A book is a rare treat for me, I simply don't have time for reading any more. So when I pick up a book once in a while, I want to be left in good spirits after finishing it. I don't want to walk around heartbroken and lament the state of the universe and humanity because the author tried to portray reality. (If I want a slice of reality, there's always a documentary.) Especially if good characters went through trials and such, I want to see them rewarded with good life.

I am not saying that all the endings should be good; after all, the authors should be free to write whatever they feel is appropriate. I am just trying to defend good endings and their perceived lack of depth.

Yeah, I think about this stuff too, and I'm with SubWife: A happy ending can be way too predictable and cheesy, but I've been seeing way too much modern stuff when the hero takes a huge loss and the badguys win hands down. That's even worse. It could be the reality, but everyone knows that human beings (in our society) have a need for justice. And if there's no justice...well that obviously leaves you with a really bad taste in your mouth (think of the film "Chinatown").

On one hand, Jane Austen novels do come off like that. On the other, I see a very deadpan, realistic and absolutely merciless take on society - I think this is especially evident in Emma, Sense and Sensibility, and Persuasion. Yes, in the end it's easy to think "heroine is about to marry decent man she loves = happy end." On the other hand, given that the personalities and the relationship up till now have been depicted with sometimes brutal honesty, is that necessarily the logical conclusion? Also, Austen has a way of making the secondary characters important to the reader as well, and the likely future of people like Jane Fairfax or Marianne... it's really not encouraging.

I think there's a balance (or should be) between a "and they all lived happily ever after" cheesy perfect ending and a villian coming out on top. I think there can be a death of a main side character, or something bad happening to him/her, as long as the story doesn't end on a sad note...

Hi there--I found your post and thought it was an interesting subject, so I wrote my own take on it and linked to you. Thanks for the inspiration! :) You can find my post here: http://austenacious.com/?p=675

--Miss Ball, Austenacious.com

Listen, I reread P&P because it was compared to Twilight. And I did not like what i read. Lizzie is so great?? How? She is one mean spirited, arrogant, selfish witch. Ok, Mr Collins may be short, uncool, and a toady, but he is trying. He tries to marry one of his cousins so they can stay in their home. He is grateful for his little parsonage. Does Lizzie have to make fun of him at dinner? Is that even polite? And Lady Catherine may be overbearing, but she is old. Who talks down to an old lady like that? Only a beyotch. Ok, Thats not why Im hating her. The selfishness. She will only marry for love? If I had to marry Howdy Doody to keep my mom and my sister from being homeless, I would do it. But Lizzie could care less. How can she stand herself after refusing two proposals(one to a man she does love, but is mad at) when she knows that either of them would have saved her family from being peniless? And when Charlotte advises jane to show more interest in Bingley? Liz trashes the idea. . But when later she finds out that Charlotte was right she doesn't blame herself for not passing the info on to Jane. She blames Darcy, and Bingly for misreading her sister. Thats not an arrogant, snide, selfish little *** ?

Well at least he/she's got a moon moonlit sky! :)

Dust said:

Why don't you try writing a charactar who responds to an ending in an unexpected way. So, for instance things can end badly, yet the charactar realizes that this is a better outcome then whta they would've wanted prior. Or, the charactar thinks the ending is happy while in reality he/she remains a victum of some real or metaphorical enchantmemt..?

One of the things that I love about blogging is that I get to see what other people think about a subject. I give my opinion, and then I get to see all the other ways to look at it from different perspectives. So thank you to everyone for the feedback.

What some of you mentioned was that there was something unpleasant about the good guy 'losing' and the villain 'coming out on top.' I never meant to say that the character that is generally recognized as the 'villain' should come out on top. Whether he does or not is a separate issue. But if a story or a book focuses on a man's internal struggle or relationship with the world, the question is how he ends up in relation to his own thoughts and dreams, not in relation to the villain's success or failure.

Miss Ball -- Thank you! I'm quite honored that you decided to write about this, and I found your post very interesting.

lollipop -- Well, that is certainly a fresh way of looking at it. I don't think I ever thought of it that way. But I would venture to say that Lizzie does not deserve some of the adjectives you used to describe her. I think that what she lacks most is reason. Lizzie is passionate and emotional; when she is in such a state, it is difficult for her to be reasonable. No matter how much the reasonable part of her brain might have encouraged her to do what was necessary to help her family, the emotional part wouldn't allow it.

And yes, the moon-lit sky should be of some consolation! ;]