by John B. Rosenman
In our writer’s group, we have a woman writing a chicklit novel. Basically it’s about four or five career girls/women scheming and conniving to meet Mr. Right, variously called “Mr. Success,” “Mr. Wallet,” “Mr. Hunk.” Their goals are clearly defined, pragmatic, predatory, and ruled by self-interest. After all, some of them are past thirty and their biological clocks are ticking. A girl’s gotta do what a girl’s gotta do. Getting a man, preferably a rich, successful, handsome man isn’t everything, however. A couple of the main characters want to cling to that man’s coattails to get promoted and climb the corporate ladder. Still, landing a winner is the main thing, as indicated by the novel’s title, which I will leave to your imagination.
This is the first novel of this kind that I’ve read, and it’s been an eye-opening experience for me. Besides the efficient man-hunting plot, the writer (I’ll call her Laverne) is superb at describing cosmetics, furnishings, and the various bric-a-brac of these women’s daily existence. When I go to a party or enter a dining room, I rarely notice what the place settings are or what people are wearing. But Laverne is great at describing silverware and tablecloths, bathroom fixtures and shower jets, 900 different types of flowers and Dior Toffee eye shadow. I wouldn’t know peach highlighter from Mango Shine lipstick at gunpoint, but Laverne excels in such areas.
Now, I’m not putting Laverne down. Really. She is a highly competent writer, and the women, while often single-minded and mercenary, are brilliantly characterized and sometimes sympathetic. Laverne’s novel is professionally crafted, and I have little doubt that she will be able to sell it for significant bucks – something, by the way, which I find it hard to do.
So what’s my problem? Simply that in the last thirty pages of the novel’s first draft, events, in my opinion, took a wrong direction. After three hundred plus pages of Grey’s Anatomy, i.e., relationship problems, star-crossed lovers, SEX, financial problems, family problems, SEX, etc., everything resolved itself in a HAPPY ENDING. Okay, perhaps not everything, but enough to trouble me. Couples ironed out their problems and got together. A case of possible breast cancer turned out to be benign. And most of the career girls who were fired, fell on their feet with new jobs.
Most of the folks in my writer’s group liked the ending, whereas I saw it as implausible and as ruining the novel. I mean, life just doesn’t work out that way. Occasionally, one or two things will fall into place, but everybody can’t ride off into the sunset to the swell of violins, can they?
Or maybe they can.
Astute and insightful reader and/or writer, this is the main question I am submitting to you: IF READERS OF A PARTICULAR GENRE OR TYPE OF NOVEL EXPECT OR WANT SOMETHING, DOES THAT MAKE IT GOOD? I’ve always assumed that if there are 16 billion ways to write a short story or a novel, then only one of those 16 billion is the absolute best, and all the others are to be avoided, but perhaps I’m wrong. Whether in romantic novels or romantic movies, if folks want a happy ending, isn’t that the best way to end it?
By implication, questions might be asked about other areas. For example is the quality of an “extreme” horror novel directly proportional to the amount of gore, vomit, violence and dismemberment it contains? The higher the body count there is, the better?
I know that this is an old subject that many of you are familiar with, and in various guises, it’s often been discussed on this site. What makes it especially relevant to writers is that highly formulaic writing is often required in the marketplace. When it comes to Happy Endings, I can understand it – up to a point. When we read that thriller or suspense novel, that romance or western, usually we don’t want futility. We don’t want to see the good guys stomped into a giant blot of gore on the horizon. In general such writing is not commercially successful, though there are exceptions. But a Happy Face for all or nearly all of the main (and some minor) characters runs the risk of being a cheat, no matter how superficially satisfying it might be.
Last July, I wrote an essay for this site titled, “Editors are Irrational (And Publishers, Agents Too) ( . . . Mainly for Newer Writers)”. The premise was that many of editors’/publishers’ requirements for stories and novels are based on “a highly subjective sniff test of personal preference” and often are “unreasonable,” “too quirky and idiosyncratic.” It can get to the point where a story can be rejected if a character wears a plaid shirt or appears to be gay. What I am talking about here, in this essay, is a broader, industry-wide set of requirements and expectations, what is sometimes called a “slant.” While all of the contributors to the Storytellers Unplugged site are aware of this concept (they have to be, in order to get published), I suspect that many of us occasionally rail and grumble about the unreasonable strictures and requirements we face.
So, to the beginning writer, I urge you to do your homework. Whatever area you are writing in, whether SF, Romance, Horror, Western, or what have you, read a lot within it and find out what you can and cannot do. That way, if you do decide to break a rule or two, you can at least do it intelligently and with purpose. Learn the do’s and don’ts, the taboos and traditional tropes. Otherwise, you may face many years knocking on doors which no one opens.
Speaking of doors, I hope I’ve nudged one of my own ajar. I invite writers to share unreasonable, creatively stultifying rules that they’ve faced. Maybe it’s not the requisite Happy Ending or Excessive Sex/Gore/Violence, but something else, such as Tom Monteleone complaining years ago that horror publishers required skeletons or monsters on covers. Whatever the case, it’s made you feel that you were lowering and betraying the quality of your work by adhering to a stupid rule you didn’t believe in. Perhaps you were told that rule was good, that it was established long ago by wiser heads than yours, but deep in your gut, you remained unconvinced.
C’mon, let’s hear your stories. I bet you’ll feel better getting them off your chest. And that in itself would be a happy ending.

8 Comments, Comment or Ping
Denni
Funnily enough, I’m currently reading a ‘Best of the Year’ horror anthology and now know why I never liked horror short-stories: the endings are predictable from miles away and they are almost never happy ones.
I’m somewhat annoyed–but no longer shocked–if the author spends many pages making me care about a character who is then left to face the inevitable.
On the other hand, writing Sci-Fi, the rules seem to be the opposite of what goes in horror: the stories must have some sort of resolution and the character has to grow and change as a result.
Maybe I should write horror instead.
Personally, I blame the influence of creative writing courses and how-to handbooks. However writing to formula brings commercial success, so I’m better off listening.
Jun 14th, 2007
Janet Berliner
Really good essay, John.
Meeting the readers’ expections is a requirement for certain genres. That’s why they buy the books. Then
there’s the issue of the editor’s expectations. And
the marketing department.
These days, that comes into play even outside of
genre. It’s rather like people who go to an exotic island and compain because there’s no KFC or McDonald’s.
So, if we need to write what we need to write, chances are we’ll stay poor or have to keep our day jobs. Sigh.
–Janet
Jun 14th, 2007
Michele Lee
What a great essay. I adore dark romance (from just tragedy, like Romeo and Juliet, to totally twisted like Natural Born Killers). I’m often rejected because it’s too romancy for horror and too dark for even the paranormal trends in horror. I do believe that there is a market for dark romance out there, but no one seems to want to start the trend.
Happily Ever Afters may be nice, but often they don’t satisfy me at all.
Jun 14th, 2007
John B. Rosenman
Thanks for your comments, guys. Glad you liked it, Janet and Michele. Denni, I think some great horror novels and stories have happy endings, or at least endings with a silver lining.
I think I know what my next essay may be (please don’t anyone take it!). It involves a sacred cow of the commercial marketplace, namely that you should have sympathetic characters. Today I had a story rejected because the editor didn’t “empathize” with the characters. Well, likable characters are often important, but you can’t always have them.
Jun 14th, 2007
Sully
You gave Laverne a fair sampling of what “good” means, i.e., different things to different people. Your underlying standard seems to be realism, hers seems to be fantasy of a particular type. The idea of “degrees” of difference between you enters here, I suppose. Anyway, what grand arbiter of taste is there except numbers of people? I don’t like it most the time either. But I guess the name of the game is you have to find a way to reach a quorum for the sake of filthy lucre.
– Sully (Thomas Sullivan)
Jun 14th, 2007
David Niall Wilson
I think your theme for next time, and your message this time, are pretty deeply related. For me, it breaks down fairly simply.
If you have no sympathetic characters, but a message or story you feel MUST be gotten across, I can see writing like that. If no one can relate to your character, though, you may find you have no readers, and if an author writes in a forest and no one reads it?
One thing to keep in mind though…there are readers for everything. Some want a series, like TV, where they know Norm and Cliff will show up every volume…some want to be made to think, others want to ride off to Middle Earth for a short reality vacation.
If your readers connect with your characters, you’ve succeeded. It doesn’t mean they relate themselves to the character, but if it’s a hated step-father, or violent person written so that readers can transpose violent people they’ve had to interact with onto your words…then you’ve connected.
If what you set out to write, though, is a book for a formulaic market, you’d better bend yourself into that formula at some point, particularly the ending, or you may find you have a pile of paper on your shelf that just won’t go…and shelves can only stand so much paper…
DNW
Jun 15th, 2007
Anonymous
I feel your pain….
As Janet, Dave and others point out, the easiest way to sell is to a pre-determined market, so if you know x number of people are proven to like characters a in storyline b, that’s what’s required in the “product.”
Don’t put salt in the sweet treat you’re selling to kids, and don’t sweeten the salt nuts for the beer crowd at the bar….
I think there used to be a time when some publishers tried to create a market for what a writer was creating, building an audience through promotion and reviews and such. But I’m getting old, and my memory is failing….
In terms of a story, I once had to change someincidental harm that befell animals in a story because the editor found that offensive. Much better for terrible things to happen to humans. I suppose the story was a hit for his animal activitist readers, and human rights activists were suitably appalled.
Gerard
Jun 15th, 2007
Anonymous
Stephen King is a limousine driving rich red-neck who last wrote a memorable book several decades ago…now he’s just a buffoonish character who talks about bland all american tripe like baseball on corporate owned media, and does childhood nostalgia pieces, like any other reformed hollywood celebrity. He’s kind of like Ron Howard another Quaker Oats all American construction, who makes tepid crowd pleasers that get good reviews in the corporate press and will not up-set the boat.
But I don’t want to interfere with the gold swimming pool Hollywood cocaine sniffers and similar gung ho all american partriot types with bad hair styles…
Jun 15th, 2007
Reply to “Happy Endings or Sad: When, if Ever, is Poor Writing Good?”