![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
aggravated is it so wrong to expect a happy ending in regards to romance whether or not it's an actual romance or just a subplot in a different genre? This would probably be one of the reasons I always liked early Koontz more than King (besides the whole style thing). King would have a couple but one or the other of the pair (if not both) would end up dead or possessed or something. Koontz let them be together at the end.
When I read, I give myself to the characters. I feel what they feel, live through what they are living through...and god damn it - I expect a romance to end on a good note. To invest all that time and emotion into a relationship only to have it fall apart...hell, I've done that enough in real life not to want to read about it as well.
Which brings me to the second half of this rant. Realism. This is what people over the years have offered as an excuse as to why they don't like romance plots/subplots.
Realism. Let's think about this for a second.
Or, not, because I don't really need a second. I read fiction to be entertained. If I want realism...I'll pick up a nonfiction book or read the frickin' newspaper. I wouldn't pick up a romance or a book that has the possiblity for it in there. I wouldn't pick up a fantasy book where I fully expect to find the hero slaying the dragon and getting the princess.
I don't expect a "happily ever after" in my stories...that's only one extreme of a happy ending, but I do expect a couple to still be a couple and be planning on trying to spend a life together. I do expect the characters that I've grown to like through the story to all still be alive and relatively whole by the end of it. Yes, occasionally one has to die (especially in fantasy and suspense books) but the rest of the characters should make it to the ending of the tale in somewhat pleasant condition.
Is this too much to ask?
Not really.
But it sure does make me feel like the odd one out sometimes.
March 5 2006, 02:39:04 UTC 6 years ago
People complain about GRRM killing off characters, but it's always tied into and furthered the plot. I can't say that of a lot of writers--especially when one person gets killed out of nowhere right near the end of the damn book.
March 5 2006, 02:55:04 UTC 6 years ago
Depressing does not equal stellar. And, romance wise, if people aren't bitching because it's a traditional story--aka, marriage or at least plans of such, they're bitchin' because the research isn't right. Who the fuck cares? I find it highly unlikely that I'm the only reader that skims over the information/setting descriptions.
You know.
The quickest way to kill any desire to read anything at all is to read posts around writing communities and so called "review sites".
Some days I just want to crawl into bed with my Stephenie Laurens books and my David Eddings books and never leave. Because if the style of books that get discussed about on writing communites were to get published and sweep the shelves...there really would not be anything at all for me to read (with the rare exceptions that populate my lj flist for the most part).
/end second rant.
March 5 2006, 04:24:10 UTC 6 years ago
Hmm. I don't see struggle and happy endings as being mutually exclusive. I prefer it if the characters have to struggle--and maybe nearly die--but dammit, if they go through that much hell, there'd better be at least a moderately happy ending, or I am Not Going To Be Happy.
"Because if the style of books that get discussed about on writing communites were to get published and sweep the shelves...there really would not be anything at all for me to read (with the rare exceptions that populate my lj flist for the most part)."
There's a style of writing that seems to be popular around writing communities... I don't really think there's an actual term for it, but "literary writer" might be the most appropriate. Basically, it focuses around doing the exact opposite of what's popular in commercial fiction. Break the cliches just to break the cliches, kill the characters just because "it's not done," and so forth. (Toss in the "writer's writing rules," like "never use a form of 'to be,'" as well.)
While it's stupid to do something just because "that's what everyone else does" or "that's what the market wants" (unless, of course, you're writing for a very specific market like Harlequin or Christian Inspirationals), it's equally stupid to do something just because you can. If there's not a sound reason in the plot, characterisation, worldbuilding, etc, then don't bloody do it.
... I may rant further on this subject on my own LJ/blog. Hm.
Anonymous
March 5 2006, 05:49:20 UTC 6 years ago
Not literary, literate
Well, at least this complaint is utterly original - it's the first time I've ever heard someone complain that the fantasy genre is too emotionally harrowing to be good entertainment. Practical advice: judge a book by its cover. The cheesier and more cartoonish the art, the more likely it is to have an ending you'd find comforting. Won't always work, but it will improve your odds.The reason you don't find writerspast their teens , even aspiring writers, reading bottom of the drawer stuff like Eddings, is that even those who don't end up writing better than that have to aim a little higher to reach any target at all. It's not snobbery; it's craft.
March 5 2006, 10:34:35 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Not literary, literate
That wasn't actually my complaint, although I can see where it might be read as such if one completely ignored half of it.My complaint, which came from me as a reader, not a writer, is that everyone seems to think these things that I personally tend to enjoy reading are cliche. Perhaps my true complaint is more against people who seem to think craft is abandoning everything in a genre that has come before.
And, um, yeah you can find writers still reading Eddings past their teens. That statement is snobbery in one of its truest forms.
March 5 2006, 15:10:16 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Not literary, literate
>And, um, yeah you can find writers >still reading Eddings past their >teens. That statement is snobbery >in one of its truest forms.I was about to make exactly the same comment until I read this. Some people a) can't read, b) can't comprehend what they read and c) need to get their heads out of their backsides long enough to realise that other people are entitled to their own opinions. Its even more nauseating that wazzocks are so insecure in themselves that they have to post anonymously.
Thats another rant entirely... I'm putting away my keyboard before I wibble off into serious vitriol.
March 5 2006, 07:06:33 UTC 6 years ago
It isn't.
I just expect some ending, that is either hea, or probably hea from a romcom. (like with one of my favorite romcom's, sleepless in seattle)
March 6 2006, 13:01:56 UTC 6 years ago
I write "realistic" endings in the sense that the ending is what the plot has driven my characters towards. No happiness without earning it first; you can smile at the end, but you're going to work for it. I actually do always preserve any romantic subplots I've created (okay, there's an exception or two - but those endings have to be that way, or I've cheated myself and future readers), though. If they've worked through the story and struggled, then they deserve to still be linked in the end. No Romeo and Juliet for me.
If they haven't done the work, though, I have no qualms about letting the romance fizzle and die. My characters need to earn their endings - pure and simple; if they can't, it's going to be bittersweet.
March 6 2006, 21:22:57 UTC 6 years ago
The thing is...you can generally tell fromthe rest of a book if that's the ending you are going to end up with and when it's been promised and then to "be cool" it's snatched away from the reader it's very irritating.. Although, for the most part, extreme sappy endings like you're describing have fallen by the wayside in the past four or five years from most genres, including romances.
March 7 2006, 12:20:50 UTC 6 years ago