# Are you bothered by happy endings in thrillers?



## Russell Brooks (Dec 23, 2010)

In your opinion, should thrillers have happy endings?


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Should they have happy endings? Mostly, yes.

Mike


----------



## Trophywife007 (Aug 31, 2009)

If thrillers don't have "happy" endings, or at least some sort of acceptably resolved ending, would they then be horror?  I keep thinking of the movie "Cape Fear" where Robert Mitchum was soooo creepy/scary; what would it have been like if he got his way in the end?  Something of a horror story, yes?


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I don't think any genre always needs a happy ending ... but, it has to be done well. If you're going to break a rule, then you must know what you're doing. Nevil Shute's On the Beach is a fine example of post-apocalyptic fiction where the survivors don't live happily ever after. It's fantastic. In general, any thriller can be the same, I think, but it I think in most cases, the ending wouldn't be complete annihilation but simply great loss - Forschen's One Second After is a fine example of that - there is a hint of a happy ending at the end of the book, but it's wrapped up in some major tragedy.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

It has to have a satisfying ending where the major problem is resolved, probably for the better.

But that means the bad guy is caught, not that the plucky heroine ends up in bed with the dashing hero.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Russell Brooks said:


> In your opinion, should thrillers have happy endings?


Is there a reason they shouldn't?

Betsy


----------



## Russell Brooks (Dec 23, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Is there a reason they shouldn't?
> 
> Betsy


The reason I asked is because I've seen reviews where stories were criticized for having a happy ending. I was wondering if I'd missed something.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

And if they didn't have a happy ending, other people would criticize them for that in reviews. 

Betsy


----------



## Russell Brooks (Dec 23, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> And if they didn't have a happy ending, other people would criticize them for that in reviews.
> 
> Betsy


...Or find something else wrong with the book even though there's nothing wrong with it.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Russell Brooks said:


> ...Or find something else wrong with the book even though there's nothing wrong with it.


Oh, there's almost always _something_ wrong with it. The question is: Is it something that's going to bother a reviewer enough that they (a) rate it down (b) mention it in the write up. 

I wonder if the reviewers NOT happy with a 'happy ending' are more interested in apocalyptic scenarios. So, the MAJOR problem happening NOW is sorted, but all that does is plug the hole in the dike because the world is still going to hell in a handbasket and life sucks. Me: I don't read those sorts of books, in general.


----------



## Daniel Harvell (Jun 21, 2013)

I personally love a good happy ending, but I also recognize that if every story ended that way, things would get boring very quickly. Fortunately, there are a multitude of writers out there with different ideas on what constitutes a "good" (not happy) ending, so there will always be something for everyone.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Russell Brooks said:


> ...Or find something else wrong with the book even though there's nothing wrong with it.


There will always be things about any creative work (or almost anything else in life, for that matter) that some will like, some will dislike and others won't give a wit about. That being said, it doesn't mean either viewpoint is wrong--reading is a very personal experience. And it doesn't mean that the readers can't be right. With any art form, be it writing, art or quilts, I think the author/artist has the responsibility to consider critique thoughtfully and not be defensive about one's work. That doesn't mean the author/artist has to agree with every comment, just not dismiss it out of hand.

I think there's one rule to be followed--does it serve the story? Putting a happy ending on a story just to please readers if the story doesn't call for it is a bad idea. In Hitchcock's _Suspicion_, the male lead in the novel the movie was based on was a murderer; in the movie version, Hitchcock bowed to pressure and changed the ending of the story because the male lead was Cary Grant and they couldn't have Cary Grant be a killer... And the movie is the worse for it. The ending really isn't believable.

Betsy


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

Maybe it depends on whether a reader prefers character-driven or plot-driven thrillers. I prefer plot-driven stories and don't mind a less than happy ending as long as the plot is plausible, the conflict is resolved, and the ending fits the story. I've written books with both happy endings and not so happy endings and I found most of my readers who didn't enjoy the "unhappy" ending prefer character driven stories.


----------



## Russell Brooks (Dec 23, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> I don't think any genre always needs a happy ending ... but, it has to be done well. If you're going to break a rule, then you must know what you're doing. Nevil Shute's On the Beach is a fine example of post-apocalyptic fiction where the survivors don't live happily ever after. It's fantastic. In general, any thriller can be the same, I think, but it I think in most cases, the ending wouldn't be complete annihilation but simply great loss - Forschen's One Second After is a fine example of that - there is a hint of a happy ending at the end of the book, but it's wrapped up in some major tragedy.


I agree with you on that point. If you're not going to have a happy ending, then it must be done well. I just thought of one of my favorite TV Series of all time, The X-Files, where there were some cases where the story had some resolution, but the mutant serial killer or supernatural creature evaded Mulder and Scully. Think of how far the show would've gotten had The Cigarette-Smoking Man not successfully buried what they had uncovered?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Huh.  D'you think most readers think a lot about character driven vs plot driven?  I don't.  I have no idea which I prefer.  I do know I prefer well written books.    Do you interview your readers?  How do you know this?   Honestly, I've been discussing books with people all my life, and the terms have never come up, even with my brother the English major.

Betsy


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Huh. D'you think most readers think a lot about character driven vs plot driven? I don't. I have no idea which I prefer. I do know I prefer well written books.  Do you interview your readers? How do you know this?  Honestly, I've been discussing books with people all my life, and the terms have never come up, even with my brother the English major.
> 
> Betsy


Some of my readers have commented on their preference in their reviews, and it was also discussed on a blog topic with Crime Fiction Collective some time ago.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Huh. D'you think most readers think a lot about character driven vs plot driven? I don't. I have no idea which I prefer. I do know I prefer well written books.  Do you interview your readers? How do you know this?  Honestly, I've been discussing books with people all my life, and the terms have never come up, even with my brother the English major.
> 
> Betsy


I gotta agree. It's not something I analyze. I mean, a book might have a really good plot, but I might still not care for it because I don't like the characters. OTOH, the book might have great characters, but they're not _doing_ anything interesting. Seems to me you've got to have both. At least for me to really enjoy a book.

It IS true that there are certain genres where, if the ending isn't 'happy' then you HAVE FAILED. People who read romance, for example, won't much care what you throw at the main characters (within reason) as long as, in the end, the problem is resolved, they're both at least reasonably likable, and they end up together.

But I don't think most thriller readers have that expectation -- they want a good story resolved satisfactorily. I guess most people don't want it to end with everyone dead and the world exploding. But I also wouldn't think it particularly realistic if every little detail and nuance is tied up neatly with a bow and there are no more conflicts of any kind to worry about for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

JFHilborne said:


> Some of my readers have commented on their preference in their reviews, and it was also discussed on a blog topic with Crime Fiction Collective some time ago.


Honestly, to me, it sounds like something authors discuss.  Oh, well.  (*Tucks term away to use in the Book Klub on _To Kill a Mockingbird_ this summer...)

Betsy


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Honestly, to me, it sounds like something authors discuss.  Oh, well.  (*Tucks term away to use in the Book Klub on _To Kill a Mockingbird_ this summer...)
> 
> Betsy


Definitely authors discuss it, and perhaps readers who belong to book clubs while readers who don't discuss what they read just read and move on. To be honest, it isn't really something I thought about either until I saw it mentioned in my reviews, which is what promoted the blog topic.


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

Am I supposed to be bothered by a happy ending in a thriller?  I guess it depends on what someone would call a "happy" ending.  I don't necessarily expect a happy-ever-after, birds singing, bells ringing ending like I do in a romance, but I always prefer a "hopeful" ending.  I want the bad guys to have been presently taken care of, the murder to have been solved, good to have currently triumphed over evil, someone to realize life can still be worth living after the death of a loved one or that the persons death was not in vain, etc.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

One of the things I don't like in thrillers - whether in written form or on TV or movies - are ones where all the main and secondary protagonists live no matter what happens.    It just annoys me that in the middle of an action packed story, not a single good-guy will get killed when the body count is incredibly high for the bad-guys.    I don't think you need to mow your characters down in one fell swoop a la GOT's Red Wedding, but at least make your heroes mortal.

It's not as much fun when I know that no one is going to die.


----------



## meh (Apr 18, 2013)

I agree with Geoffrey. I like happy endings, but not happy endings where there is no real risk and not a single person suffers in any way. It's okay to kill off a major character. Or leave them permanently disfigured. Or emotionally scarred. I think the stakes should be high in a thriller, and then the audience can cheer when the good guy actually manages to beat the odds.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Geoffrey said:


> One of the things I don't like in thrillers - whether in written form or on TV or movies - are ones where all the main and secondary protagonists live no matter what happens. It just annoys me that in the middle of an action packed story, not a single good-guy will get killed when the body count is incredibly high for the bad-guys. I don't think you need to mow your characters down in one fell swoop a la GOT's Red Wedding, but at least make your heroes mortal.
> 
> It's not as much fun when I know that no one is going to die.


Well, of course, on TV, there's an 'ensemble' cast and you pretty much know they're going to live. Fans have their favorites and they don't write 'em out unless there's good reason. Though I recall one end of season NCIS episode a couple of years ago where major bad stuff happened and any or all of the cast could possibly have perished. I gather the next season's contracts hadn't been agreed to yet so that basically would allow them to write a character out if they had to if they couldn't reach an agreement. But then everyone re-signed for the series and they all lived anyway. 

I'd say with books, in a stand alone, part of the fun is figuring out which of the MC's is going to make it -- you pretty much expect some of them to die, hopefully somewhat heroically. But if it's a series, you're back to the TV problem: readers get invested in the characters and will be annoyed if their favorite goes for some reason. But I think it can totally work if there's a core of 3 or 4 maybe who you know are pretty safe but major secondary characters might, at any time, be wearing red shirts. The MSC's might even be around for several books/episodes, but you know they're not really safe!


----------



## Sara C (Apr 30, 2014)

I personally enjoy thrillers without happy endings. Just because a problem isn't resolved the way you'd hope, doesn't mean the story isn't d*mn entertaining. I remember my first taste of reading a book without a happy ending where things are resolved. It was Laurell K. Hamilton's "Death of a Darklord", and I absolutely loved it. I don't want to give any spoilers, but I read that book over ten years ago and it stuck with me. Now, I don't exactly want to read it again, because reading it when I was a teenager was a bit traumatic, but it was still definitely worth the read.


----------



## Trophywife007 (Aug 31, 2009)

Geoffrey said:


> One of the things I don't like in thrillers - whether in written form or on TV or movies - are ones where all the main and secondary protagonists live no matter what happens. It just annoys me that in the middle of an action packed story, not a single good-guy will get killed when the body count is incredibly high for the bad-guys. I don't think you need to mow your characters down in one fell swoop a la GOT's Red Wedding, but at least make your heroes mortal.
> 
> It's not as much fun when I know that no one is going to die.


Like in the original Star Trek, those guys in red shirts who beamed down with the team... you knew they were goners.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I'm currently waiting for the final book in Konkoly's _Perseid Collapse_ trilogy. He writes fun apocalyptic thrillers even if his MCs tend to be a little superheroic for my tastes. One thing that made me roll my eyes in the second book was this huge shoot out between a paramilitary group and essentially a group of regular suburban folks lead by the MC. It was a great fight, but most of the bad guys died and not a single good guy or gal bought the farm that day .....

.... I don't ask for much, but just kill off a tertiary character or two. There has to be one or two you can spare ...... Even _Star Trek_ books sometimes kill off characters we know and love - The killed off Kathryn Janeway amongst others.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Happy endings are all very well, but sad endings -- done well -- can sometimes be incredibly powerful and memorable. Think of the ending to _Chinatown_, for instance. Robert Towne wrote a happy ending to that movie ... Polanski changed it to a tragic one, and he was right.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2014)

An ending should resolve the book satisfactory. "Happy" doesn't necessarily factor in to the equation (unless it is a romance, in which case it is a requirement). But the ending needs to fit the book. If the "happy" ending feels contrived and a bit too _deus ex machina_ then people might complain. But people will also complain if the ending is artificially "tragic." Which is the other end of the spectrum we often see (killing off a beloved character for pure shock value instead of actually serving the story).

By the time I get to the end of the book, I expect the ending to resolve the plot in a satisfactory manner. And by satisfactory I mean that it is the logical conclusion to all of the actions that have moved the story forward to reach that point. It doesn't have to end happy, but it has to end well.


----------



## SidneyW (Aug 6, 2010)

I tend to think it's a matter of context. I've seen movie versions of books that take a more upbeat tone, and that can be unsatisfying or not feel rights sometimes. I've seen it happen with Elmore Leonard books to film and also with mysteries or mystery-thrillers like the work of Raymond Chandler.


----------



## Mark Young (Dec 13, 2010)

Maybe not always happy endings, but at least bitter sweet endings where the main character(s) survive at a cost. I can remember recently where I read a series where the main character died at the end. It seemed to fit, but those that lived on were all tied to that character and what happened was anti-climatic.  I felt we were all shortchanged.


----------



## Carrie Rubin (Nov 19, 2012)

It doesn't have to be all unicorns and rainbows, but I personally prefer a happy ending. I guess I read and hear enough about real misery in the world; I don't want all fictional thrillers to end that way, too. But as others have pointed out, even more importantly, I want an ending that satisfies. Sometimes a perfectly happy ending isn't logical for the story line, and as long as everything is resolved and a sad ending makes the most sense, I can live with it.


----------

