The Myth of Happiness

The other day I was in the car with my 21-year-old nieces, and we were talking about books. One of them listed One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest as their all-time fave, despite the "unhappy" ending. In fact, she was miffed with the movie version that Hollywoodized the end. Not that she prefers UHEA (Unhappily Ever After) but that some stories need one to be true to themselves.

This is very interesting to a romance writer, whose books MUST include some kind of HEA--or, in the words of Romance Writer's of America--an "emotionally satisfying" ending.

But can't a story be emotionally satisfying without the characters walking off hand-in-hand into the sunset?

Romeo and Juliet, for example. Yes, it would be nice if Juliet woke in time to prevent Romeo from swallowing the poison and her own resulting suicide. But everything leads up to this ending. The feuding families, the secrets, the deaths of other loved ones. How else could the story have ended? The best the lovers could have hoped for was to run away together. And then what? With their families' against them, how would they have survived? Sad though the ending is, it's fitting.

Ian McEwan's Atonement, on the other hand, though beautifully written, concludes with an emotionally UN-satisfying ending--precisely because the author gives you a HEA, then takes it away. Pure trickery, in my opinion. Literary chicanery. (For more on that, see my rant on 9/3/09/).

Recently, I came across a discussion on the Romantic
Times forums about my 2007 book, Dead Shot. The posters complained because I didn't solve the subplot mystery--who killed my main character's mother. Since this murder shaped the main character--both professionally and personally--their idea of HEA meant the killer should be caught. So to them the ending was emotionally unsatisfying, despite HEAs everywhere else. BTW--I chose that ending because solving this 25-year-old murder seemed too pat and unrealistic. I wanted my heroine to learn to live--fully and happily--despite not knowing. Ambiguity is the way of the world. Sometimes we have to choose happiness without certainty.

But I do see their point. Maybe the story pointed too strongly to the subplot, leading readers to expect the killer to be caught--an unintended consequence of the way I told the story.

So--happy or unhappy? As a romance writer I prefer my HEAs, but not every story deserves one. So, I'm curious--what other books/movies/stories, etc. end badly but in a good way?

Atonement

Warning: Rant Coming

Once my SFD (see below) was complete I promised myself I would take a week off and read. Ironically, since I began writing full time, I have stopped reading novels altogether. So this was to be an experiment. Could I could pick up the habit again? And, as an added component, I thought I would dip my toes into the sea of literary fiction and find out what the supposedly better half was doing.


My first choice was Atonement by Ian McEwan. I picked it because I usually like books set in the past. My brother loved it. And so did a million other readers, including those from La La Land. I finished it yesterday. What an amazingly written, engrossing, horror of a book.


Warning: Spoiler Alert


A day later, I am still furious. How dare he call the book Atonement when there is none? How dare he trick his reader into thinking all will be well, when it won't? How dare he lead us all down the garden path of happy endings, then pull the proverbial rug out from under us? That book is exactly why I write romance.


Are the deaths of the lovers more realistic? Perhaps. But who needs realism? Just turn on CNN. Is the cowardice of the liar more true to life? Perhaps. But surely there are people out there who would face what they'd done and ask for forgiveness. Is the long, prosperous, and hypocritical (re: philanthropic) life of the perpetrators unusual? No. But, as McEwan says at the end, the writer is God. He can manipulate the truth any way he wishes. Why, then, did he choose to create such a heartfelt and ultimately cynical book?

Clearly, he is not a Buddhist. There is such thick, deep suffering in the book, but it is not redemptive. And he is not Christian. There is no hint of death being the portal to "a better place." And he is no Jew. Jews must face those they've wronged, actively seek forgiveness, and work to right whatever harm they've done. I don't know much about Islam, but I'd take bets he's not Muslim either. So what is McEwan?

A coward. That is his religion.

He's a coward for not being brave enough to give his tortured lovers an ending that overcomes or makes sense of their suffering--which he clearly wanted to do. A coward for not braving the sneers of his fellow "serious" writers, who would call an "emotionally satisfying ending" a trip down sentimental lane. A coward for the slick, dirty joke he pulls at the end.

And now I need to wash my mind out with the brave words of my own kind. At least we don't play games with our readers.