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 can appreciate a "sad ending". This is one of the reasons why I like Suikoden 3 as a whole, over Suikoden 2. Suikoden 2 is all about happy endings; It's about a clear(er) distinction between good and evil. It's about friendship, forgiveness, redemption, LIFE, etc. Suikoden 3 in the other hand is about conflicting world-views, temporary alliances, living with your mistakes, war, death... One of the most poignant scenes (for me) about Suikoden 3's ending is in Hugo's scenario, when he and Chris say their goodbyes. They pay each other their respects, but bow to not hold back if they ever meet again in the battlefield as enemies (In case you don't know. Chris killed Hugo's best friend). It is my belief that Yoshitaka Murayama designed Suikoden 3 as the anti-thesis of Suikoden 2 and your average rpg. However, I wouldn't say Suikoden 3 is better than Suikoden 2. It's just different. And different should not be held on a pedestal as "originality" or what have you.

And I'm 10000000000000000000000% against that whole "It's our responsibility to" Pffft! Fuck that noise! I'n not your baby-sitter. I'm not your role-model. My responsibility with my audience ends by saying: "This is an X rated game and contains X, Y and Z things. And if you're too much of an idiot to process this information and tell apart reality from fiction, get the fuck out of my story!". I'm tired of this preachiness that is co-opting every discussion of story-telling and game development... And you know what really grinds my gears? That if you exchange "happy endings" with "such and such depiction of women/minorities" (Yes, I went there) most of you would flip your script. fml
In my belief, I agree with the article.
Though I also agree with what everyone commented before.
However, with that being said...
I truly believe a story only deserves a happy ending under the conditions of it's hardships.
Where the characters/player are stack against the odds throughout the entire story/game.
And it's not just typically "Writing a bad ending, just to be different." nor do you really need to relate it to real-life accuracy.
Because everywhere in the world isn't full of "no hope" or sad conclusions and miracles do happen, which shaped our history today.
Yet, great morals and good concepts can arise from bad endings, this is a well-known fact.

sigh

also your last post made me choke unity


edit: one thing I do want to as an artist -- and not in every single of my works but only a few, is to depict how utterly cruel life can be by sheer chance and randomness. And then zoom out of the scene and end it showing the insignificance of that cruelty as you grow higher and higher in the scale of reality.
Yes, make a completely and utterly depressing narrative that manages to emphasize this aspect of existance. I'm sure that, in its bitterness, it will retain a sense of sweetness for those who relate, for realizing the whim of fate is both a liberating and a disconcerting thing.
Ratty524
The 524 is for 524 Stone Crabs
12986
author=alterego
And I'm 100000000000000000000000% against that whole "It's our responsibility to" Pffft! Fuck that noise! I'n not your baby-sitter. I'm not your role-model. My responsibility with my audience ends by saying: "This is rated X game and contains X and Y and Z things. And if you're too much of an idiot to process this information and tell apart reality from fiction, get the fuck out my story!". I'm tired of this preachiness that is co-opting every discussion of story-telling and game development... And you know what really grinds my gears? That if you exchange "happy endings" with "such and such depiction of women/minorities" (Yes, I went there) most of you would flip your script. fml
The thing about this is that this it really doesn't matter whether you expressly state that you are supposed to distance yourself from a story or not. People are going to get something out of it and sometimes they'll get offended regardless. You are responsible because you put that project out there, and saying you aren't responsible is the same thing as giving a gun to a 2-year old and saying it's not your fault the kid died because you didn't pull the trigger.
Art should be provocative and at times transgressive or subversive. I don't like the term "Happy Ending" in and of itself as it is an incredibly narrow and shallow term. Did Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter or Brazil have happy endings? Arguably yes. Both heroes succeed at their goal by escaping their situation, just not in the way the audience wishes.
However, it isn't that art needs to be composed of fables that teach real-life morals or lessons, but that we need to broaden our horizons and explore greater parts of the human experience.

I prefer emotionally and morally ambiguous endings, not something that is so clear-cut. I have attempted to do this in my own games and other works. In one of my narratives I have two friends who both desire good for the world and are forced to fight to death because those desires are incompatible with each other. In this way I portray the problem of moral dichotomies.
SunflowerGames
The most beautiful user on RMN!
13323

I made a game with a "bad" ending and some people complained about it.
They thought the "hero" should have had a better outcome.
Instead one of the bad guys ended up taking his wife away and living in his house.
I thought it was a great ending :)
author=Ratty524
The thing about this is that this it really doesn't matter whether you expressly state that you are supposed to distance yourself from a story or not. People are going to get something out of it and sometimes they'll get offended regardless. You are responsible because you put that project out there, and saying you aren't responsible is the same thing as giving a gun to a 2-year old and saying it's not your fault the kid died because you didn't pull the trigger.

What responsibility would I have? Is it not empirically true that different conflicting moralities exist between both cultures and individuals? If it is true that I carry a responsibility (an "ought," a morality) to act according to one, then wouldn't that make all others somehow to be epistemologically inferior? If so, you have burden the of empirically proving that "ought" assertion. You cannot prove that assertion. Therefore, what right do you have to claim that anyone "ought" or "ought not" do anything.
Ratty524
The 524 is for 524 Stone Crabs
12986
author=volke_locke
author=Ratty524
The thing about this is that this it really doesn't matter whether you expressly state that you are supposed to distance yourself from a story or not. People are going to get something out of it and sometimes they'll get offended regardless. You are responsible because you put that project out there, and saying you aren't responsible is the same thing as giving a gun to a 2-year old and saying it's not your fault the kid died because you didn't pull the trigger.
What responsibility would I have? Is it not empirically true that different conflicting moralities exist between both cultures and individuals? If it is true that I carry a responsibility (an "ought," a morality) to act according to one, then wouldn't that make all others somehow to be epistemologically inferior? If so, you have burden the of empirically proving that "ought" assertion. You cannot prove that assertion. Therefore, what right do you have to claim that anyone "ought" or "ought not" do anything.

I don't. I'm just stating that you shouldn't pretend like the burden of responsibility with making any kind of media don't exist just because you say it doesn't. Part of making art that's geared towards the public is recognizing how people of different cultural backgrounds will react to it. There is a reason why cover art and even entire color palettes of game characters remain inconsistent internationally.

With that said, I'm not telling him to not piss people off if he wants to. That's a part of art and that's fine! Just don't assume you had no part in it.
author=Ratty524
I don't. I'm just stating that you shouldn't pretend like the burden of responsibility with making any kind of media don't exist just because you say it doesn't. Part of making art that's geared towards the public is recognizing how people of different cultural backgrounds will react to it. There is a reason why cover art and even entire color palettes of game characters remain inconsistent internationally.

With that said, I'm not telling him to not piss people off if he wants to. That's a part of art and that's fine! Just don't assume you had no part in it.


Ok, that distinction is more agreeable to me. Thank you for clarifying. I've just seen a lot of BS recently towards banning art and speech at my university. I interpreted what you said a bit more negatively than I probably should have.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=volke_locke
Art should be provocative and at times transgressive or subversive.


Should every work be "art"?
author=Sooz
author=volke_locke
Art should be provocative and at times transgressive or subversive.
Should every work be "art"?


What do you mean by "art?" Can something that isn't meant to be art also be "art?" I'll say no, not all work must be art, but that is certainly arguable. There is always an incredibly high chance that any work will be considered to be art by someone... and besides the mighty arch-weasel, who can deny them of their opinion?
sooz you are after my own heart, i gotta say
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=volke_locke
Art should be provocative and at times transgressive or subversive.

author=volke_locke
What do you mean by "art?" Can something that isn't meant to be art also be "art?"


I don't know, man, you tell me.
Art is what it is, and no one should be dictating what it should be! /;w;)/
*sparkles sugar*

we don't need more boxes~ <3
y’know i agree that writing is inherently political and by failing to think about what your narrative implies you might write in some unfortunate implications. But I think the way you wrote about this is shallow and misleading, down to how this discussion is framed.

You're comparing simplistic, happy "fairy tale" narratives or "one of the most common narratives in fantasy RPGs" as if the points you raise about happy endings apply to the broader concept of "happy endings" in general. Instead of arguing against happy endings, I think a better discussion overall would be the dangers of simplistic, reductive narratives vs. complex ones.

"Complex" =/= sad or negative, for the record.

But since this is an article with the clickbait-y title of "Please, stop writing happy endings", what do you mean by this idea of a happy ending?

You write this basic formula:
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.

and then immediately follow it up with this:
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.

You know the bit in your own writing? Where you talk about what happens if Z is an undesirable outcome? Yeah that means that other types of endings can be just as prescriptive as happy ones, and can also serve as guidebooks. You also make the link that a happy ending will inherently condone the protagonist's actions. This is a simplistic way to think of a happy ending that reduces them to little more than moral vehicles. That’s a terrible way to think of happy endings.

Yes, I agree that an unchallenged narrative can condone things that maybe the author does not want to condone, but to treat this as a basic feature of happy endings (and not a problem with authors who refuse to think critically about their own work) is....wait for it...

simplistic and reductive

Brief aside: what do I mean by saying that? I’m saying that throughout this whole article you take ideas that should be complex topics that can provoke thoughtful discussions and instead:

  • 1) you simplify several ideas into most of the stuff this post is hollerin about, so i won’t go into in-depth detail RIGHT in this spot (this already ended up 4 pages lol)
  • 2) you reduce many of the concepts you discuss into soundbites that are easy to argue against. No wonder the comments are full of people saying “sad endings aren’t any better dude” even though you never actually say “please, write more sad endings”.

You invoke the just world fallacy, and this goes back to why I ask what you MEAN by a "happy ending". Because you talk about very specific kinds of narratives -- ones that reward the protagonist while punishing villains, ones with black-and-white morality, ones that have a sort of "fairytale" ending of "everything will work out no matter what happens so long as you are Good" and... again, I do not agree that these are basic features of a happy ending.

Happy endings reinforce a conservative worldview and implicitly condone victim blaming.

You try and link happy endings and the just-world fallacy as if all happy endings reinforce it. This is a disgusting thing to say, and a disgusting way to invoke the just-world fallacy.

Your objections to happy endings (that they're prescriptive, they reinforce the just-world fallacy, and they create unrealistic expectations that don't align with the real world -- correct me if i'm wrong in understanding what you're saying here) seem to stem more from how various moral questions are handled in a narrative. This is independent of whether or not an ending is "happy". If you want to talk about this, drop the bullshit about happy endings and just stick with discussing what you wrote in your main takeaway at the end.

BONUS: Why I get so Gosh-Darned Defensive of my Precious Happy Endings

Here’s just one example that I hope illustrates some generalities for me and my writing: lesbian pulp fiction. I’m assuming most people aren’t familiar with those, and while I hate wikipedia, I will grudgingly admit their article on the topic is a good general overview.

author = wikipedia
Because very little other literature was available for and about lesbians at this time, quite often these books were the only reference the public (lesbian and otherwise) had for modeling what lesbians were.

you know all that stuff ya wrote about the power of a narrative? check. Lesbian pulp novels of the mid-20th century did influence both how some women thought about themselves, as well as the dominant narrative of "homosexuality is Bad and homosexual people are Unnatural and Should Not Be That Way". But for women who were attracted to other women, these books could be a subversive way of exploring their sexuality.

How these novels handled the moral questions they raised (at the time, the main one being: is it alright for women to be attracted to other women?) was way more important than whether or not these stories had happy endings.

author = wikipedia
Because the literature was not respected, it was not censored as readily, although most of the larger paperback publishers were wary of postal censorship, and, for instance, took care not to publish works that were overly supportive of "deviant" lifestyles.

Because they were not respected, paperbacks were not seen as worthy of serious artistic consideration. They were seen as not mattering and in general, I would say people didn't think they influenced anyone in a meaningful way. A position similar to some stances in the good ol' "are videos games art?" debate we (sometimes) face today. (i hate this debate but that's a separate topic.) This is also a position similar to when people say "media influence doesn't matter and I refuse to think I'm responsible for what my work says".

This combination, where:
  • A) these books had a lot of influence on the perception of homosexuality because they were often a person's only source of representation and information
  • B) these books were regarded as profitable + not worthy of serious consideration, and
  • C) these books had to follow existing censorship laws and could not be seen as promoting "deviant" lifestyles"

...all worked to create a situation where it was seen as wrong to have "happy" endings in these novels.

This resulted in the formula where, if you had a woman who was attracted to other women in your work, it was expected that they would end up miserable, dead, or both. (Or "cured" but i'm getting off-topic with that one.) Although there is specific history to lesbian pulp fiction, this general pattern of "no happy endings" has for a very long time been applied to LGBTQIA+ characters as a whole.

This still happens, for the record. One of those shitty ideas Disney often promotes to kids? Consistently coding their villainous characters as if they are LGBTQIA+. (Honestly for me as a kid it also just made me identify more with villain characters. that's another thing you can talk for ages about)

Why did I spend all this time talking about lesbian pulp fiction? Because when I write LGBTQIA+ characters, I tend to give then happy endings. I think that in the context where the most well-known examples of these characters result in tragedy, it sends a message loud and clear: being LGBTQIA+ can only end in tragedy. By making an active effort to write more happy endings for these kinds of characters, I want to send the message that things can work out, and there's hope even if sometimes things feel hopeless.

this is way better than wallowing in your personal cynicism or talking about how vaguely defined "happy endings" send "harmful messages"
@PentagonBuddy

Or you could spend the time creating a narrative about the inherent and eternal oppression of all peoples. A narrative about all efforts and ethics wasting. There is always a happy ending, but at the flipside of the happy ending is the loss of another. Despite the world not being a zero-sum game, it can be adequately stated that the very act of achieving a happy ending directly corresponds to denying such an ending to another. Somebody always loses or can be perceived as having lost. In your stories, you give what is considered to be the oppressed group the happy ending by flip the tables for them in an act of subversion. Perhaps that act of subversion may be known as noble, but there are no harmful or beneficial messages.
That sounds like a terrible narrative

I will forever promote positive and encouraging messages to "neutral" ones too. Thinking of someone's success as meaning another person's failure promotes the kind of cutthroat competition and general asshattery i wanna see less of. gimmie more cooperation, thanks.

I mean if people wanna write their grimdark groucho stories that's their business, but it doesn't mean anything's wrong with a happy ending, in general.
unity
You're magical to me.
12540
Wow, PB, that was an amazing read! Seriously, it brought a ton to the table that I hadn't even thought about!
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
Yeah, why should I make an uplifting narrative to encourage people who are oppressed in real life when I could make a depressing one about how everything sucks for everyone! Let's continue to ignore struggles of oppressed persons in favor of vague generalities!

Also if you can't possibly visualize a happy ending that doesn't sacrifice someone else's happiness, you're not thinking hard enough.