(no subject)
OK, I have seen one too many people say some variation of this recently, so, writing rant:
Happily ever after is the death of the story.
Let's define our terms, shall we? Does 'happily ever after' mean 'the organic conclusion of the story?' Does it mean 'the resolution of a given conflict?' Or does it mean 'two characters consummate a relationship?'
If the first or second of those three, then yes, I agree, it is a mistake to extend any story, on any topic, past its natural conclusion. And stories do, on the whole, need a conflict - something for the protagonists to accomplish or avoid. However, even if we grant that every story must end, that's not to say that there might not be other stories to tell about the same characters, or different characters in the same world. Not an infinite supply of such stories (we've all read the Contractual Obligation Stories that writers turn out when they've run out of ideas for a character, but the public continues to demand more) but potentially more than one.
All too often, when people tut-tut about happily ever after, it's not one or two that they mean at all, but number three. "The Moonlighting Syndrome!" they cry. "It's impossible to write a good story about characters who are in a long-term relationship, and if you put characters in one, it will KILL THE STORY DEAD!"
Well, if there is nothing more to your story than "Will X and Y have sex and/or declare their mutual love?" then quite possibly yes, having them do so will kill your story dead. If that's all your story is about, then when it happens, the story is over, the conflict is resolved, the tension is released. The End. However... maybe you haven't noticed this... I know it's weird and shocking.... but...there are other things that stories can be about.
They can be about identity. They can be about growing up, or growing old. They can be about parents and children, or brothers and sisters, love vs. duty, society vs. the individual, the individual vs. themselves, man against nature, what happens to a relationship when the passion is gone, who murdered Roger Ackroyd, or what happens if you colonize Mars. Sometimes they can even be about more than one of those things at once. Like, I don't know, a married detective with a mid-life crisis dealing with the stress that solving Roger Ackroyd's murder on Mars puts on his/her relationship.
Genre romance is very popular, and for good reason - falling in love is an awesome experience. But it's not the only template in existence for writing about the relationship between two people. There is more to human (and inhuman) interaction than saying "I love you," for the first time. And it is perfectly possible to write a good, suspenseful story about people who've already said it and meant it. No, it won't be a genre romance. It will be something else. But is that really such an awful and unthinkable concept?
Rants Talk to me
Happily ever after is the death of the story.
Let's define our terms, shall we? Does 'happily ever after' mean 'the organic conclusion of the story?' Does it mean 'the resolution of a given conflict?' Or does it mean 'two characters consummate a relationship?'
If the first or second of those three, then yes, I agree, it is a mistake to extend any story, on any topic, past its natural conclusion. And stories do, on the whole, need a conflict - something for the protagonists to accomplish or avoid. However, even if we grant that every story must end, that's not to say that there might not be other stories to tell about the same characters, or different characters in the same world. Not an infinite supply of such stories (we've all read the Contractual Obligation Stories that writers turn out when they've run out of ideas for a character, but the public continues to demand more) but potentially more than one.
All too often, when people tut-tut about happily ever after, it's not one or two that they mean at all, but number three. "The Moonlighting Syndrome!" they cry. "It's impossible to write a good story about characters who are in a long-term relationship, and if you put characters in one, it will KILL THE STORY DEAD!"
Well, if there is nothing more to your story than "Will X and Y have sex and/or declare their mutual love?" then quite possibly yes, having them do so will kill your story dead. If that's all your story is about, then when it happens, the story is over, the conflict is resolved, the tension is released. The End. However... maybe you haven't noticed this... I know it's weird and shocking.... but...there are other things that stories can be about.
They can be about identity. They can be about growing up, or growing old. They can be about parents and children, or brothers and sisters, love vs. duty, society vs. the individual, the individual vs. themselves, man against nature, what happens to a relationship when the passion is gone, who murdered Roger Ackroyd, or what happens if you colonize Mars. Sometimes they can even be about more than one of those things at once. Like, I don't know, a married detective with a mid-life crisis dealing with the stress that solving Roger Ackroyd's murder on Mars puts on his/her relationship.
Genre romance is very popular, and for good reason - falling in love is an awesome experience. But it's not the only template in existence for writing about the relationship between two people. There is more to human (and inhuman) interaction than saying "I love you," for the first time. And it is perfectly possible to write a good, suspenseful story about people who've already said it and meant it. No, it won't be a genre romance. It will be something else. But is that really such an awful and unthinkable concept?
Rants Talk to me