If you believe human nature is fundamentally flawed...

sunandshadow · Apr 9, 2010

If you believe human nature is fundamentally flawed, is it even possible to write a story with a happy ending?

Boy I've really worked myself into a morass of depression today.

I was thinking about prejudice, one of my usual themes to write about. For years I've found prejudice a difficult theme to plot for, because I believe that for the most part people don't change, and human nature definitely doesn't change. I believe prejudice is an inherent part of human nature - there is always going to be someone looking for a target to insult, condemn, or bully. If you empower one character to defend himself, or put laws in place to defend a group, those who want a punching bag are just going to move on to the next easiest target. And I believe that if a particular person (or, when speaking about writing, an antagonist character) deeply believes some minority 'isn't human', nothing is going to change that person's mind.

If a character is incapable of change, how do you solve the problem they post to the other characters? What else can you do with them, kill them off? Does that really solve anything, if prejudice is part of human nature? If I can imagine a situation that would push my 'good guys' into becoming prejudiced bullies just like the ones they were fighting against, do they have any more right to live and get a happy ending than the antagonist?

Further, if social progress is basically impossible because human nature can't change, is there really any point to writing about society, whether real society or a fictional one? Is there really any point in writing fiction if that fiction can't improve the world in any way?

So, do any of you write novels where you show humanity or the world improving? If so, what's your logic for how such improvement can occur? On the other hand, if you don't believe larges-scale improvement is possible, yet you write stories with happy endings anyway, what do you feel that accomplishes.

Those of you that don't write stories with happy endings, you're welcome to comment on the philosophy discussed here, but I don't personally have any interest in writing non-happy endings or see that as any kind of a solution to this philosophical dilemma. Just saying that to head off anyone who was going to reply with something like, "Welcome to the adult world, happy endings are childish fantasies." -_-

CaroGirl · Apr 9, 2010

Stories that don't have a happy ending can still have a hopeful ending. Although many of my novels don't end happily, I do try to end them hopefully. Even with prejudice, war, rape, poverty and so on, there can still be hope.

DeleyanLee · Apr 9, 2010

The trick, for me, is that >I< get to define what a "happy ending" is for each story.

I also believe in "Good" and "Evil" in the scope of my story--both of which I also get to define. This ties directly into whatever theme I'm exploring, though I think I define theme differently than most people. Theme, to me, is that "universal human quality" or "social commentary" that the story is dealing with. IE: my present MIP is exploring the concept of responsibility--when you should assume it, when you shouldn't and the consequences of both actions. Every character who has a story line does or doesn't assume responsibility and face the repercussions of their choices. That, to me, is theme.

In this story, the "Good" assume responsibility and face the consequences and "Evil" refuse to deal with one or the other or both. That's the theme because that's what I'm exploring on that level.

And I always write happy endings, because "Good" always wins over "Evil" in the end.

Fiction, to me, deals with the reflections of life, the hopes, dreams and fears of living. That's its connection to real life. Whether or not it could possibly happen in reality doesn't matter to me. What my work reflects about reality is all that matters.

shadowwalker · Apr 9, 2010

I think the thing is, just because a person or situation will not change, does not mean that the problem can't be solved. Because the problem (and I'll probably get bashed over the head for this) is not the person who cannot/will not change - it's how the other people learn to deal with that fact.

I don't write particularly happy endings. Things happen to my characters that irreversibly changes them, their circumstances, and not in good ways. The story is about how they learn to cope with it. They don't end up dancing down the yellow brick road, but they do manage to stumble down the highway. So maybe that's that 'hopeful' ending CaroGirl spoke of. Just the fact that, however flawed, the 'hero' found a way to deal with the unchangeable facts that he could accept and live with.

sunandshadow · Apr 9, 2010

CaroGirl said:
Stories that don't have a happy ending can still have a hopeful ending. Although many of my novels don't end happily, I do try to end them hopefully. Even with prejudice, war, rape, poverty and so on, there can still be hope.

Hope for what? If change is impossible, and the characters couldn't achieve happiness in the whole length of a novel, I really wonder what they are hoping for.

sunandshadow · Apr 9, 2010

shadowwalker said:
I think the thing is, just because a person or situation will not change, does not mean that the problem can't be solved. Because the problem (and I'll probably get bashed over the head for this) is not the person who cannot/will not change - it's how the other people learn to deal with that fact.

I don't write particularly happy endings. Things happen to my characters that irreversibly changes them, their circumstances, and not in good ways. The story is about how they learn to cope with it. They don't end up dancing down the yellow brick road, but they do manage to stumble down the highway. So maybe that's that 'hopeful' ending CaroGirl spoke of. Just the fact that, however flawed, the 'hero' found a way to deal with the unchangeable facts that he could accept and live with.

Same question I asked CaroGirl, basically - where is that highway going, that the characters are stumbling down? If change is not possible, and progress is not possible, why is acceptance useful or important?

Dr.Gonzo · Apr 9, 2010

My fictional worlds never improve. However, my characters often find a more comfortable position in these worlds, normally through a journey that leads to an understanding of some sort. You can push for a happy ending with any story if you're seeing it from the protagonist's POV. For instance, Dexter Morgan and Patrick Bateman stay out of prison, free to commit their crimes over again. It's about POV and the morals and tones that bond with this POV you have created.

kaitie · Apr 9, 2010

I don't have time to address this all right now because it's late, but I did want to say that I'm personally someone who tries very hard to be a good person. I try to recognize any potential prejudice or bias I might have, and if I ever do see one, I also recognize it for what it is and don't let it influence me. The people I hang around with are the same. I've also known people who changed for the better, and people who work hard for the sake of others. Yes, there are a lot of selfish, small-minded people in the world, but not everyone.

Change is possible, it does happen, and there are a lot of people who learn from their mistakes, even if not everyone does. Honest question here, but have you thought of volunteering? It might be that you're surrounded by negative, selfish people, and when that's the case it's hard to see the light side of things. I used to volunteer for Habitat for Humanity when I lived in the states, and I can guarantee that the people who came out and helped were all people who did it because they cared about others and wanted to make a difference and do good with their lives.

C.M.C. · Apr 9, 2010

There are different degrees of happy. You can still come away with an ending that is positive without it having to tie everything up in a sparkle-coated bow. Disney is not the only type of happy out there.

sunandshadow · Apr 9, 2010

DeleyanLee said:
The trick, for me, is that >I< get to define what a "happy ending" is for each story.

I also believe in "Good" and "Evil" in the scope of my story--both of which I also get to define. This ties directly into whatever theme I'm exploring, though I think I define theme differently than most people. Theme, to me, is that "universal human quality" or "social commentary" that the story is dealing with. IE: my present MIP is exploring the concept of responsibility--when you should assume it, when you shouldn't and the consequences of both actions. Every character who has a story line does or doesn't assume responsibility and face the repercussions of their choices. That, to me, is theme.

In this story, the "Good" assume responsibility and face the consequences and "Evil" refuse to deal with one or the other or both. That's the theme because that's what I'm exploring on that level.

And I always write happy endings, because "Good" always wins over "Evil" in the end.

Fiction, to me, deals with the reflections of life, the hopes, dreams and fears of living. That's its connection to real life. Whether or not it could possibly happen in reality doesn't matter to me. What my work reflects about reality is all that matters.

In the case of prejudice as a theme, I'd like to define evil as those who are prejudiced and good as those who aren't, and then study some 'gray' characters who haven't decided yet whether they agree with a particular prejudice or not. But I get the feeling that's the wrong idea, because it's two simple, it implies that once a character commits to being prejudiced he's basically a lost cause, I think that would be a bad moral.

I'd really like to show prejudice being overcome within people. Because it would be great to be able to attack prejudice without most of the battlefield being a lost cause from the beginning. Problem is, I just don't think that is realistic.

CaroGirl · Apr 9, 2010

sunandshadow said:
Hope for what? If change is impossible, and the characters couldn't achieve happiness in the whole length of a novel, I really wonder what they are hoping for.

In the end, stories are about people. Personal goals, triumphs, grief, tears, failure. That's what it's about. People can learn, change, grow, accept responsibility. If your characters come to the end of the story with hope in themselves and their personal future, that's a positive ending, without, necessarily, a HEA.

kaitie · Apr 9, 2010

I tend to associate prejudice with ignorance. The people I know personally who are prejudiced are because that's what they were taught to be by their parents. That doesn't make it right by any means, but it can also mean they can change. Some people just aren't interested in doing so, which is more a matter of being closed-minded than anything.

Maybe your villains are prejudiced, but that's a symptom of their closed-mindedness, and it's that refusal to accept other ideas that's really the fault? If that's the case, they can still learn and overcome.

DeleyanLee · Apr 9, 2010

sunandshadow said:
In the case of prejudice as a theme, I'd like to define evil as those who are prejudiced and good as those who aren't, and then study some 'gray' characters who haven't decided yet whether they agree with a particular prejudice or not. But I get the feeling that's the wrong idea, because it's two simple, it implies that once a character commits to being prejudiced he's basically a lost cause, I think that would be a bad moral.

I'd really like to show prejudice being overcome within people. Because it would be great to be able to attack prejudice without most of the battlefield being a lost cause from the beginning. Problem is, I just don't think that is realistic.

That's the joy I have in exploring theme in this way. Not every character has to make the same choices every time. Even if a character starts out one way, he can make a slightly different choice (for his same reasons) and yeild a different outcome--which is exploring the theme deeper than the straight black & white that many default to.

Your "Good" could be those people who share the prejudices of your RL culture, or they might be the people who haven't decided, or they might be the "prejudice-free" few. IMO, it's up to you to decide what is "Good" for the span of this story. It doesn't have to agree with whatever RL society says it is. The really provocative stories are the ones that don't, actually, but sell it within the world of the story anyway.

To me, "realistic" means that real life people can identify with it. It has NOTHING to do with whether or not it could happen in real life.

It's all a matter of perspective.

sunandshadow · Apr 9, 2010

kaitie said:
I don't have time to address this all right now because it's late, but I did want to say that I'm personally someone who tries very hard to be a good person. I try to recognize any potential prejudice or bias I might have, and if I ever do see one, I also recognize it for what it is and don't let it influence me. The people I hang around with are the same. I've also known people who changed for the better, and people who work hard for the sake of others. Yes, there are a lot of selfish, small-minded people in the world, but not everyone.

Change is possible, it does happen, and there are a lot of people who learn from their mistakes, even if not everyone does. Honest question here, but have you thought of volunteering? It might be that you're surrounded by negative, selfish people, and when that's the case it's hard to see the light side of things. I used to volunteer for Habitat for Humanity when I lived in the states, and I can guarantee that the people who came out and helped were all people who did it because they cared about others and wanted to make a difference and do good with their lives.

I was just today thinking about volunteering, but I was thinking about it in a political sense, like protesting against one of several laws I think are terrible. The problem is I've seen people who get involved in politics be subjected to nasty attacks - hate phone calls, vandalism of homes and other property, vicious gossip, social ostracism, legal charges, jail time, losing jobs and being unable to get new ones. I just don't want to put myself out where I'll have to deal with negative people and dangerous consequences (to others in my household, not just me). I hate political argument even when it's online and anonymous, I can't even imaging having some person who hates my cause come up and scream at me in person.

wheelwriter · Apr 9, 2010

I'm not sure I completely agree that human nature is fundamentally flawed (bolding mine). I think human nature has both flaws and strengths, which can even exist at the same time (like the strength and cooperation seen in a time of crisis). I also think people can change, although it's not always through a major epiphany. Of course social progress exists, or I (as a woman) wouldn't be able to vote.

I think people are very adaptive. They change because it benefits them to change. Social progress is generally very slow, but it does happen. It seems to start with a handful of people who realize something is unjust, and a movement is begun. People who wish to marry someone of the same sex will be able to marry in the future. It's going to happen because (in my opinion, and in a growing number of peoples' opinion) it is the right thing to accept. Then it will take years for the masses to accept it.

sunandshadow · Apr 9, 2010

kaitie said:
Maybe your villains are prejudiced, but that's a symptom of their closed-mindedness, and it's that refusal to accept other ideas that's really the fault? If that's the case, they can still learn and overcome.

Erm, isn't close-mindedness defined as refusal to learn and overcome? History is full of martyrs who clung to a belief so hard it killed them. If someone doesn't want to change their mind, even torture and death threats can't force them to.

Namatu · Apr 9, 2010

sunandshadow said:
I believe prejudice is an inherent part of human nature - there is always going to be someone looking for a target to insult, condemn, or bully.

Yes, there will always be someone, but not everyone - in my opinion.

If you empower one character to defend himself, or put laws in place to defend a group, those who want a punching bag are just going to move on to the next easiest target.

Plot conflict!

And I believe that if a particular person (or, when speaking about writing, an antagonist character) deeply believes some minority 'isn't human', nothing is going to change that person's mind.

I would suggest examining why this character believes this. Is it for lack of personal knowledge about the minority in question? Ultimately, people are the same. They hope, they dream, they laugh and love and hate. When you get to know someone on a personal level, you see that. So why does this character believe what he does and what situation could you put him in that might challenge those beliefs? (I'm thinking of the movie Enemy Mine.) Maybe his response would be, "this guy's okay" but still be prejudiced about others in the same minority. But that's something, right? More than he had before. Or maybe he doesn't feel that way, but as the author, you should push to find out.

If a character is incapable of change, how do you solve the problem they post to the other characters? What else can you do with them, kill them off? Does that really solve anything, if prejudice is part of human nature?

Does everything have to be solved? If you want to put them out of commission kill them, incarcerate them, put them in a coma. Have them pretend to have changed. How long will they maintain that pretense? I find that option pretty interesting.

If I can imagine a situation that would push my 'good guys' into becoming prejudiced bullies just like the ones they were fighting against, do they have any more right to live and get a happy ending than the antagonist?

Nobody has a right to anything. Happy for now? Maybe. I tend to write endings that are more wins with strings attached. What's your definition of a happy ending?

[qote]Further, if social progress is basically impossible because human nature can't change, is there really any point to writing about society, whether real society or a fictional one? Is there really any point in writing fiction if that fiction can't improve the world in any way?[/quote]But social progress is possible. We've abolished slavery. It still exists, but officially, universally, it's reviled and there are organizations and official government policies that work against it. Women can now own property instead of be property. Human nature may be prone to prejudice, but that's an aspect of human nature, not the whole of it. Are you writing to improve the world or to share your visions and entertain? Fiction is unlikely to change the world, but if, in entertaining, you make people think... well, that's pretty cool.

So, do any of you write novels where you show humanity or the world improving?

I don't deal with the world when I write, just my little microcosm, and I prefer to show humanity. There's more conflict and opportunity when everyone's striving for opposite ends. Progress may happen - war averted! - but there are no neat little bows.

On the other hand, if you don't believe larges-scale improvement is possible, yet you write stories with happy endings anyway, what do you feel that accomplishes.

I haven't written many happy endings, but as a reader of happy endings, I see them more as a promise. A promise of love ever after or that the just will be the victor, that the underdog can have his day, and that we can be unsinkable. Maybe. Sometimes. In fiction. That's the promise of a happy ending. It's not realistic, but I usually don't read fiction for realistic.

CaroGirl · Apr 9, 2010

sunandshadow said:
Erm, isn't close-mindedness defined as refusal to learn and overcome? History is full of martyrs who clung to a belief so hard it killed them. If someone doesn't want to change their mind, even torture and death threats can't force them to.

Right. So, the hope at the end doesn't come from those characters. It comes from the characters who are capable of learning and changing.

Namatu · Apr 9, 2010

sunandshadow said:
I just don't want to put myself out where I'll have to deal with negative people and dangerous consequences (to others in my household, not just me). I hate political argument even when it's online and anonymous, I can't even imaging having some person who hates my cause come up and scream at me in person.

What can you do that's tangential but still relevant to what you want to protest? There are lots of volunteer opportunities out there. You don't have to directly be involved in politics in the way you're describing, do you? And letters to the editor can be anonymous. Letters to your senator don't get you put on a hate list either. There are means for rational engagement (but no accounting for crazies).

CaroGirl · Apr 9, 2010

How does Driving Miss Daisy, with it's themes of racial discrimination and bigotry, end up with a hopeful ending, but not necessarily a happy one? How about To Kill a Mockingbird? Who in these stories changes, learns and grows? Not the hard-wired bigots, that's for sure.

sunandshadow · Apr 9, 2010

DeleyanLee said:
That's the joy I have in exploring theme in this way. Not every character has to make the same choices every time. Even if a character starts out one way, he can make a slightly different choice (for his same reasons) and yield a different outcome--which is exploring the theme deeper than the straight black & white that many default to.

Your "Good" could be those people who share the prejudices of your RL culture, or they might be the people who haven't decided, or they might be the "prejudice-free" few. IMO, it's up to you to decide what is "Good" for the span of this story. It doesn't have to agree with whatever RL society says it is. The really provocative stories are the ones that don't, actually, but sell it within the world of the story anyway.

To me, "realistic" means that real life people can identify with it. It has NOTHING to do with whether or not it could happen in real life.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Hmm. But, one thing I _really_ don't want to say is that whether someone is a good person or a bad person is a matter of their environment. I don't want to say, if my main character had been born into that other household instead, he would have grown up a horrible villain who needed to be killed to protect everyone.

I guess I do believe that some people are naturally inclined to be kind, while others are naturally inclined to be cruel. But it's an individual philosophical decision what sort of morality they choose to believe in and how they choose to behave.

Meh... maybe prejudice is just too big of an issue for me to think clearly about. Maybe I should try writing about something less broad and less emotionally touchy for me...

DeleyanLee · Apr 9, 2010

sunandshadow said:
Meh... maybe prejudice is just too big of an issue for me to think clearly about. Maybe I should try writing about something less broad and less emotionally touchy for me...

Maybe you should just be brutally honest about how complex and messed-up the entire subject is and make THAT the theme of your story.

sunandshadow · Apr 9, 2010

Namatu said:
Yes, there will always be someone, but not everyone - in my opinion.

Plot conflict!

I would suggest examining why this character believes this. Is it for lack of personal knowledge about the minority in question? Ultimately, people are the same. They hope, they dream, they laugh and love and hate. When you get to know someone on a personal level, you see that. So why does this character believe what he does and what situation could you put him in that might challenge those beliefs? (I'm thinking of the movie Enemy Mine.) Maybe his response would be, "this guy's okay" but still be prejudiced about others in the same minority. But that's something, right? More than he had before. Or maybe he doesn't feel that way, but as the author, you should push to find out.

Does everything have to be solved? If you want to put them out of commission kill them, incarcerate them, put them in a coma. Have them pretend to have changed. How long will they maintain that pretense? I find that option pretty interesting.

Nobody has a right to anything. Happy for now? Maybe. I tend to write endings that are more wins with strings attached. What's your definition of a happy ending?

But social progress is possible. We've abolished slavery. It still exists, but officially, universally, it's reviled and there are organizations and official government policies that work against it. Women can now own property instead of be property. Human nature may be prone to prejudice, but that's an aspect of human nature, not the whole of it. Are you writing to improve the world or to share your visions and entertain? Fiction is unlikely to change the world, but if, in entertaining, you make people think... well, that's pretty cool.

I don't deal with the world when I write, just my little microcosm, and I prefer to show humanity. There's more conflict and opportunity when everyone's striving for opposite ends. Progress may happen - war averted! - but there are no neat little bows.

I haven't written many happy endings, but as a reader of happy endings, I see them more as a promise. A promise of love ever after or that the just will be the victor, that the underdog can have his day, and that we can be unsinkable. Maybe. Sometimes. In fiction. That's the promise of a happy ending. It's not realistic, but I usually don't read fiction for realistic.

Well... I do believe people have the right to be happy, or ought to have that right. I mean, I'm a realist, I understand it's impossible for anyone to be happy all the time, or everyone to be happy for even a little while. But I believe that the goal of human existence should be making as many people happy as much of the time as possible. That's why I got into the entertainment field as a vocation, and probably why I love stories which end with a neat sparkly pink bow of Happily-Ever-After, lol.

But other than that, thank you for this post, I did find it helpful and somewhat reassuring. Somehow I had forgotten the idea that because every individual's happiness matters, every individual who does change, who picks the side of open-mindedness over prejudice, is a triumph even though some other people won't change.

Becky Black · Apr 9, 2010

sunandshadow said:
Further, if social progress is basically impossible because human nature can't change, is there really any point to writing about society, whether real society or a fictional one? Is there really any point in writing fiction if that fiction can't improve the world in any way?

I'd dispute the idea that social progress is impossible just because human nature hasn't changed. Prejudice is a consequence of being afraid of strangers/the out group and making snap judgements about people. Those were useful traits back when we lived in small bands and tribes and any stranger you ran into was a potential threat and you shouldn't trust them. They aren't as useful now we live in huge societies surrounded by strangers.

But those same societies have laws and social norms to combat prejudice and discrimination. Many individuals make efforts to overcome their own prejudices and try to raise their children not to have these now socially unacceptable attitudes. If society couldn't change and was only led by human nature we'd still want to shove a spear through, or run away from, anybody we didn't know and who looked like they might be trouble. I don't know about you, but I don't walk around feeling like that on any conscious level. And I live in a society that wouldn't let me behave like that anyway. So that is definitely a society that has progressed from what it used to be.

sunandshadow · Apr 9, 2010

DeleyanLee said:
Maybe you should just be brutally honest about how complex and messed-up the entire subject is and make THAT the theme of your story.

Hmm. Well, I could write nonfiction blogging about that. But I don't really have any idea how I'd turn it into fiction, much less fiction that was fun to read and write. I keep running into the wall that the real world has too many problems to tackle all at once in fiction, it would be much simpler if I could envision a world that was perfect except for one flaw, then study that one flaw in a novel. But that goes back to realism again, it's really hard to envision an almost-perfect world that doesn't feel fake.

If you believe human nature is fundamentally flawed...

Impractical Fantasy Animal

Living the dream

Writing Anarchist

empty-nester!

Impractical Fantasy Animal

Impractical Fantasy Animal

Wonderfully Irreverent

With great power comes

Archetype

Impractical Fantasy Animal

Living the dream

With great power comes

Writing Anarchist

Impractical Fantasy Animal

Not a runner, running.

Impractical Fantasy Animal

Lost in mental space.

Living the dream

Lost in mental space.

Living the dream

Impractical Fantasy Animal

Writing Anarchist

Impractical Fantasy Animal

Writing my way off the B Ark

Impractical Fantasy Animal