PLEASE, STOP WRITING HAPPY ENDINGS

A plea to writers and designers

I’ve been promising a post about this for ages and now I finally have the opportunity to procrastinate on something, so I’m going to do it.

This is a plea to other writers and game designers to start seriously considering the power you wield so that you can use it ethically and responsibly.

A note on nomenclature: I’m going to be preferring the term “narrative” here over “story” because many people tend to have a limited perspective on what constitutes a story. All works of media, even those without an explicit plot, have a narrative: even Pong has a start (when you begin playing), conflict (you want to win), and ending (when you finish playing).

The power of narratives
Narratives, more than anything else in the world, have a powerful ability to shape people’s perceptions of the world around them. It should follow naturally then that people who construct narratives (whether you write prose or design games) should be held responsible for maintaining stewardship over their narratives and ensuring that they’re transforming the perspectives of their readers in an appropriate and ethical way.

To illustrate my point, here’s an exercise. Do you believe that stealing is wrong? Probably. Can you pinpoint the moment in your life when you decided that? Maybe, maybe not. It’s a belief that was ingrained in you through exposure to many narratives that all, implicitly or explicitly, asserted the same message. Perhaps you stole something as a kid and your parents put you in time out, or maybe they hit you, or maybe they lectured you that stealing would get you thrown in jail. These narratives all follow the same basic template: You want something -> You steal it -> Something bad happens and what you stole is taken away again -> You learn your lesson.

It seems like one of the most basic and self-evident truths, but it’s not something that children come equipped understanding automatically. Instead, it’s a lesson that gets taught. Maybe it’s taught many times. When we hear the same message from lots of different people, we start to subconsciously understand it as the way of the world. The more we hear it and in the more different contexts we’re exposed to it, the more universal a truth it seems to be.

Children don’t really have a sense of right and wrong aside from the one they develop by digesting the narratives they’re exposed to growing up. What are property rights? What does it mean that that toy is “mine” and that toy is “yours?” All of this is learned through narratives. We tend to roll our eyes and tune out when people lecture us, but when we’re personally invested in a sequence of events (whether it be through reading a book or experiencing them in reality), we’re wired in, receptive and sympathetic to the outcome. Humans are extremely good at recognizing, integrating, and applying patterns. It’s the fundamental allure of games. Therefore, when we (consciously or not) recognize a pattern in narratives, we start to integrate it into our understanding of the world.

Narratives in fiction
Fiction is an incredibly powerful way of conveying a narrative because we can imagine ourselves in a situation that we might never encounter in reality, allowing us to learn from an experience from the safety of our homes.

The most important part of a story is its ending. Generally, the ending is when the protagonist applies the lesson they’ve learned from the story and either succeeds or fails at achieving their goal. The protagonist is the vessel through which the narrative of the plot is conveyed. What they ultimately end up doing, and what ends up happening to them, becomes the message that readers take away from the work. Captain Ahab and his crew are destroyed by the whale, showing that revenge is a self-destructive voyage. Romeo and Juliet die meaninglessly, showing that surrendering yourself to emotion is harmful to yourself and those around you. Aladdin and Jasmine live happily ever after, showing that all you need to do is become rich and lie to someone in order to find true love.

People laugh when I bring up examples of Disney movies and usually say that I’m overthinking kids’ movies, because Disney is a brand so firmly associated with being kid-friendly that questioning the value of their works is funny. But Disney’s messages are so over-the-top toxic that it’s kind of low-hanging fruit. How about Harry Potter? Voldemort is murdered, showing that killing someone who wronged you is not only okay but necessary, and it fixes all the world’s problems.

Maybe you think it’s acceptable to murder people who do bad things, and if so, I can hardly fault you; it’s such a pervasive message in all of our media that it’s hardly a surprise that so many people accept it. Try to think: why is it that you believe that? Can you remember when you started to think that way? Narratives are powerful. They shape our worldview in ways so subtle that we don’t realize they’re doing it. We incorporate their messages into our identity and defend them, even without knowing where the belief came from.

Happy endings
Whether we intend them to be or not, all narratives are inherently argumentative. Most sports movies argue that the path to victory is through lots of tough practice and teamwork. But is that really self-evident? Can’t you normally overcome someone who’s better than you by cheating? And so these movies often have a subplot where someone gets caught cheating and they suffer for it, arguing that cheaters never prosper. Sometimes, the good guys win even though the opponent is cheating to show just how strong their teamwork is.

But in the real world, cheaters prosper all the time.

As writers, we’re all familiar with the fact that most stories follow the three-act structure. The protagonist starts off with a lesson to learn, fails to achieve their goal because of their ignorance of the lesson, then finally learns the lesson and uses it to solve their problem. The lesson is usually a pretty unadventurous cliche: teamwork is good, caring for others is important, you need to take responsibility for yourself, etc. Picking a good lesson is easy.

But a lot of writers stop there. Just as important as the explicit lesson of the story are its implicit lessons. What methods does your protagonist employ to achieve their goal? What moral choices, large and small, does your protagonist make along the way?

-Does the antagonist die in the end?
-Does the protagonist kill any of the antagonist’s minions?
-Do wrongdoers learn their lesson or are they irredeemably evil?
-Does the protagonist lie and cheat?

All of these are commonly glossed-over and accepted tropes but each one is making a statement about the way the world works. This finally brings me to: what’s wrong with happy endings?

Narratives follow the same basic argumentative form: if you do X and Y, then Z will happen, where Z is the ending. If Z is an undesirable outcome, then the narrative warns you against the dangers of X and Y. But if Z is desirable, then the narrative not only condones doing X and Y in order to achieve Z, but suggests that it’s the “proper” way of achieving Z.

The problem with happy endings is that they’re inherently prescriptive. A narrative with a happy ending is a guidebook, teaching readers the correct way to live their lives. When you write a narrative with a happy ending, you have a very tall order ahead of you: you need to be aware that you’re condoning the protagonist’s methods and everything they learn.

-In a narrative with a happy ending, killing an antagonist condones capital punishment, violence, and war. Just making them dissolve or fade away or otherwise sugarcoating it doesn’t escape this message; you’re still metaphorically killing them.
-In a narrative with a happy ending, having wrongdoers be irredeemable is to claim that rehabilitation is impossible, that once someone has done something wrong that they’re evil for life. This often goes hand in hand with killing them.
-In a narrative with a happy ending, if the protagonist uses deception or trickery, then the narrative asserts that the ends justify the means and that lying and deceit are okay.

And maybe you agree with those messages. If so, then maybe you don’t have a problem encouraging them. But if you don’t, then you need to think strongly about why it is you’re incorporating them into your story. Do you want other people to think that way? Do you want to be responsible for other people thinking that way?

Even if your narrative is completely scrubbed of undesirable messages (which is no small feat), the notion of a happy ending is itself a political statement. In the words of media researcher Ed S. Tan, “a happy ending corresponds to prototypical representations of justice.” If you do the right thing, then you’ll get what you want. If you do the wrong thing, then you’ll be punished.

If you’re unfamiliar with the just-world fallacy, then maybe that doesn’t sound like such a bad thing to you. Consider instead turning those statements around: if you don’t get what you want, you didn’t do the right thing. If you were punished, then you did something wrong. Happy endings reinforce a conservative worldview and implicitly condone victim blaming.

A personal note
I had a pretty rough upbringing and I often turned to books and games as a form of escapism. They offered some solace from the problems I struggled with by reassuring me that if you did your best that everything would turn out okay, and that the people who wronged me would eventually get their comeuppance. But no matter what I did to try to shut out my problems, they didn’t go away. Many of them grew worse as time went on.

As I became more mature and accepting of my situation, it became both difficult and painful to continue reading. There wasn’t a happy ending in sight for me, and the people at whose hands I suffered were never any worse for it. They most certainly didn’t learn a lesson. I struggled with relating to the books that everyone else loved because I couldn’t figure out how to reconcile what they said about the way the world worked with my personal experience with it.

Sometimes, I wondered if I deserved it, if I had done something wrong, or if there was something just “wrong” about me that made me deserving of everything that happened to me. It might sound silly if you’ve never been through it, but I’m sure others who grew up with tough childhoods can relate. It’s easy to accept difficult and painful situations as a part of life as a coping mechanism, and when you do, you’re faced with the need to explain it to yourself to make your view of the world consistent. Because our narratives teach us that bad things happen to bad people and that good things happen to good people, often the only way to resolve this paradox is by wondering if you’re one of the bad people. I felt ashamed, guilty, and worthless.

One of my most powerful childhood memories was when we read Bridge to Terabithia in school. It was a really shocking and upsetting book, and it was one of the first works that really challenged the way I had been taught to look at the world. It was the first time a story spoke to me. Sometimes, bad things happen to good people, for no reason at all. Everyone cried when we read it, but I was overjoyed. Maybe there wasn’t something wrong with me after all, and maybe I didn’t deserve everything that happened to me.

I credit works like that with starting to bring me out of the deep depression of my childhood. As books with moving endings tended to be way above my reading level or too serious/literary for my tastes, this was when I started getting really into games, particularly RPGs, where I could find the drama and tragedy that resonated with the events of my life. I developed a more nuanced way of looking at the world and I began questioning fundamental assumptions about the nature of good and evil (like if they even existed!).

Responsibility
I struggle a lot with writing happy stories (if you’ve played any of my games, this should come as no surprise). When I was young, I just couldn’t relate with happy characters in any way except intense jealousy, and even now I struggle to see happy characters as anything but shallow and unrealistic. But now, remembering the struggles of my childhood and having spoken with others who shared my experiences, I’ve started to wonder if happy stories are not merely unrealistic but actually harmful.

We live in a world where innocent people suffer constantly at the hands of others who not only are not punished, but reap tremendous rewards from it. As a society, we tend to overlook this painful truth because it runs contrary to everything we’ve been taught since childhood. Research has shown that people who believe in a just world tend to blame victims of crimes or to deny they ever happened, because that’s the only way to reconcile what happened with their view of the world. It encourages complacency, to accept that people who are wealthy and powerful must have done something to earn it, and that the poor must simply be lazy.

Given how virtually all narratives aimed at children implicitly condone the popular notion of justice, it should really come as no surprise that beliefs about good vs evil and good things happening to good people are so thoroughly ingrained in our public consciousness. Because of that, when I start to conceive of a happy, none-too-serious, heroic story about good triumphing over evil, I feel guilty. Can I in good conscience contribute to a worldview that’s actively hurting countless people all the time?

It’s easy to invent excuses (“it’s just a story!” “it’s just a game!”) to escape responsibility so that we can happily write whatever kinds of stories we want, but as writers, we wield a tremendous power to transform the world. We need to analyze the stories we’re writing and make sure they’re nudging people in the right direction. When you’re planning out your stories, ask yourself what messages and behavior you’re condoning. Who could your story hurt? Who could your story help?

If you only take one thing away from this, I want it to be that there’s no such thing as “just a story.” No matter how cute, or brainless, or light-hearted a story is, it is making a statement about the way the world is. Your responsibility is to take ownership of that statement and to ensure it’s something that in some way betters the world.

Posts

I'll start off by saying that I haven't read previous comments on this, so I might be repeating others, but here goes:

I don't agree with the article at all, and find it somewhat poorly written - way longer than necessary, failing to establish what exactly makes a happy ending, and presumes that every game is trying to make a point or tell a message through its story. So, some counter arguments from my point of view:

author=Sailerius
It’s easy to invent excuses (“it’s just a story!” “it’s just a game!”) to escape responsibility so that we can happily write whatever kinds of stories we want, but as writers, we wield a tremendous power to transform the world. We need to analyze the stories we’re writing and make sure they’re nudging people in the right direction. When you’re planning out your stories, ask yourself what messages and behavior you’re condoning. Who could your story hurt? Who could your story help?

Making the mistake that every game should be about telling a powerful story or that it needs to help people in some way or another. I'm sorry, but do people really get hurt over a story in which the RPG hero kills the evil overlord who tried to open the gates of Hell to create pandaemonium on Earth?
I'd much rather have the game developer spending his time balancing out the combat system or making a fun side-quest than analysing the game's story so that it might be able to tell some deep message.

author=Sailerius
Whether we intend them to be or not, all narratives are inherently argumentative. Most sports movies argue that the path to victory is through lots of tough practice and teamwork. But is that really self-evident? Can’t you normally overcome someone who’s better than you by cheating? And so these movies often have a subplot where someone gets caught cheating and they suffer for it, arguing that cheaters never prosper. Sometimes, the good guys win even though the opponent is cheating to show just how strong their teamwork is.

But in the real world, cheaters prosper all the time.

Know your audience. The majority of people like to see the good, honest guys win. Exactly for the reason that in real life things often don't work that way. This is why so many stories work this way, yet you think you know better.

author=Sailerius
The problem with happy endings is that they’re inherently prescriptive. A narrative with a happy ending is a guidebook, teaching readers the correct way to live their lives. When you write a narrative with a happy ending, you have a very tall order ahead of you: you need to be aware that you’re condoning the protagonist’s methods and everything they learn.

I'm pretty sure your average player doesn't take your story this serious. They beat up the bad guy who tried taking over the world, feel good about it for 5 minutes and move on with their lives.

author=Sailerius
-In a narrative with a happy ending, killing an antagonist condones capital punishment, violence, and war. Just making them dissolve or fade away or otherwise sugarcoating it doesn’t escape this message; you’re still metaphorically killing them.

I'm pretty sure that you don't want the mega powerful warlock capable of transforming into a fire-breathing dragon that requires the legendary sword of the 4 elements wielded by a level 99 protagonist to beat to sit in your prison cell and expect things to go well. Besides, sealing the guy away only makes a good plot point for the next game in the series taking place 1000 years in the future. RPG logic has taught us that the best way to get rid of evil is to kill it.

author=Sailerius
-In a narrative with a happy ending, having wrongdoers be irredeemable is to claim that rehabilitation is impossible, that once someone has done something wrong that they’re evil for life. This often goes hand in hand with killing them.

Indeed they are. When the bad guy enslaves half of the continent, rules over countries with an iron fist, burning down villages and turning the planet's landscape into an inhabitable wasteland I think we can all assume the guy's past the point of redemption.

author=Sailerius
-In a narrative with a happy ending, if the protagonist uses deception or trickery, then the narrative asserts that the ends justify the means and that lying and deceit are okay.

This very largely depends to what extend it happens and for what reasons he uses these kind of tactics. If your game's protagonist does use plenty of deception and trickery to reach his goals, he'd be more like the anti-hero type of character, or maybe he's the story's villain, but the guy you are playing as in the game (and then the happy ending might result in the protagonist taking over the world at the end of the game).

author=Sailerius
I struggle a lot with writing happy stories (if you’ve played any of my games, this should come as no surprise). When I was young, I just couldn’t relate with happy characters in any way except intense jealousy, and even now I struggle to see happy characters as anything but shallow and unrealistic. But now, remembering the struggles of my childhood and having spoken with others who shared my experiences, I’ve started to wonder if happy stories are not merely unrealistic but actually harmful.

They are not more unrealistic than stories that are nothing but misery and sorrow.

My final thoughts on the subject:
I don't care whether your game's story is happy, bad or something in between that. What matters is the execution, how well it's told and doesn't feel forced. If your story can justify a happy ending and make it feel good, then that's awesome. I'm one who likes happy endings, it makes me feel like the time I spent finishing the game paid off. My guy is the guy who pierced the heavens. He's the one who did the impossible. He's the champion!
If the story ends badly, maybe with the protagonist's death or fails to succeed in what he was trying to do, I might feel like I wasted my time. Why go through all those hours of gameplay when my guy dies or fails at the very end? What was the point? Not saying that a bad ending is impossible to pull off, it sure can work for some stories, but for me, I prefer happy endings.
author=emmych
@volke_locke: it's nice you wrote up a big post about that, but like... that's not the point here. The reason the things you're describing are so awful is because real harm has come to real people. The way you're then bringing this up to make a point is extremely disrespectful, imo, especially since you then went on to compare actual tragedies to something like FF7.

I say again: these were real events that effected and continue to affect real people. They're not neat ideas or some sort of interesting narrative to pull apart and look at "objectively."

So the point is: make your point in some way that doesn't involve stepping on people, or don't make it at all.

To quote Leo Tolstoy, "Respect is what is left after love has died." I don't see the reason in putting so much value in it, especially since there are no objective values.
Isn't art meant to be interpretative and cross-applied to your life and the world around you? Is art not a tool for understanding? Art does not exist in a vacuum.
Who are you to invalidate my words, simply because you don't like them?
Additionally, to not look at such events objectively is to perpetuate more of them.
Isn't it more honourable to look to mistakes and to understand why they happened?

At the very least, am I not approaching with open hands in willingness to accept? You deny me that same honour and will not bear to listen. I don't think out conversation can continue like this - you deny objectivity (at least in this light,) while I demand it.

author=Liberty
Who said you denied them their humanity by seeing them as villains? Villains can be all too human, and that is what often makes them villains. Heroes, villains, both have their reasons for doing things but it's what they do that denotes that role - even if they think they are the heroes of their own stories, the truth is in their actions and what they do, not what they believe of themselves. A villain can do the wrong things for the right reasons - especially from their own point of view. In fact, that is what makes a real villain - someone who does something evil but lies to themselves and sees it as an act of good. Those are the best villains because they are just people who tell themselves that what they do is right - and that's down-right terrifying because it shows that anyone can become the villain of a story, even if, in their own mind they're the hero. They're blind to their own villainy. Thus they are terrifying because no amount of argument to the contrary can convince them of their own wrong-doings, and thus they continue to do what they're doing. In their minds they are 'right', despite all evidence to the contrary.


I am making that claim. You invalidate them and make a claim that some are inherently epistemologically inferior. You make that exceedingly clear near the end of this paragraph, "...they are terrifying because no amount of argument to the contrary can convince them of their own wrong-doings." You turn them into bogeymen. You are no different than them, you are just as terrifying. "They're blind to their own villainy." So, are you. Or rather you can't know if you are.
You make the assumption that your position is superior and their position is inferior, because you take your moral vision as an article of faith. You also make unfounded assumptions about the nature of those you deem to be villains. Who is to say that they share a common morality with you? And if they don't, how can you assume the superiority of your morality? And what do you think the logical conclusion would be if you invoked the superiority of your morality on another?

Regardless, if you haven't noticed, I claim that all moral statements are false. Therefore, I don't think right and wrong are existent in which to distinguish villain and hero.

author=Liberty
Killing thousands of people? That's wrong, no matter how you cut it. To say otherwise is to ignore that taking any life is an evil and that those who willingly do so are doing an evil act.


I dare you to prove that abstraction concretely. It is only evil because you (and presumably others), deem it to be so as an article of faith. How else can we cut it? Would you say it justifiable to kill thousands of people if they don't think killing is unjustifiable? Is this not a hypocrisy of some level?

author=Liberty
Of course, people - heroes, even - do evils every day. Small evils that mount up over time, but killing someone? That's an ultimate evil because you took something that is precious and can never be remade.


What makes it an "ultimate" evil? There are no objective values. Nothing makes them inherently precious.

author=Liberty
So, yeah, I call 'em villains because that is what they were. Villains, no matter their reasons for doing what they did.


You are again claiming the inherency of their villainy. You make the claim of self-evidence and that's just it, it is an argument from faith.

author=Liberty
@Pentagon: I whole-heartedly agree about stories that are all about how crap life is just for the sake of telling how crap life is. Sure, there are real life stories like that where one goes from birth to death as life's personal whipping lad/lass, but those aren't the stories that should be shared EXCEPT as anecdotes to help bring attention to the horrors of others' lives. Fiction, imo, should not be like that and, again imo, for the most part (hello, there are exceptions, I'm sure) the fictional stories like that are, in a word, shit. I think I've read maybe one story that was like that that wasn't - The Girl with All The Gifts (and even that had a hopeful ending... though not one you'd imagine) - otherwise, fuck that noise. I actively have to fight off my own depression. The last thing I want to do is wallow in it during what should be an escape.


I don't see any justification as to why such stories should only be told in such a narrow fashion. Your dislike of that kind of fiction are a personal preference. Many classical works would follow under that classification of "shit."

author=Liberty
Or they don't care. I'd hazard that most fall in to that category.


Amorality appears equally in most demographics. It can be observed in all walks of life. Even psychopaths have the same rate of amorality in comparison to the general population.

Again, you seem to invalidate them.
Kid. Leave. Arguing that killing people isn't wrong is stupid. Everyone and their mother - even those who kill - acknowledge that it is wrong.

Seriously. Get out.
author=Liberty
Kid. Leave. Arguing that killing people isn't wrong is stupid. Everyone and their mother - even those who kill - acknowledge that it is wrong.


I'm late to the party here, but by killing, are you guys talking about outright murder, killing in self defense or in defense of others, or ending a life to prevent a greater evil from taking place?

I think there's some affordable grey area to be debated here.
author=Liberty
Kid. Leave. Arguing that killing people isn't wrong is stupid. Everyone and their mother - even those who kill - acknowledge that it is wrong.

Seriously. Get out.


You misinterpret me again. I am not arguing that killing people should be done or tolerated in all cases. I'm saying that people may have reason to kill that may be valid. I should therefore not dismiss them offhand. I should look to see if I can alleviate that reason first. I am arguing that some cultures do not think murder is evil at all, and most cultures accept certain ritualistic killings (including death penalties) for the sake of social stability.
I am further claiming that your position is one of faith, not that that faith is wrong or misplaced. I am a strong supporter of faith in such matters.
Nor do I think that actions do not have consequences. If you kill, you will receive a consequence and that consequence may be death or worse.
What I am rejecting is offhand dismissals, such as your belief against the rehabilitation and redemption of people who do horrible things. Where does justice lie?
We're talking 9/11 here. That was the example you gave, and I mentioned thousands in my post. Killing is wrong. There are very few times when it's the right thing to do - to save someone's life or in the case of Euthenasia - but deliberately killing, which is what I mentioned, is wrong outside of those points.
author=Liberty
We're talking 9/11 here. That was the example you gave, and I mentioned thousands in my post. Killing is wrong. There are very few times when it's the right thing to do - to save someone's life or in the case of Euthenasia - but deliberately killing, which is what I mentioned, is wrong outside of those points.

I also mentioned a handful of other atrocities and how the New York Times (along with many other papers) praised them. My point wasn't that 9-11 wasn't horrible, but that the only reason people cared was because who the victims were. 9-11 isn't unique in any other regard.

But to you, I'd suggest Noam Chomsky's book 9-11 which is about the fundamental causes of 9-11. It didn't happen in vacuum. America committed worse atrocities and after decades of devastating the lives of millions around the world, someone took the opportunity to use an ideology to promote a response of violence - an eye for an eye. I don't see what the problem is with talking about this or portraying it in art.
Ratty524
The 524 is for 524 Stone Crabs
12986
author=Liberty
We're talking 9/11 here. That was the example you gave, and I mentioned thousands in my post. Killing is wrong. There are very few times when it's the right thing to do - to save someone's life or in the case of Euthenasia - but deliberately killing, which is what I mentioned, is wrong outside of those points.
Hate to be that guy but doesn't Euthenasia and self-defense count as "deliberate" killing?

I think the proper term you are looking for is "murder." That is killing without just cause. Every creature on this planet kills one another for some purpose, but it's usually for the sake of survival.

Does that mean you should be apathetic towards the deaths of thousands, like Volke is over here? Definitely not. Killing is inherently a selfish act, since the reason almost always lies in self-preservation and fails to consider the repercussions of how the life you ended affects those who were close to that person.

And... Meh. It's complicated. >_>
I never said it did and I would never condone the slaughter that America has indulged in in the past either, but using someone else doing evil as a reason to do evil yourself is what makes a villain a villain. Being able to explain it away as 'oh, they did it first, I'm just retaliating' doesn't make what you do less evil than the first act that prompted it.

Stab out each others' eyes and the whole world goes blind. Retaliation is as villainous a trait as initialising an attack. Both are equally guilty of being villains. What I was saying was that explaining it away and making yourself out to be the good guy because you're only doing it in response to an evil done to you is a very villain thing to do. It's the act, not the reasoning, that makes it villainous - for the most part.

Again, things like self-defense and Euthenasia are different, but there's a huge difference between defending yourself from an attack in the moment and deliberately planning revenge, especially when the revenge is planned on innocent people who were just going out and doing their jobs.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
This is probably not the appropriate venue for this discussion.
True enough. Back to refuting/defending the article at hand~


author=Ratty524
Does that mean you should be apathetic towards the deaths of thousands, like Volke is over here?


I don't mean to be apathetic, I've been weeping my eyes out over here...

But, let's cease the discussion. I didn't really want to be caught up in a defense of moral skepticism. I just failed to properly communicate my ideas and this horrid conversation branched out.
Yeah, I agree with Sooz. Interesting discussion (although after clarification I agree with Liberty's point of view), but it's not for this topic, which is also a good springboard for discussion.

It happens often in topics like this where one good discussion veers into a 90 degree angle of another viable, yet very off topic discussion. Many forums split the offending posts into a brand new topic when that happens. Is there a way that can be explored here? This is an interesting article, and I'd hate to see it drown out like this.
NEVER MIND THE CONVO ENDED WHILE I WROTE THAT this is good enough for me.
Back tothe topic.

Honestly, happy endings are a staple and I can see why people would get annoyed at them, especially if you're thinking of the Disney versions of happy endings where everything will always be happy ever after when the story ends. Cinderella leaves her abusive home and lives her life with a prince who loves her and has many children who all grow up to be perfect little angels and rule the kingdom with wisdom and love for the rest of their lives~

Of course we realise that there's bound to be a fall at some point in the future. Maybe still while Cinderella is alive. Her husband will die, her lands find troubles, her world might come crumbling down. There might be a succession war between two of her children, the fairy godmother might demand some sort of recompense for her aid in seeing Cinders put on the throne, aliens might attack... we never see that. We're told 'and they all lived happily ever after' and have to take that at face value, because that's all she wrote, folks!

I think a good way to end a story is to leave some sort of open end. Recently I read a book called The Girl with All the Gifts, a very dark tale of post-zombie apocalypse where children are being experimented on in order to hopefully find a cure to the zombification of the world. There's a lot of dark imagery and the ending is both dark, but oddly hopeful. The end of the world has come, humanity gives it's last dying gasp but a part of them lives on... I don't want to spoil it, but it's a very good read and worth checking out if you like grittier fiction with zombies.

I wouldn't call it a good ending, but I wouldn't call it a bad one either - there was hope but there was disaster and it made for an interesting mix. Even then, though, a happy ending would have been nice to see. I'd hoped for it, because of the trauma all the characters had to go through during the story, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a bit let down that the happy ending didn't come - because I'd fallen in love with a character and wanted something good for her after all the horror that she'd been through.

Sadly, it wasn't to be, but at least for her it was a decent ending. And sometimes a decent ending is all you get. But I still want a happy ending for the sadder stories because then I don't have to worry that my own life will end in emptiness and sorrow. I read to escape my own pain, and having that pain reinforced as always going to be there makes for very poor escape.
slash
APATHY IS FOR COWARDS
4158
Maybe this is a simplistic comparison, but everybody knows that things like, y'know, chocolate and beer are bad for you, and yet we still eat them occasionally. If we were purely logical beasts with no emotional drive, maybe we'd only eat soy and drink water, but we're not. We like food that is delicious and unhealthy sometimes simply because they make us happy, and that's not a bad thing! Emotions are part of being human, and I don't believe we should reject them outright. Emotions often have a positive effect on our world, even if they can have negative effects as well.

In the same vein, some days we want to read 1984, and some days we want to watch Shaun of the Dead. An unrealistically happy or less serious story might not be as educational, but it's fun, and that's important too.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
Having spent 2 decades with untreated depression, I gotta say, happy stories often helped me to survive, and often taught me not to assume that everything would be relentlessly awful and/or that humanity was on a downward spiral into despair.

So, y'know, I feel like maybe happy endings might have some import to humanity.
Isrieri
"My father told me this would happen."
6155
Been thinking about the article today and I realized that without happy endings in most media, the media with non-happy and more realistic endings would lose a lot of their impact. Were that the case, they would become the norm and everyone would instead be ragging on films being super grim-dark all the time.

Ergo, there is value to their existence separate from simply "I like happy endings."
author=Sooz
Having spent 2 decades with untreated depression, I gotta say, happy stories often helped me to survive, and often taught me not to assume that everything would be relentlessly awful and/or that humanity was on a downward spiral into despair.

So, y'know, I feel like maybe happy endings might have some import to humanity.

Ditto, especially since a lot of representation of people like myself in popular culture involves glorifying our deaths? I have an illness that I won't go into, and yeah a lot of the popular depictions of it involve Death and Suffering for the sake of the not-sick audience's enjoyment. This is why the talk of "observing" pain irked me so much when it came up earlier.

Happy endings help me get through the day and remind me that there actually is a life beyond the two-ish decades I've lived. It's not a certainity that I'm going to end up dying by suicide before I'm thirty.

That nudge towards survival for real, living, breathing people makes positive endings worth it, I think.