route99west.com

While the happy ending is much sought after by the average reader of a story, there is a very pertinent reason it should not be strived for by an author.

Most stories deal with adversity, often times with facing against an evil force. Usually the goal is to defeat this force, or at least to survive it.

But to go further and reward the hero for his defeat by giving him a "happy ending" cheapens the struggle. The logic becomes "struggle against an evil adversary so that you may be rewarded with earthly happiness." This means that, if you take away the earthly happiness, there is no reward, and therefore no longer a motive for standing up against the challenge placed before the protagonist. Additionally, it further distances the story from the reader, in the way that any strange invention of a fantasy never could. How many people actually have that "happy ending" in their lives? It is in many ways an entirely unrealistic pill for the reader to swallow.

Many Japanese legends and even anime deal differently, often ending in the death(s) of their main character(s). While this may at first seem cruel -- and there are many downsides to the Japanese model, including the heroic elevation of suicide and the lack of a sense of individual rights and needs -- there are upsides to this approach that are more consistent with the logic of a good story.

Two things stand out about the Japanese model. One, the need is less for the character to survive and/or be rewarded, and more to be true to themselves and their moral code. The second is the separation of the idea of defeating your enemy from reward or even survival.

The need to not be false, the need to defend your principles, even if they cost you your life, is a very noble precept and is a liberating, and ironically highly individualistic approach to a story. The second item that stands out, to die in your cause is not to become martyred or to commit suicide, but to undertake the role you must undertake, no matter the cost. It is in some ways the difference between the secular view of assisted suicide, and the Catholic model, wherein it is wrong to kill even for mercy, but it is acceptable to give mercy if the side effect may result in a hastened death.

From a narrative standpoint, ending a story arc with the death of the protagonist can often allow more closure than any other form, a sort of natural ending, rather than the constant question of "what happened then?"

One word of caution. Every story shouldn't end in death or an "unhappy ending". To create a world where evil always triumphs is the ultimate in disheartening literature. If the story must end with the evil undefeated, then there must be "survivors", there must be those who continue onwards. And in all cases, if the protagonist survives the end of the work, it must be done in a way that does not imply a happy ending, but at the same time must imply a sense of hope, which is all any of us can realistically expect in our own lives. It is also a pattern that the reader can identify with from their own lives, and therefore bring the story to a more meaningful position. One of the great reasons that tragedies have held human attention, after all, is their believability, from a human nature standpoint.

"I tried to write shorterbut I ran out of time"~Mark Twain

"I tried to write shorter
but I ran out of time"
~Mark Twain