example, the end of Return of the King they've stopped Sauron, destroyed the ring and rescued Gondor...but our heroes have a hard time going home, the stewards of Gondor are mostly dead, Rohan is still a mess, the Ents are still wifeless and the elves all leave. That's not *happy* stuff, but I'd still call it a happy ending because we've come through it all, we know what we were fighting for, the characters feel like they've accomplished something noble, and we leave them in places where we know they can prosper."LOL. I hate that ending. I also mostly hate the final book in the Narnia series as well. *shrug*
I understand what you mean by satisfying. But I legit want an HEA. And they all lived happily ever after.
And why can't they? Who says it can't happen? I think that some people assume that an HEA = no work. That the characters are floating through the rest of their lives without a care in the world. THAT thought is unrealistic.
Happy - all happy - requires work. No one tells parents its unrealistic that they love their children forever. That they HAVE to have an adversarial relationship with them in order to be "real." Well, why can't my marriage stay happy until one of us kicks the bucket?
Why can't the good guy win? Why can't the heist be pulled off? Why can't the relationships forged under fire stay strong and not become brittle?
Mod
I don't think I'm saying that the couple can't last or the heist can't be pulled off or whatever, just that it can still be happy even if they don't. I'm trying to avoid spoilers, so I'm sorry some of my examples are a bit of a stretch, but the movie "Bring It On" comes to mind. The cheer team comes in second place, but they worked hard, they did well, they learned a valuable life lesson, and were able to do so with all the grace of an early 2000s teen movie haha. That was happy, even if they didn't get first place and end all racism.
I think true honest-to-goodness fairytale endings are wonderful...provided the work was done to make them satisfying. But to use one example the group read, there was a particular book where inequity, mental illness, indentured servitude, homophobia and rape were the plot lines and in the end we're left with the idea that the guy who came through all of this was not only fine, but about to change the world, motivate students, and solve everything. Many of us said that this felt false, so while it was "happy" it was so unsatisfying that it marred the peace and instead made us more concerned for the future.
colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "I also agree with being against the idea that bleak = realism and despair = depth."I'll third this one and add that grimdark is an aesthetic choice --cozy is another--and no more "realistic" than any other fiction out there.
"And, lastly, I am not a fan of the ambiguous ending."
I like ambiguous endings depending on the context. I wouldn't accept anything less than a HFN in a romance, but something like the end of LoTR as Allison described, even in description sounds poignant. And more so considering that Tolkien lived through WWI.
Allison wrote: "But to use one example the group read, there was a particular book where inequity, mental illness, indentured servitude, homophobia and rape were the plot lines and in the end we're left with the idea that the guy who came through all of this was not only fine, but about to change the world, motivate students, and solve everything"I'm sorry - all of that wasn't directed at you. It was just a train of thought based on the other comments made.
ALso, I would agree. That book would almost have to have a craptastic ending that reflected the craptasic plot. It would also be a book that I wouldn't read. ^.^
One of the best books I've ever read that made me RAGE at the ending was Song of the Beast. The book was basically nothing but sheer pain and agony and disappointment. Its a very good book but such a miserable read.
Also... I can enjoy a sad story, but almost all of my go-to rereads are HEA.To use a musical as an example, I love Les Mis, but it's so emotionally draining, so while I've seen it a few times, it's not something I could listen to on repeat.
But I can listen to Legally Blonde every day for weeks, and be happy.
Mod
Yeah, the tolerance for escapism meets compelling conflict is a difficult one!
For example, I don't like trauma for trauma's sake, but if I'm reading a war story and no one dies or deals with PTSD, survivor's guilt etc., I'd call bullshit. And I love happy books as well as light books (which I also think can be different categories), but sappy ones I can only have for dessert.
colleen the convivial curmudgeon wrote: "Also... I can enjoy a sad story, but almost all of my go-to rereads are HEA.To use a musical as an example, I love Les Mis, but it's so emotionally draining, so while I've seen it a few times, it's not something I could listen to on repeat.
But I can listen to Legally Blonde every day for weeks, and be happy."
Same. Here.
I do read books that don't have happy endings (See: Song of the Beast above) and enjoy them. I loved Song of the Beast. But DT for damn that on ever reading it again, lol. That was heart rending. I prefer not to get my heart rended on a regular basis.
There were a lot of Romances back in the 180s and early 1900s that didn't end happily.. They were more of the sob story type.Love Story
Anna Karenina
Wuthering Heights
Tess of the D'Urbervilles
Atala
for ambivalent endings the biggest one is Gone with the Wind
I think that genres have developed in part to give readers what they want. Hey, I want to read a story with dragons. OK, go to the fantasy section. Hey, I want to read a story with a happy ending. OK, go to the ______ section. I don't think that fantasy or science fiction would be the best fit in the blank, though there are certainly some FSF books that have happy endings.
CBRetriever wrote: "There were a lot of Romances back in the 180s and early 1900s that didn't end happily.. They were more of the sob story type.Love Story
Anna Karenina
[book:Wuthering ..."
Those works weren't "Romance" as we think of it today, though. That's Romanticism. And not my thing, either. Though I've always felt I would have enjoyed Wuthering Heights more if I'd approached it as a character study... (Never was I fond of any of the characters)
Chris wrote: "I think that genres have developed in part to give readers what they want. Hey, I want to read a story with dragons. OK, go to the fantasy section. Hey, I want to read a story with a happy ending. ..."There's tons of SFF that have happy endings. I almost specialize in locating it, lol. Of course, that stuff isn't the popular stuff of today. Even the stuff that's "new" isn't as popular as the GRRM rapefests or the Lawrence psychos that I'm supposed to accept and give the title "hero." (Sorry, my bitter is coming out)
Be it a happy, satisfying or sad ending, for me the important thing is that the ending makes sense and accords with what I read in the story. I hate 'Deus Ex Machina' type endings that come out of the blue. Of course, a happy ending is always nicer to read.
Now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever seen the end of a grimdark story--tend to get worn thin and quit after a few chapters. How DO they end? Family centered epilogue with spouse and kids? ;)
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Love Story (other topics)Anna Karenina (other topics)
Love Story (other topics)
Anna Karenina (other topics)
Wuthering Heights (other topics)
More...
What's the difference between a satisfying ending and a happy one?
Do you prefer a happy ending? Does it need to be completely happy pr can it be conditional or comparative?