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

slash
APATHY IS FOR COWARDS
4158
I do occasionally like more realistic and non-karmic stories. I really liked Wolf of Wall Street for how it did this (spoilers I guess?)


The main character is an asshole and a villain who gets away with horrible things and not only doesn't get punished, but is more or less lauded by society. Compared to the cop chasing him, who's still struggling to pay his bills, the message is obvious - being a firm, manipulative capitalism and a fat cat isn't necessarily punished in our society.


I know a ton of people who hated the movie for that, but I think it sends the message that was intended very effectively. You can make a realistic movie without it being "grimdark".

That said, in no way do I think all stories should be like this, because stories can have any number of purposes and intents. I can't think of any good reason to limit the settings and conclusions of our stories to how they would end in "real life". Like most people here have said, a little fantasy can be a light in the dark. Furthermore, it can give us goals to shoot for, even if we never reach them.


EDIT: Thinking on this further, how much should we expect from our audience? How much do we need to coddle them with "This is a work of fiction and isn't a representation of how the real world works, please do not interpret it as such"?
author=PentagonBuddy
(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)


I like Kefka and Seymour more than I like a lot of Final Fantasy characters.
And I think I like Seymour more than Kefka. XD

But yeah! Awesome post PB!

And... @volke_locke this is pretty silly you know. Arbitrarily saying that every happy ending directly provokes another single bad ending in a related or non-related person's life is pretty arbitrary and dumb. Just as often or even more so, happy endings will provoke happy endings for other people as well. Or they might simply not affect them at all. You're thinking of too many 'what ifs' there, and unless that is what you want to depict there, this is dumb and unconstructive.
author=PentagonBuddy
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.


You misinterpret me entirely. I'm merely denying that any message or narrative has any moral value, that it cannot be beneficial or harmful.
Ftr, I'm not saying that the idea behind "It's our responsibility" is completely devoid of merit. Sure it makes a great deal of sense on paper. Ponder about it all you want and rationalize it in any way you want: "Think critically", "Be considerate", "Do your best" All that nice stuff... On practice however, it starts to fall apart. At least to my understanding of the word "responsible".

Even your most carefully-crafted, well-meaning story could have unintended "consequences". Let's say someone does something bad "influenced" by a good message in your game. Are you "responsible" for that? I guess you could say you are, in some weird: "had you never made that game that something would have never happened" kind of way. But what I mean is: Should you be -held- responsible for that? To any extent or capacity? ...Should you be charged? shamed? boycotted? Should you feel guilty? or censor yourself? I think the answers for all those things is: "NO". So as long as we're on the same page on that, sure, whatever you say.

Should every work be "art"?


yes
author=JosephSeraph
author=PentagonBuddy
(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)
I like Kefka and Seymour more than I like a lot of Final Fantasy characters.
And I think I like Seymour more than Kefka. XD

But yeah! Awesome post PB!

And... @volke_locke this is pretty silly you know. Arbitrarily saying that every happy ending directly provokes another single bad ending in a related or non-related person's life is pretty arbitrary and dumb. Just as often or even more so, happy endings will provoke happy endings for other people as well. Or they might simply not affect them at all. You're thinking of too many 'what ifs' there, and unless that is what you want to depict there, this is dumb and unconstructive.


Despite that is a misinterpretation of my point, your counterargument is just as arbitrary. Let me expound further. If you noticed, I did say it isn't a zero-sum game. The game is continuous/infinite and thus endings are inherently unreal. You can also flip the any story into dozens, if not hundreds, of views that can brought out as conflicting narratives. It is logically inconsistent to say that some narratives are invalid. If we take the story of 9-11, how many narratives can we come up with? We can use the narrative of the firemen, or the police... or we could use the narrative of Nicaraguans or Panamanians, which went like this "9-11 is a tragedy, remember when America did worse to us?" We could even use the narrative from the side of the factions who caused 9-11 to happen. Why not pick the happy ending of 9-11 where the terrorist succeed?
Well, sure, if you want to write the villain's point of view, go for it, but be clear to yourself, that person is the villain in this story due to what they did and how that ended for a mass of others. Granted, you can write it in such a way that it doesn't seem that they're the villain. You can even write it in such a way that you cheer on that villain but at the end of the day, when you close the book and see the end of that story, you can't not see the villainous intentions that went in to destroying thousands of lives - no matter the reasons given, they were a villain.


Frankly, I like happy endings. I like bad endings, too, but if my poor characters have to suffer through me torturing them through-out the whole story, I'm either going to kill them or their loved ones off... or giving them a happy ending. Because fuck what anyone else thinks about responsibility of 'realism' or whatever shit, fuck what people think about whether it's a good idea or they'd have preferred x or y to happen. It's my God-damned story and I'll fucking do what I want with my fucking characters. If you have an issue with that, go cry elsewhere. I'm good enough a writer to look at my story and say 'yeah, that works just fine.'

Happy endings don't have to be riding away on a prince's stallion and into the sunset, which is where I think some of you are getting the wrong kind of picture. People can be happy with a tin of beans and a hope for tomorrow being brighter. That's a happy ending, right there. You don't need to break the hero to pieces to make an ending happy. You just have to have them happy for that fleeting moment at the end, even if you doubt it will last. That's all that matters - that moment.

And there's not a god damned thing wrong with giving your story that one fucking moment.
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
I don't take pleasure in writing a story that doesn't feature growth.

At the end of their journey, whatever it may be for them, I want any character I write to come out the other end a more fully matured human being.

I vastly prefer happy endings to sour stories over sour endings to happy stories.
@volke_locke: Alright, first of all, it is incredibly tasteless to bring up a real life tragedy and reduce it to some sort of "narrative." That was a real thing that actually happened and caused real people pain.

Secondly, from what I gather from your posts: really it sounds like you just want to deny the responsibility an author has when writing a story. Go back and read Penta's bonus part of their post about lesbian pulp novels. This is a p great example of, yes, real life consequences coming from made up stories. Writing does not exist in a vacuum: it influences the way people think and how we interact with each other.

If I, too, have "misinterpreted" your posts, would you mind outlining what you actually think in clearer terms?
@volke_locke: Fair enough! If i misread something i'll go back and give it another look and (probably) a less flippant response. Probably later tho, I got places to be right now.

author=alterego
Ftr, I'm not saying that the idea behind "It's our responsibility" is completely devoid of merit. Sure it makes a great deal of sense on paper. Ponder about it all you want and rationalize it in any way you want: "Think critically", "Be considerate", "Do your best" All that nice stuff... On practice however, it starts to fall apart. At least to my understanding of the word "responsible".

Even your most carefully-crafted, well-meaning story could have unintended "consequences". Let's say someone does something bad "influenced" by a good message in your game. Are you "responsible" for that? I guess you could say you are, in some weird: "had you never made that game that something would have never happened" kind of way. But what I mean is: Should you be -held- responsible for that? To any extent or capacity? ...Should you be charged? shamed? boycotted? Should you feel guilty? or censor yourself? I think the answers for all those things is: "NO". So as long as we're on the same page on that, sure, whatever you say.


since I don't like a lot of what sailerius had to say, I'll go to what I said:

"media influence doesn't matter and I refuse to think I'm responsible for what my work says"


This is the angle I get so critical of. When you talk about being held "responsible", you seem to phrase it as if you're being asked to be held responsible for other people's actions. 90% of the time I will agree that yeah, you can't really be held responsible for someone else's actions. It's called "free will" for a reason.

Should you be -held- responsible for that? To any extent or capacity?


Yeah this it where things really split imo. I think that YES, to some extent people should be held responsible for “that”, but i guess it depends on what you mean by the “that” here. Are you responsible for their actions? no.

The responsibility I ask people to take isn’t for another person’s actions. People will interpret your work however they damn well please, and it’s a lot easier for them to support their viewpoint when the author has given them all sorts of ammo, intentional or otherwise. By thinking critically about your own work, and yes, thinking of yourself as responsible for the viewpoints in it, you can at least make sure to say things you don’t mind saying.

As for the way to respond to someone in situations like this? Where you’re trying to make a case for “hey I think your work can imply/outright say some things I take issue with”? You keep approaching these discussions as if the first response to “someone made a thing with ideas i disagree with” is going to be tarring and feathering someone. Yeah, I’ll grant that it happens. No, I don’t think it should happen most of the time. (On a case-by case basis. Sometimes something is so egregious, and the creator is completely uninterested in hearing critique that nothing can come out of discussing it. but then you start getting into a bunch of nuanced scenarios and im always writing long-ass posts. i try to keep it brief despite everything y’know.)

I also don’t think that the swift and extreme responses are the result of asking creators to think critically about their work, because failure to do so can encourage beliefs that go on to contribute to all sorts of shit. Also known as that “influence” you put in scare quotes. I think that swift + extreme response happens when an activist group, or individual people who really are into social activism, or even just someone who is upset about what they’re responding to, maybe don’t always think critically about their own actions, or the context of the situation, or their source of information. This can sometimes lead to jumping the gun.

And sometimes, when someone is expressing their upset, that's all they're doing and they don't give a shit about what the author thinks.

there’s a legit conversation to be had about those kinds of things. It’s separate from asking creators to think about what messages are in their work. It’s separate from, yes, asking them to take responsibility for what they do. it makes sense on paper and in action.
this totally explains why your games are full of miserable, unlikable jackasses i guess. gj if that's really what you were going for.

doesn't explain away all the bad writing and direction though.
Ratty524
The 524 is for 524 Stone Crabs
12986
author=Karsuman
this totally explains why your games are full of miserable, unlikable jackasses i guess. gj if that's really what you were going for.

doesn't explain away all the bad writing and direction though.

Jeez, I thought after all these years the bad blood you had with Sail would have cooled down a bit. :/
author=emmych
@volke_locke: Alright, first of all, it is incredibly tasteless to bring up a real life tragedy and reduce it to some sort of "narrative." That was a real thing that actually happened and caused real people pain.

The U.S. is the only country condemned by the World Court for international terrorism. Let me tell you a story for the sake of the victims.

In the late 70's to late 80's, the U.S. fought major wars ("low-intensity conflicts," which, by the way, share nearly the same definition of terrorism in America's own policies) in Central America, leaving creating hundreds of thousands of mutilated corpses, millions of orphans, and four countries devastated. These actions were followed up by severe economic sanctions that killed many more.
Concerning this, the New York Time wrote, (We are) "United in Joy" over the success of the methods used to "wreck the economy and prosecute a long and deadly proxy war until the exhausted natives overthrow the unwanted government themselves."

The World Court found the U.S. guilty of international terrorism in 1986 in response to the U.S.'s actions in Nicaragua. The court ordered a terminations of unlawful action and reparations. The U.S. dismissed the indictment in contempt of the law and increased the viciousness of their actions in Nicaragua. The U.N. Security Council then brought a resolution against the U.S., but the U.S. alone vetoed it. Several more actions against the U.S. were brought up before the General Assembly, but were each vetoed by the U.S.
Meanwhile, the U.S. established brutal dictatorships around the world; Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Somoza in Nicaragua, Marcos in the Philippines, and Duvalier in Haiti. The U.S. enthusiastically supported the regimes of Suharto of Indonesia, Mobutu of the D.R.C., Ceausescu of Romania, and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Actually we lifted loan bans on Iraq the same day we invaded Panama. We deposed Noriega (Panama) because he resisted control and replaced him with an even more powerful and brutal drug-lord. One ClA-trained battalion in Honduras carried out more atrocities than Noriega ever did. Later, in the 90's the U.S. supported the Turkish genocide of the Kurds and supplied more than 80% of the weapons used.
Even today, the actions against Qudaffi in Libya are not much more than a replay of Panama.

-----------------------------------------------------

Tragedies like 9-11 are common, the only thing that made it significant was who the victims were. For once it was a superpower that was the victim rather than the perpetrator and that is what gives 9-11 any meaning. And yes, it is a tragedy, I don't mean to sound callous. However, remember all those games where you strive against an evil empire that severely oppresses your people and commits great atrocities against them? If you were to apply that same narrative, happy ending and all, to a realistic and modern setting, what would you get? You'd probably start the game committing terrorists acts of varying magnitudes (not quite unlike the beginning of FF7.)

So, was what I said really tasteless? Maybe so, but I intended a very specific point that is difficult to explain.

-----------------------------------------------------

author=emmych
Secondly, from what I gather from your posts: really it sounds like you just want to deny the responsibility an author has when writing a story. Go back and read Penta's bonus part of their post about lesbian pulp novels. This is a p great example of, yes, real life consequences coming from made up stories. Writing does not exist in a vacuum: it influences the way people think and how we interact with each other.

If I, too, have "misinterpreted" your posts, would you mind outlining what you actually think in clearer terms?


I deny "ought," not consequence. Actions produce consequences, there is no "ought" in choosing what actions to take in corresponance with consequences. Actions may produce consequences that are advantageous, disadvantageous, or neither. This does not in any way mean that they must act in an advantageous or disadvantageous way. In this way, the author may be responsible for consequences, but is not responsible in the "ought" sense. There is nothing inherent to the actions themselves that demand "ought" or "ought not."

To be far more clear, I take the position of Error Theory and deny the existence of morality in both the a priori and a posteriori senses. There is only action and consequence, and as an artist and as a person I'd avoid the consequences I do not wish to see. Yet, there is no externality that requires an action of me along any path.

-----------------------------------------------------

In regard to Penta's post on Lesbian Pulp Fiction, I called it a noble act of subversion. I just disagreed that a "grimdark groucho" (which is a great term) narrative, even when preaching hopelessness to the oppressed, has a different net worth. The philosophy of my art centers in the confrontation of dark feelings. While I do not disregard uplifting works, I think that the confrontation is equally worthwhile. This is where the misinterpretation happened. My personal experiences, which are a story for another time, point me on this course. I think hopelessness is a better call to action. I think hatred can be a valid emotion (as misguided as it often may be.) Anger has it's place. I wish to portray the oppressed as oppressed. I want to portray the enmity, the hatred, and the lost of. I desire to portray dark feelings with understanding. I would take on their pain and become a comforter to them. In this way, perhaps I cannot offer counsel, but I have no counsel to give - I am a mere observer. I will stand and recognize them.

-----------------------------------------------------

author=Liberty
Well, sure, if you want to write the villain's point of view, go for it, but be clear to yourself, that person is the villain in this story due to what they did and how that ended for a mass of others. Granted, you can write it in such a way that it doesn't seem that they're the villain. You can even write it in such a way that you cheer on that villain but at the end of the day, when you close the book and see the end of that story, you can't not see the villainous intentions that went in to destroying thousands of lives - no matter the reasons given, they were a villain.


I deny that I "can't not see" and I deny that it has anything to do with seeing. There are no heroes are villains, only different people along different paths guided by differing experiences. You may say they are misguided, but I cannot until I embrace them. I must love them before I condemn them. I may be saddened by their actions, but I will not refuse them their humanity.

-----------------------------------------------------

I hope I have been far more clear this time as to my position on various topics. If you do not understand the position I am coming from, I suggest these books to you. It isn't that I necessarily agree with everything they say, but I belong to a similar school of thought and they may be more articulate than me.

Biology and the Foundation of Ethics by Michael Ruse,
The Myth of Morality by Richard Joyce,
Beyond Morality by Richard Garner,
Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong by J.L. Mackie,
How to Defend Humane Ideals: Substitutes for Objectivity by Jim Flynn
Moral Skepticisms by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

and most importantly,

Koheleth - author unknown
The artificial nature of morality doesn't matter much to me. i mean i'm not even disagreeing with you on that. Fair enough, man! keep on avoiding those consequences you don't wanna see. More power to you.

It's in the realm of philosophical questions I might wonder about in the shower but don't hold any personal meaning to me. idk, regardless of how real my moral standards and judgments are, they're still standards I have and a useful tool in my own ways of avoiding consequences I don't wanna see.

Like most forms of nihilism my feelings about it are mostly this emote: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I can't hold a v informed or thoughtful conversation about things like the existence (or non-existence) of morality. sorry!

I think the most i have to say is that when someone's in a pit, being offered a rope you can use to climb out generally feels better than someone observing your pain or, worse yet, crawling into the pit with you.

and I still stand by what I said previously. I just very fundamentally disagree that there exists a concept like "the inherent and eternal oppression of all peoples". Some people might see the appeal in hopelessness as a call to action, but I'm not one of them.

Plus I still mean the bit about preferring positive messages to neutral ones. To me, saying something like "there are no heroes or villains" or "there is no right or wrong" is neutral. That's not how I write but yeah I'm not gonna buzz in someone's face if that's what they wanna write.

i also have no clue what you mean by talking about endings as inherently unreal. all of fiction is unreal. this is why it's fiction. I mean, yes, you can flip any story into all manner of perspectives. I think some are better than others, not out of any inherent qualities, but because of the qualities i see in them based on my outlook. so idk, I wouldn't say that some narratives are invalid, but i would say they are worth less consideration, or have been represented to the point that further depictions of these narratives is boring, contribute very little, or are otherwise worth less than other perspectives for X reason.

how i assign this worth is based 100% on subjective qualities

to keep myself a teeny bit topical about endings and fiction and stuff: stories that focus on the tragic outcomes and emphasize the suffering of everyone involved the entire time are for the most part (b/c i always have to qualify things like this, there's almost always an exception) ones I want to see less of because I think that particular narrative (the world is crap and nothing will cease being crap) is neither helpful nor insightful. Stories that present this view as if it's an objective evaluation of the world (i.e. it's 'realistic') are even more narrow-minded in my book. I can't stand to be around people who think that tragedy is the only thing the "real" world has to offer, or what "art" (however art gets defined) should strive to depict, as if positive experiences are worth less.

I know you, personally, did say you don't disregard uplifting works, so that's maybe not directed at you, personally. idk, I haven't interacted with anything you've made. I ain't gonna assume. But when people start talking about the lack of "good" or "evil", or if they imply that works of art emphasizing pain and suffering are "better" in some fashion, my hackles get raised.
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.

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.

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.

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


@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.
SunflowerGames
The most beautiful user on RMN!
13323

In reality most people can't live with the fact that they are bad. So all the villains in video games who laugh crazily and talk about how evil they are, are not in fact realistic.

Most bad people are people who do bad thing because they don't know its bad, or they are doing it out of desperation, or they have a mental disorder.
Or they don't care. I'd hazard that most fall in to that category.
@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.
RMN has became such a lively place
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
Y'all know that Man vs. Man is not the only type of conflict available, right?

Is a happy ending to Man vs. Nature unethical or whatever?

author=kory_toombs
In reality most people can't live with the fact that they are bad. So all the villains in video games who laugh crazily and talk about how evil they are, are not in fact realistic.


How many of these are there tho? IME most of the time, they seem to be either misguided or just assholes.
I remember reading a post on another community I frequent a long time ago, and it fits this article pretty perfectly;

author=guy
I am realizing more and more that writers these days are terrified of leaving the audience happy, fulfilled, and optimistic at the end of a story, probably for fear of being chastised as shallow and cliché.

The first time this dawned on me was the end of Mass Effect 3 (there's no reason why the ending couldn't have simply been "you beat the Reapers, united the machines and the humans, and you got your dick wet too, well done"), but it applies equally to HIMYM: the ending couldn't be "...and they lived happily ever after", because I'm a writer and I write deep stories with deep characters and needlessly complicated endings.

PentagonBuddy also nailed it on the head.