Are happy stories boring?

I think there's some truth in the 'happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way'. To extend that to writing, I would say that there are a limited number of stories you can tell where everything is good, and the more things go wrong, the more possibilities open up.

Of course, I think that works both ways. If you want to make things bad for your characters, there's only so far you can go before you end up in Rape Is The New Dead Parents and Dead Little Sister territory.

I feel this is an important point to make. Admittedly I've made it several times, but I think it's very important to keep the concepts of conflict and what you might call "darkness" in stories separate. They aren't the same.

For me, happy stories are most often boring when I get the sense victory is a guarantee for the protagonist. Of course they're going to win. They're the good guys, right? There's a prophecy that says so and everything.

Bleh.

Give me grim and dark. Give me Kill 'Em All. Or at least I'll take bittersweet.

Let me see the situation slide past the point of no return and watched the self-described heroes scramble for what pitiful scraps of good remain. Let things never be the same again. Let the bad guy win once in a while.

Yeah, I don't read books to see monsters be defeated. If the monster is defeated and it makes a good story, then that's great. If the monster wins and it makes a good story, that's great too.

• Points to My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic*

Happy shows can be very interesting, so long as they have some conflict.

The assertion things can never be the same only in a story where things go bad is at least as bankrupt as the assertion that only angsty stories are good.

One could point out that a protagonist's victory over their primary obstacle is far more satisfying when it is not assured. If there is no challenge or realistic chance of failure on the hero's part, why would they even put the effort into fighting evil or unhappiness?

If the protagonist is always more powerful than the antagonist, then there is no conflict. Which is not to say that stories with hopeful or positive tones are dull; instead, it is to say that the added tension of the hero potentially not reaching their goal makes achieving it that much better... or just missing it that much more heart-wrenching.

Happy story =/= Protagonist being more powerful than the antagonist. I mean, they're not even related.

So let me get this straight: cop shows don't exist. Because when you get right down to it, the cops will always have more manpower, more tools, more expertise then all but the most organized and wealthy of criminals.

Again, I have to point out The Salvation War. Yes, the story is a foregone conclusion in the end. When you get right down to it, nothing from the Bible is terribly impressive in terms of the raw destructive power humans can wield today. Yes, we all know that when it comes down to it, Humanity is going to crush The Legions of Hell beneath their tank treads and nuke the Heavenly Host. Yahweh will be driven from his throne by the Archangel Micheal in a bid to save the angelic race from humanity's wrath.

But it's still a great story, told with great attention to detail, because the story is about the journey, not the destination. Even if you win, how you won and what you did to get there will have consequences. Who you fought and what they did will have consequences.

One might as well claim that history is a terrible story, because even matchups almost never occur there.

edited 19th Aug '11 7:26:40 PM by Night

Happy stories are not boring.

Boring stories are boring.

(Sorry people; see next post.)

edited 19th Aug '11 8:05:24 PM by JHM

Cop shows... are more complicated than that. The conflict is rarely direct, the trial system is imperfect, and the body of evidence is rarely easy to piece together. Victory is never an absolute certainty.

The Bible is a bizarre and complicated thing, as are its derivatives: The conflict is on a cosmic scale, and thus of a nature that, were you unacquainted with the ending, would be far harder to call in either side's favour. Excluding that, even: Satan is not an unworthy challenger just because God wins. And that was my point anyway: Victory, even ultimately certain victory, is nothing without some kind of challenge to it; otherwise, it is merely status quo.

To state the obvious, change is more interesting than stasis. Even hour-long drone music suites change; stories should, too.

On a different note, I feel the need to ask this: What's inherently wrong with a mostly-dark story with a grim ending, assuming that it actually has an interesting and well-executed premise? *

Nothing. I personally tend not to like that kind of thing, but there is nothing objectively wrong with it, and it is not inferior to "happy" stories. All I am arguing is that it isn't inherently better.

Honestly, I was sort of asking Night, who seems to answer any post I make on this thread with something that reads akin to, "Your opinion is wrong and you should feel wrong." Maybe it's because he thinks that I sound that way - though I try to avoid that. I just... don't know.

I'm with nrjxll, actually. I simply find that you're presenting awful, unreasoned opinions.

Challenge is only one means of generating drama. There are many others. Even a foregone victory does not preserve the status quo; it changes the world, it changes the list of enemies, it changes how others view you, how you view yourself, it changes the resources available and the people who answer. There are a dozen ways to write a story, a good story, about even the most lost of causes; there are just as many that about even the most foregone of conclusions. Humans can be as interesting in victory as they can in defeat.

I know that you're kidding, but the fact that you aren't completely wrong bothers me more than it should. Which means, at least, that I respect your opinion. I hope that's not totally one-sided.

Anyway, I'm not denying that such things can be made interesting, just as anything else can be. It could even be said that to make a foregone conclusion engaging is the sign of a truly great writer. That said... what is foregone can swing both ways.

For others, yes. Not to me. What of it?

I'm not going to deny what I enjoy just because someone else gets offended by it. Bring on the darkness, I say. Where there's a monster, there's a miracle.

And that's why I can agree with you but not the claim in the OP - you acknowledge your position as personal, whereas Whedon or whoever said it originally was claiming "happy stories are boring" as a universal, objective truth. I don't deny that there are people who find grimdark works much more enjoyable then "happy" ones, and if we take that "happy" to Sugar Bowl levels, I'd join them. All I have been arguing is that no level of happiness/angst in a work is objectively better then another.

^Exactly. Objectivity never comes into it.

I wonder if, at some point when we're kids or teenagers, we grow conditioned to seeing darker, grittier works as stories that obey their universe's rules and laws more faithfully than, say, a schlocky kids show like Care Bears (edit: Car Bears, lol).

We see the darker color pallets, or a character says "fuck" and we're like "Oh, shit just got real, son!"

I think it's true that you'll find many stories sloppily told on every point of the sliding scale of dark and light. But the lighter stuff tends to play faster and looser with the rules of the world and how it reacts to the actions of its heroes. Like, in happier stories, the heroes are more likely to survive stupid decisions. The bad guys will have bad aim. Prophecy foretells of a new hero that will come blah blah blah. Defeat means friendship, not a knife in the back.

Whereas dark tales tend to rain down the consequences and repercussions, good intentions be damned. Fans of Red Letter Media's Star Wars reviews or George RR Martin's Game of thrones will know what I'm talking about. If a universe treats the good guys like they're Chuck Norris except when it's absolutely necessary to the plot that they finally make a mistake or something sad happens, then I think that tends to drain away a lot of the tension in the story. And this is a fault you'll often see set a the feet of happy/kid friendly/lighter stories.

Now, I don't think this impression is accurate or fair. Crappy writing is everywhere. Dark and gritty just seems to get the bye on this, maybe because heightened realism is often seen as a hallmark of the Grimdark?

edited 19th Aug '11 11:58:16 PM by MildGuy

I've got two theories on that:

Firstly, I think we just live in a rather cynical time period, and furthermore, one that thinks much higher of pointing out what's wrong than trying to fix it. Please don't state your own opinion on this - it's just my theory and I don't want to derail the thread into debating it.

Secondly, I don't think many works are going to, for instance, violate Status Quo Is God to help the good guys. Most authors like to stack the deck against their protagonist - I myself admit to being one of them, although I just hate Status Quo Is God no matter how it's used, so my characters will have things change in a positive way as well. But in general, I think authors will focus on 'realism' more when it works against their characters than when it helps them.

^I'm not talking about Status Quo so much as the laws of physics politely stepping out of the hero's way most of the time, or turning a blind eye now and then. Well, I guess physics and rules and overall laws could be considered a subset of the Status Quo.

I think many authors do break their own rules they've set down for a story universe. They probably don't see it that way. DeusExMachinas or MarySues or Political Strawmen or improbable physics when convenient are just some of the many examples. And these are faults I found I associate with happier, or more idealistic works, and I'm not sure where that notion comes from, since I logically know any genre and tone can be written sloppily.

Am I alone? Does anyone else feel this way? Is this a thread derail? What was the original question again? Sorry.

edited 20th Aug '11 12:42:09 AM by MildGuy

I can see where you might get that impression, actually - both Deus ex Machina and Mary Sue do seem like they'd be more common in "happy" works, or at least ones with a happy ending - Deus ex Machina forces that happy ending no matter how bad things look for the protagonists, while Mary Sue, by warping the plot in her favor, is never in danger of failure (though whether that's happy is left as an exercise for the reader). Yes, they both have evil counterparts in the Diabolus ex Machina and Villain Sue, but neither is as common as the original trope. So while I think you may be confusing cause and effect here, I do agree that those two particular writing mistakes are more common in works with a happy ending - though since they might not be all that happy before then, the connection between what you call happy writing and these things is even weaker.

I don't see why you associate strawmen with "happy" works, though. I think strawmen are vastly more common in dystopian works.

edited 20th Aug '11 12:47:13 AM by nrjxll

Yet I can't be sure if that's purely a false impression or not. I don't think anyone has plotted out some empirical evidence to support it.

My point being, if this bias of mine is common, then that might explain the "happy stories are stupid stories for babies" vibe that gets some people all riled up, and prompted the OP's question.

edited 20th Aug '11 12:54:36 AM by MildGuy

Unless you're writing (opposite ends of the scale!) stories for very young children or porn then yes. Not necessarily True Art Is Angsty but almost every story needs an antagonist, whether it's internal, external, human or force of nature. Even with romance, sitcoms etc something needs to happen. That's why the average teenage chick flick focuses on the geeky girl, romantic comedies leave it to the last minute for guy to get girl etc and comedy works on bad stuff happening to characters, even if said bad stuff isn't particularly tragic or gets fixed by Status Quo Is God (like it does in the Simpsons). Stories need conflict, whether it's a death or just a falling out between friends.