Read on Twitter
What We Talk About When We Talk About Tragedy
The problem with defining a "tragic ending" is first having to define a "happy ending", because the main structure of a traditional happy ending is defined something like this:
The problem with defining a "tragic ending" is first having to define a "happy ending", because the main structure of a traditional happy ending is defined something like this:
Happy Ending: The protagonist succeeds (or doesn't fail) at all stated and implied plot and personal goals, and the result of this success is positive for the protagonist and allies going forward
The problem with this kind of ending is that the success or failure of the protagonist has almost no bearing on this. The only thing that really has bearing is whether the text of the story treats this outcome as positive or negative.
Now, the text is usually CONSTRAINED by the success or failure of the protagonist for purposes of logic: if the antagonist is an Evil Wizard who is going to Destroy the World then it's difficult to frame the failure of the protagonist in stopping them as a positive
But even then we get to the problem of what we mean by "treated as positive". Because PLENTY of tragic endings are "treated as positive" by the text, but there are a lot of factors people will insist make an ending tragic regardless of other outcomes:
-the protagonist suffers permanent negative consequences from events of the story
-the world remains bad
-the protagonist got away with some crime or moral failure
-the (usually sympathetic) antagonist dies/is killed
-something about the setup IMPLIES something horrible
-the world remains bad
-the protagonist got away with some crime or moral failure
-the (usually sympathetic) antagonist dies/is killed
-something about the setup IMPLIES something horrible
Therefore some people who pride themselves on having Happy Endings take the Disney-esque approach and constrain the story world further: the protagonist never suffers permanent negative consequences (or at least only consequences that can be ignored by the end)...
... and is always virtuous, the antagonist is always unsympathetic and gets their comeuppance, and any mention of the state of the world being bad is plucked out from the rest of the plot in order to make it so the ONLY evil in the world is a result of the plot/antagonist.
To me this is like the sugar snack of stories. It's great in moderation but it's not terribly deep. There's only so much you can say about people and narratives when the protagonist MUST be virtuous and the world's status quo MUST be good and the villains all MUST be evil.
I also think it's disingenuous to call anything that is NOT this "tragic", or inviting "too much of the real world" into escapist narrative. Especially when some people take this EVEN FURTHER and are terrified to even end AN EPISODE of an ongoing serial in a bad place.
But if we're going to treat then as a binary, then the Tragic Ending, I think, only needs to be typified by its opposition to the Happy: SOMETHING about the ending is treated as a net negative, AND THIS IS OKAY.
This does NOT imply that the ending must be bleak! It certainly INCLUDES it, but the moment you start to accept that some aspects of the ending can be negative, you have much wider possibilities open to you.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO LIKE BLEAK ENDINGS IN ORDER TO LIKE TRAGIC ENDINGS. These are not the same thing. Tragic endings are not universally "misery porn" just because the writer thought that Universal Bliss is disingenuous and wanted to temper the ending with reasonable expectations
Personally, I hate most bleak endings. But "bleak" is that narrow field of tragic endings where things not only end poorly for the protagonist, there's NO hope for ANYONE sympathetic.
And these can STILL sometimes work--particularly if nobody was EVER sympathetic to begin with (in which case it can be treated as Dark Comic--yes, even I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream) or if it has a very specific purpose, usually warning narratives.
But BETWEEN that and Happy Endings there's a massive range of emotions you can play with beyond "Everyone gets exactly what they want". It's the same reason people listen to sad songs. There's something mysterious and expansive to explore in negative emotions.
To treat writing negative outcomes like some sort of cudgel against people with trauma is to claim that negative emotions are universally bad, like the only reason someone might enjoy anything less than Universal Bliss is deliberate masochism
And I totally get the appeal of Universal Bliss, again, I LIKE IT TOO. But Universal Bliss doesn't lend itself well to exploring mysterious, dangerous, destructive, heart-wrenching spaces, at least not without holding back SOMETHING that might enrich the experience best.
And if you're not in a headspace to accept that, if too much or even a little negativity feels ruinous and not uplifting, THAT IS FINE TOO.
But let's not pretend that tragic endings can only ever be poison for the soul
But let's not pretend that tragic endings can only ever be poison for the soul
