SciFi and Fantasy eBook Club discussion
General Topics
>
Happy endings in science fiction
Vardan wrote: "I do not think that many readers commiserated with Sauron when he got defeated in the Lord of the Rings."Of course not, but to call Lord of the Rings a book with a happy ending? It has a bitter sweet ending. The true ending is that the elves leave Middle Earth for good; their side won but with the passing of the One came the end of all the rest, including those held by the elves. Which meant Middle Earth became a mortal land and the elves had to leave it behind, or become mortal themselves.
Furthermore, Frodo's ending wasn't happy. He had been tainted by the Ring. He passes with the elves into the West. So too did Gandalf. Sam's ending was happy, except that he had lost his best friend and would never see him again until he too sought refuge in the West.
The good guys won...but they also lost so much.
As for my preference...I'd have to say it's neither the happy nor the sad, nor the "open". I prefer endings that draw the story to a satisfactory conclusion. And that can be any of the above. Just don't leave me hanging with big questions unresolved (unless there's a sequel definitely coming that picks up where the other left off).
Micah wrote: "Vardan wrote: "I do not think that many readers commiserated with Sauron when he got defeated in the Lord of the Rings."Of course not, but to call Lord of the Rings a book with a happy ending? It..."
I agree with your assessment of the layered ending of the story - no outright happy or sad ending is satisfactory. After all, this is life and the end is the beginning is the end (as the Smashing Pumpkins would say).
The thing is, in reality, we often have big questions that get left unanswered. This is part of the awe and mystery, and wrapping it all up just seems too convenient, too contrived.
Kenneth wrote: "The thing is, in reality, we often have big questions that get left unanswered. This is part of the awe and mystery, and wrapping it all up just seems too convenient, too contrived."Do we leave them unanswered because we want to keep part of the awe and mystery intact or because we ourselves don't really know the answer and are just as lost as everyone else?
But books aren't reality. If there are big questions left unanswered, unless there's a sequel, or a really good reason to do so, then I find that kind of ending unbearable, lazy or both. Books by their nature are contrived. The conflict in books is always a contrivance. Without it there's no story. And without some satisfactory wrapping up of the conflict, then it all falls flat as a story.But it really depends on what kind of book.
Sometimes what appears at first to be a big question turns out to be a McGuffin: not really all that important in the end (the real resolution comes in some kind of wrapping up of character issues). Those are often fine to leave unresolved.
Which brings me right back to: doesn't matter if it's happy or not, as long as it's satisfactory.
Let's take Bambi, for example. Actually, a fairly depressing ending if you remain fixated on Bambi's mom. And the little critters toasted in the fire.What's up with that, Walt? Life is shit; get used to it?
"Man is in the forest." Oooooohhh! Scary!
Happy ending, my ass. :}
Bambi vs Godzilla was much worse...and much more awesome!
Somehow, when I was just thinking of an example for a strong ending, it wasn't a book but a film that first came to my mind: District 9 - one of the most amazing works of science fiction I have ever experienced with apt social commentary, badass technology and a tight plot with just the right mix of drama and popcorn, emotion and action.
Bambi vs Godzilla! Perfect for safely twisting a child's developing sense of humor. And, hell, I loved it, too!The junior alien in District 9 was great. I really empathized with his father. :}
I LOVED the ending of District 9. They got it perfect. You do NOT find out what happened to the aliens, or the protagonist (other than he lives). It's great. Book plots are contrived yes - but that doesn't mean the characters and their personalities, goals should be contrived. I avoid that kind of thing. There's no need to tie up everything, and I find it distracting when it happens. No real person is omniscient. The narrator shouldn't know what everyone's outcome is at the end of the book. They should know only where they themselves stand. Humans lie, humans have imperfect memory, and partial information. Authors who respect this tend to write really strong stories. Authors who disregard it can also write really strong stories, but more often they result in airport-pulp plots.
Vardan: I think we leave some questions unanswered because we don't possess the ability to answer them, like the narrator of a book should not either. Others, we choose to avoid because knowing may be more traumatic than leaving it be, or take away part of the awe and respect of the subject.
Kenneth wrote: "I LOVED the ending of District 9. They got it perfect. You do NOT find out what happened to the aliens, or the protagonist (other than he lives). It's great. Book plots are contrived yes - but th..."
A lot of the novels, especially science fiction novels dwell on the eternal topics of freedom vs security of peace vs standing up for the rights, of perfection vs humanity, of artificial intelligence vs the human soul. The very point of the dilemmas is the fact that the author may have an attitude and an opinion on them but it will be just another log in the ages old conversation that will continue as long as there is humanity so, perhaps, leaving a question open invites the reader to take part in the discussion.
That does not mean I do it in my own works where I think my opinions come through quite strongly but I also appreciate that kind of discussion challenge.
I like to end in a neutral manner, neither positive nor negative, but definitely leaving it open. Let the reader ponder more.
While the end of District 9 was good, I liked the openness; I was a bit peeved at the over the top action in the middle. No finesse, no subtlety. I know it's a movie and it's probably some kind of law that lots of things have to go KABOOM! But long fight sequences have become mundane to me.
As a reader/writer, I think a story must have exposition (introduction to threat/problem), rising action (what are we going to do about the problem), a climax (the turning point), falling action (resolving plot threads), and a resolution (conclusion) to be satisfying. Stories that end without resolution of some kind are gimmicks.
The ending does not have to be happy, although I prefer it be at least upbeat. If the hero dies, it must be for a good reason.
Not all plot threads must be resolved, but all major ones must be or it is sloppy writing.
For my own writing, (view spoiler)
If it's the end of a series I demand resolution. After x books things need to end one way of another. If it's just the end of a single book a bought provoking open ended ending can be fun.
Nathaniel wrote: "If it's the end of a series I demand resolution. After x books things need to end one way of another. If it's just the end of a single book a bought provoking open ended ending can be fun."I think a lot of series won't have conclusive endings, because the author doesn't know when the series will end; it ends when the publisher drops it or the fans just quit buying.
I'm a pretty loyal reader; if I get hooked by book one, I'm usually going to finish out a series, but I do like a real ending to each book. If I get to the end of a book and I feel like all I really read was the first half of the next book, it can make me lose interest quickly. This may have a lot to do with my reading style: I don't read a series straight through, instead I will read 1-2 books of another genre between each book of my sci-fi series.
I like some kind of closure, no matter what kind of ending (happy, sad, open, bittersweet, etc). I don't care of the hero lives, dies, comes out scarred and a better person though he lost the fight or loses his mind. just wrap up those loose ends! I really hate it when I read a series and it's incomplete (creator died, creator had a breakdown, creator just stopped writing, publisher dropped it, etc).
K.P. wrote: "I like some kind of closure, no matter what kind of ending (happy, sad, open, bittersweet, etc). I don't care of the hero lives, dies, comes out scarred and a better person though he lost the fight..."I find closure pretty important too. I make a disgruntled sigh at the end of most Stephen King books, as much as I love his writing.
Bittersweet has to be my favorite flavor of ending. Happy endings tend to be forgettable, but something that ends the way they should even if it isn't the way you want seems to stick with me the most (see His Dark Materials or Full Metal Alchemist(The older show) )
It is the beginning that keeps you reading the book. But it is the ending that gets you to pick up the next book by that author.
Brenda wrote: "It is the beginning that keeps you reading the book. But it is the ending that gets you to pick up the next book by that author."Not sure I agree with that entirely but a really, really strong ending will certainly stick with you more than a really, really strong beginning (usually).
I couldn't agree more actually - I forget who said it but there is a saying along the lines of In all things it is the beginning and the endings which are the most interesting...This may not necessarily be true of all things in life but it certainly seems to have influenced me in my reading choices.
I feel the same way Brenda! Its all about catching my attention then leaving me happy and waiting for the next book.
Happy endings or endings of any kind seem to be a dying art due to the advance of series or multi-part stories. Yes guilty as charged but I like my stories to be complete finished. Yes there could be a new story but too often its short <60k words and then fails to close the major plot lines happy or sad.
It may also depend on genre. In my experience, happy endings tend to be more associated with romance and comedy. I can dimly remember from my English degree (many moons ago) that the definition of a classical comedy was when the fabric of society came apart but eventually came back together with a happy resolution. A tragedy was when society came apart and whilst it may come back for some people, at least one person would lose out - either losing their life or something significant.
Certainly when I write comedy I seem to end up with happy endings more often than not.
With much science fiction being dystopian and/or post apocalyptic, perhaps we are naturally falling more towards unhappy endings? It's a bit hard to have everyone living happily every after when we've just wiped out 90% or more of the earth's population.
Maybe I'm just too by-the-numbers, but I always like a hero who solves the plot. Never been big on character sketches, they all read like "Catcher in the Rye" to me. And I feel like the majority of sad endings are trying to make some kind of political/social/philosophical point. And that CAN be good, if the point is well made and of some import. But so often in Scifi, the same "beware the dread spectre of technology" message pops up, and I for one tire of it. Give me a hero who defeats the bad guy, gets the girl and shares a laugh with his sidekick ANY day.
There is a range. In a true 'comedy' by the classical definition, everything ends happily, usually in a wedding -- like TWELFTH NIGHT. Tragedies end, naturally, with everyone dead -- HAMLET is the great example.Modern work tends to be in the middle. Think of LOTR. Lots of people dead, Frodo with PTSD and off to the elven lands, but Sam comes home for his Happily Ever After and Aragorn gets the wedding.
Brenda wrote: "Sam comes home for his Happily Ever After and Aragorn gets the wedding..."With the implication that Sam would eventually retire in the undying West later on (after Rosie and his kids all die?) and that in Aragorn's own wedding, his wife becomes mortal and will share the inevitable end of all humans. ];P
Yep. That's the mixed quality of modern endings. (Although even an HEA with a wedding does not imply that all parties will live forever, clearly.) Tolkien is perhaps a bad example, since he was totally into the Nordic epic kind of thing where at -best- it ended happily for a short time. The frost giants do have to return, you know. He wrote an entire essay about the Eucatastrophe, the true happy ending.
I agree that "closure" is important in a book. This is not to say that the ending must be happy or even resolved, as long as the end of the story has given the reader some indication of resolution. In my own book—which started as a stand-alone, until readers demanded more—the ending was deliberately ambiguous, in a sense, although it resolved the situations of the main characters. The greater thrust of the story, however, could continue in the reader's mind, due to the implications of the open-ended conclusion. That open ending, which was satisfying to many readers, led others to want more of the story...so there's a sequel being written. People want more of the world that was created by the first book.Perhaps that's the way the trend toward series novels began? Folks don't want the worlds created by authors they like to end? I'm not sure that Roger Zelazny had the amount of books in the "Amber" series in mind when he wrote the first one, because it could have stood alone.
If it is the readers, they frequently resort to fanfic. There are vast huge websites dedicated to Harry Potter fanfic, or LOTR fanfic.The author's motives are possibly different. Not only is there more story to tell, but all the worldbuilding work has already been done -- why not use it some more?
Peter wrote: "Maybe I'm just too by-the-numbers, but I always like a hero who solves the plot. Never been big on character sketches, they all read like "Catcher in the Rye" to me. And I feel like the majority of..."Amen, Pete!!! I LOVE happy endings and don't have much use for the rest. Even if the "happy ending" is just a pause before the next problem in Book #2. C'mon people; wrap up most of the threads and leave just enough loose ends for the next story if you're writing a series. Let the hero win the battle, even if the war rages on (kind of like John Bowers' Fighter Queen saga.
Al wrote: " I LOVE happy endings and don't have much use for the rest. Even if the "happy ending" is just a pause before the next problem in Book #2. C'mon people; wrap up most of the threads and leave just enough loose ends for the next story if you're writing a series. "Exactly. I am old enough now that I've had enough *not* happy endings in real life that I absolutely do not want to read about any more. I read for entertainment and I am certainly not entertained by unhappy endings. I also have a deep-seated dislike for 'cliff-hanger' endings as well ... finish up what you started and let me decide if I liked it well enough to go on with more about those characters or that world.
I've never had an issue with cliff hanger endings. The Day of the Triffids comes to mind - though open ended might be a more apropos description - that not knowing the ultimate fate of the protagonists is an added level to the story rather than a distraction.
What I demand is not the HEA of the romance novel, but closure. It has to end right. TRIFFIDs is a good example of a book that ends satisfactorily.
I love unanswered endings. Leave the threads unraveled. Leave it messy. That's reality. Keep your fairy tales in the kids section, for my tastes. I dislike the expectation that the heroes will undoubtedly triumph despite being put in an impossible situation. It's contrived. I also dislike the way some authors explain how every thread gets neatly tied up, so that when you're finished, you have no more questions.
To me, a book that doesn't leave you with any questions when you're done reading it is a failed book.
I guess it all comes down to your personality. I read for "escape", like Sharon. If I want to be depressed, I'll turn on the news. If I want "real life", I'll just look around me. There's a lot of that going on.If I pick up a work of fiction, I want to be entertained and escape the depression and the "messy threads" of life.
Kenneth, obviously, wants something else. Fortunately, there's plenty of good stuff out there for all of us.
There are some novels that would be ruined with a happy ending and some that require it. Take, for example, A Canticle for Leibowitz. Brilliant science fiction and a brilliant founding novel in the entire post-apocalyptic sub-genre. Part of it's brilliance is the dark ending - the cyclical nature of history and a hungry shark swimming in the ocean.
On the other hand, many science fiction novels - and not just space opera - would be ruined without a happy ending.
Sometimes I want a happy ending, sometimes I want messy and sometimes I want just a flat out tragic ending. (Rarely do I want a romance style HEA ending unless I'm reading an actual romance and even then I want to be surprised sometimes) it all depends on the book itself and what that story needs to be.
On the other hand, many science fiction novels - and not just space opera - would be ruined without a happy ending.
Sometimes I want a happy ending, sometimes I want messy and sometimes I want just a flat out tragic ending. (Rarely do I want a romance style HEA ending unless I'm reading an actual romance and even then I want to be surprised sometimes) it all depends on the book itself and what that story needs to be.
I'm with Brenda and Geoffrey, as I've said before in this thread.Also, I don't see why a happy ending is required for a work to be entertaining, or escapist. Shakespearean tragedies are no less entertaing for their less than happy endings.
People have different tastes, I suppose, but escapism and entertainment for me come mostly in works that have a large doses of ideas and complexity. The type of ending has almost no bearing on that as long as it's appropriate to the work. The old classic space opera where the good guy swashbuckles his way through alien adversity, gets the girl and saves the world against impossible odds has almost no appeal to me.
While I do sometimes read for pure entertainment, I usually prefer to be challenged - morally, philosophically, intellectual, stylistically, or otherwise. I good book gives me a reason to think.
The HEA end is rarely the outcome of a book that challenges the reader. It can probably happen, but examples escape me for the moment. The HEA is just wish fulfllment more often than not. The end must flow as a plausible outcome from what came before.
While I think Blade Runner is a prime example of the forced HEA end, it seems to be the du jour choice of Hollywood and many authors.
So here is a different kind of challenge: name a science fiction book or movie with a non-pat HEA.
The HEA end is rarely the outcome of a book that challenges the reader. It can probably happen, but examples escape me for the moment. The HEA is just wish fulfllment more often than not. The end must flow as a plausible outcome from what came before.
While I think Blade Runner is a prime example of the forced HEA end, it seems to be the du jour choice of Hollywood and many authors.
So here is a different kind of challenge: name a science fiction book or movie with a non-pat HEA.
LOTR, how about. It ends, but not perfectly happily for all.
I'm ambivalent to happy, sad, bittersweet, crushingly emotional or any other "type" of ending. I just want a good one that fits with the book's overall theme and mood. It shouldn't come out left field, and I'd prefer no deus ex machina, either.The problem is that writers get used to writing beginnings and middles, but, because so many projects get abandoned before completion, they're not quite so good at writing endings. It's also very hard to know where to land the plane, so to speak, unless you start by knowing your ending. But mostly it's lack of practice.
Greg wrote: "While I think Blade Runner is a prime example of the forced HEA end, it seems to be the du jour choice of Hollywood and many authors..."Which version of Blade Runner are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versions...
The first workprint did not have a HEA ending. The theatrical release did (imposed by the studio, not the writer or director, nor the author of the book it's based on.)
The best version, IMHO, is the Director's Cut, which has an ambiguous ending, same as the working print.
And, of course, the book's ending is classic PKD, happy, kinda, but not so happy, kinda.
I liked the ambiguous ending. It's one of my fav books.I'm very much in Greg's camp on this topic
@Micha
I saw Blade Runner opening night at the Uptown in Washington DC. I don't care if the HEA wasn't in the working print or enforced by the studios, it got released under the director's name, and I saw it. There is no such thing as a second chance at a first impression: and when I waked out that night the consensus was bad movie, really bad ending.
@L
John Irving always writes the last sentence of a novel first do he will aways know where he is going. Dan Simmons, on the other hand, doesn't know what the end will be: "No surprise for the author, no surprise for the reader." I take that with a grain of salt.
I saw Blade Runner opening night at the Uptown in Washington DC. I don't care if the HEA wasn't in the working print or enforced by the studios, it got released under the director's name, and I saw it. There is no such thing as a second chance at a first impression: and when I waked out that night the consensus was bad movie, really bad ending.
@L
John Irving always writes the last sentence of a novel first do he will aways know where he is going. Dan Simmons, on the other hand, doesn't know what the end will be: "No surprise for the author, no surprise for the reader." I take that with a grain of salt.
I find it helpful to have an ending to write towards. Never have I ever gotten to that ending. The work always turns left and heads out for the tall timber, and ends somewhere I had not expected. However, a notional ending has its usefulness. And since it is bound to change I put no work into it, and recycle the same ending from novel to novel. This faux ending is: And then they all died. Works fine, and they never do die.
The consensus for Blade Runner was what? among which group? And who says you don't get a second chance. The original cut I thought was a fantastic move with a stupid ending. The Director's Cut is just fantastic and makes up for it in my eyes.
As for the challenge of non-happy endings, I already brought up one some messages back: A Canticle for Leibowitz. The book ends in nuclear holocaust.
There are also those where the hero wins but is defeated inside a la Perdido Street Station, Beggars in Spain or Ender's Game....
As for the challenge of non-happy endings, I already brought up one some messages back: A Canticle for Leibowitz. The book ends in nuclear holocaust.
There are also those where the hero wins but is defeated inside a la Perdido Street Station, Beggars in Spain or Ender's Game....
Geoffrey wrote: "The consensus for Blade Runner was what? among which group? And who says you don't get a second chance. The original cut I thought was a fantastic move with a stupid ending. The Director's Cut..."I actually loved the film first time around, knowing it had major issues. The ending wasn't a surprise, but it wasn't nearly as bad as the really annoying voice overs.
I'm pretty sure I only started reading PKD after seeing that film, so I have to at least thank the original for getting me to read the real deal.
And, yes, the Director's Cut is monumentally good. It removes the schlock ending and the cheapening voice overs, while adding a cool sense of mystery and wonder back into the work. When I think of the film now, I only think of that version. I have a DVD with both versions...I've never watched the theatrical release on DVD.
It's still not PKD's work, though.
In my own writing I can't really start writing for real until I've got an idea of the ending. I may not know exactly what happens or who the bad guy is, but I have to have some kind of resolution in mind.
SciFi and Fantasy eBook Club
Books mentioned in this topic
A Maze of Death (other topics)Number9Dream (other topics)
Soldier of Sidon (other topics)
The Scar (other topics)
Number9Dream (other topics)
More...
I saw Blade Runner on opening night in 1982..."
I agree with you 100% Greg - the original released film with the voiceover, and that awfull 'added on' ending made for a very poor film.
However, the Directors cut removed both the voiceover, and removed that ending, transforming the film.
I went from being confused and feeling let down, to viewing it as one of my all time favoutite films.