Do stories have to end well?

[casnow]

My current work in progress is turning out to be much darker and more brutal than I had originally thought. The protagonists are getting screwed over at every turn... little victory, huge loss. The side characters that are a part of their lives are getting sucked into the downward spiral and suck that is their life. Even the villain ends up with a fate worse than one could possibly wish on her.

The only reprieve that the protagonists get is seeing the fate of the antagonist. Is that enough redemption or does there need to be more?

Cheers for the advice!

[Rick Daley]

I can't say that your description is enough to go on to confirm that it works; we'd probably have to read the entire manuscript to know for sure.

I can say that I like tragic or horrific endings when they are done well. I thought the writers of the show DEXTER were very brave in their ending for this last season. Tragic barely begins to describe it.

I also like the ending for the movie THE MIST and the way it pulls the rug out from under you.

[Crystal]

I don't think all books have to have a happy ending. One of my all time favorites is My Sister's Keeper and the ending is a complete tear jerker. I think it is all in how it is done.

Good luck

[MedleyMisty]

LOL no. :)

The story can end however it wants to end. What feels good and true and beautiful to you? Go with that.

[casnow]

Rick - I had been waiting for them to do what they did (one way or another) ever since season 1! I mean, I can't describe how happy that ending made me (think church bells ringing, angels playing harps, and warm and fuzzy puppies doing tricks kind of happy). Personally though - season two (Bay Harbor Butcher) is still the best in my opinion.

Crystal - glad to hear that. I thought about making a warm and fuzzy ending, but then when I was outlining the second half, I just thought to myself, there is no way this can end well. So, I'm ending with several lives ruined, two deaths (maybe a 3rd by way of suicide), and zero redemption except for the "misery loves company".

MM - It's only beautiful in that we can take comfort that we are not the people in the novel.

[Scott]

Be true to the story. A good ending is far better than a happy one.

[Josin]

Be true to the story. A good ending is far better than a happy one.

QFT.

The ending should end "right" even if it doesn't end happy.

[Kaitlyne]

Yeah, I also think some stories just aren't made for happy endings. One of the things I always admired about Stephen King was that he wasn't afraid to give you a depressing ending if the story called for it. Actually, my favorite Dean Koontz book is the only one with a ridiculously sad ending. That isn't to say I prefer it, but I've always felt like sometimes it's better.

The only thing that would really upset me, and I've read examples but I'm far too tired at the moment to give an example, is a story where the ending was so depressing and everything went wrong that there wasn't even a shred of hope left at the end. I always remember feeling this way about The Pearl, though I haven't read that since high school. Some people like it, but I'd feel almost cheated if there isn't some degree of hope at the end.

[Nick]

Sounds like a satisfying ending to me, although I must admit I do like grim, or grim-ish endings (I have a tendency to bring rather gory ends to my own villains). However, without much detail about the story, there's not much to go off of. My only suggestion would be thus: Is the ending you are writing natural? Better to have a dour ending that is proper than to instate a cheery ending that feels woefully out of place.

But that's just my haypenny.

[polymath]

In one sense, there are only two kinds of stories. Stories that end with an irrevocable transformation for the better, often for a protagonist, and stories that end with an irrevocable transformation for the worse. The former are called comedies, the latter tragedies. At one time in the not too distant past, tragedies were widely considered the height of the dramatic arts. Comedies were not as widely respected as recently as the mid Nineteenth Century because they lacked for the tragically beautiful ethos and pathos of tragedies' endings.

By way of comparison, Homer's Iliad and Odyssey are tragedy and comedy respectively. More recently, Harry Potter's ending is comedy; the Star Wars saga in an interpretation centered on Anakin's transformations, tragedy for his final noble sacrifice; Lord of the Rings, comedy. Thomas Harris' Silence of the Lambs, comedy, Hannibal Rising, tragedy. Tom Clancy's novels are usually comedies. Humor and farce aren't necessarily conventions of novels in the classic meaning of comedy, only that they end well for a milieu, idea, character, and/or event outcome.

As far as redemption is concerned, more important is an irrevocable transformation and a validation of the transformation. Poetic justice comes with built in transformation and validation, virtue is praised and/or rewarded, vice condemned and/or punished.

[Bryan Russell/Ink]

I rather struggle with that Tragedy/Comedy breakdown. It's a signature of Classical Drama, not necessarily literature in general, and there were far more conventions delineating the two forms than just whether the ending was generally happy or sad. And the Iliad and the Oddyssey were not Classical Dramas (following the conventions of the theatre), but were rather Epics (written in verse). It's a separate form with its own conventions and narrative frameworks. Things like Lord of the Rings descend far more from this tradition than from the dramatic tradition of the Comedy/Tragedy axis. Novels, of course, developed much later and drew on many different traditions and forms, though elements of that Comedy/Tragedy polarity still exist. But to reduce stories so simplistically might be a little misleading. Stories are more than the sum of their endings. What is Catch-22, for instance? Certainly it is hilarious and full of comedy, and yet it is also a dark and rather tragic story. I don't think trying to shoehorn it one way or another is particularly valuable.

I'm all for organic endings. They should grow out of the conflicts and purposes of the story. They should feed the vision put forth. But the majority of people these days almost always want happy endings, though part of this might be because they are always spoonfed such endings. Perhaps darker endings are harder to pull off in a satisfying way, and the happy ending is easier (and more trustworthy). But I think writers like Cormac McCarthy have shown that there's still an opening for dark endings, and I think it's good that something like No Country for Old Men received not only critical acclaim but popular acclaim, too.

[Jaime]

Ha! I've been wondering the same thing.

I have heard that romance novels must, must, MUST have a happy ending . . . but does that include paranormal romance, which I have written and am now editing? Or are they talking Mills and Boon? And does it have to be a happy ending in the first book if it's part of a series? Ow, my brain!

My ending has completely floored my beta readers (is it bad that I feel good about making people cry???), but it's the first in a series, and they're now complaining that I'm not writing the sequel fast enough!

I look at it this way: Think of it as the season finale of your favourite TV show. It should answer all of the questions that have arisen during the year, but leave you flabbergasted at the same time (and throw in a cliffhanger if you're writing a series!).

I also like the ending for the movie THE MIST and the way it pulls the rug out from under you.

Rick - My mates and I were just talking about that the other night. I love that ending in the movie! That would totally happen to me if I was in that situation.

[polymath]

Tragedy and comedy distinctions are one of a multitude of rather simplistic story categorizations. I've not read a published story that didn't have a distinguishable outcome in one or the other or both categories. Some of the more rewarding stories I've read have both. Catch-22, for example. Is an excellent illustration of a story type that has both. Yossarian's external goal is to avoid combat, which he ultimately fails to accomplish. At first he's succeeding then fails, an external reversal of fortune brought on by his transformation. His internal goal is to reconcile a cogntive dissonance, which he ultimately succeeds in accomplishing no matter how unsatisfactory that accommodation to his circumstances are. At first he's failing then succeeds, an internal reversal of fortune brought on by his transformation. Certainly not unequivocable or irrevocable transformations, but completed for the time being as far as he is concerned.

A consensus considers the novel a dark comedy, as much for comedy's modern as its classical meaning. Me, in the balance of tragic and comedic outcomes, I agree, because Yossarian internally has come to an acceptable successful accommodation with his circumstances. Decidely Postmodern in style too, because of Yossarian's self-aware questioning of the bizarre reality he finds himself in. Those are my interpretations to own. The novel is open to a wide array of other possibilities.