Does crushing tragedy have a place in fantasy?

"For whatever reason"? It'd help a lot if we knew the reason.

That said, this question reminds me of the novel I'm beta-reading, which has a huge downer of an ending. See below for spoilers.

Spoiler

After the fight with the antagonist, the MC is left wounded and waiting to die, her love interest is dying or dead, the main antagonist is dead but his son has basically taken his place, and an army is marching on the MC's hometown, intent on destroying everyone.

The aforesaid novel is meant to have a sequel, which I have not read or critiqued. But even with that, the ending described above left a very bad taste in my mouth, and I told the author so. It just felt like she cut the story short too soon. It would have been much more satisfying if she let the battle play out and gave the whole thing more closure. I don't mind tragedy if it's inherent in the story as a whole -- I love Macbeth and Hamlet, and the musical Sweeney Todd -- but if the rest of the story is your typical fantasy adventure, I'm not so sure it fits.

 

I would say tragedy is just dandy, like all things, pulling it off is the trick.

 

Ah, MacBeth. A most fantastic play. Yes, Laurence. Tragedy definitely has a place in fantasy. It's execution that matters.

 

Much of how a death comes to be interpreted (how the reader may feel it) arises from the outcome of such death.

Does your character left unfinished business in the world? love ones? somebody who intrinsically need him/her? where the "bad guys" fully vanquished? can it be avoided? Are things that often matter most than the death itself in how the reader may feel. Of course after you kill a character that your reader had learned to love, be prepare for retribution from some angry readers, but that it's good, it means you have created something real enough to inspire emotion.

I think that, like in real life, tragedy has a place in writing (all types of writing). And as in real life, how crushing a death is depends of how and why it happens.

Have you read Paula from Isabel Allende? Is the semi-autobiographica recall --she is a master of magic realism so you can imagine-- of the events that culminated with the death of her daughter, and while you know is coming and all the time you hope it won't, when it happens there is a sense of accomplishment which softens the blow. In other words, you may kill your character and it may be a great tragedy (just look at how fans from SoIaF feel about the death of certain characters), but if the death accomplishes a purpose, then it has a reason to be written.

 

Does it have a place? Sure. Absolutely. But it's probably going to be a smaller place, a niche of the fantasy market. If you're ok with that then go for it.

I still remember the fantasy novel Tigana pretty fondly even though it's pretty tragic. I had tears streaming down my face at the end. But at the same time, I'm not eager to reread it and experience that tragedy again and I would only recommend it reservedly, to people who I know would be ok with it.


Beyond general advice, it really entirely depends on how you manage to execute it.

 

I don't want to get into any spoilers, but one of my fantasy series ends in a most dark fashion (if it really ended but that is a different question).

Tragedy is a powerful emotional technique and a great part of our literary tradition. Done well it can be brilliant. I see no reason you should avoid a dark and sad ending if you are happy with your ability to handle it.

 

Tragedy is fine, when done well. However, if your main character becomes a true Mary Sue (never faces a real external challenge, doesn't have flaws that could motivate internal conflict, etc.), I might put the book down before I got anywhere close to the end.

 

Here a quote from George R.R. Martin very on the point with this discussion:

"Presenting grief is hard to do. ... I was on a TV show called Beauty and the Beast, which starred Ron Perlman and Linda Hamilton. Linda left the show after the second season to pursue a movie career, so we decided to write the character out instead of recasting her, because that was more dramatic...

...We wanted to spend a whole episode where the character is buried and everyone spends 60 minutes weeping and grieving and sharing their memories of her... they [network] said “the character’s dead, you need to move on and introduce the new beauty. Let’s never mention the name of her character again.”

...we kind of won the battle but we lost the war. We presented the episode and it was very powerful. I think our hardcore viewership watched it, wept copious tears and then never watched the show again!

...Grief doesn’t necessary translate to entertainment value. That said, it does make for more powerful storytelling. Presenting not just death, but grief is important. At some point, we all experience the loss of our parents, or sibling or close friend and it’s a very powerful emotion..."

 

If it's foreshadowed well enough, and the reasons for her needing to die are clear to the reader, it wouldn't so much be a surprise and jarring death as the capstone to her victory–it will be experienced as such, at least. It can give a bittersweet feel to her victory, and that is fine.

 

I like the idea. However, you say this is a "crushing tragedy", but it would be even more tragic if she was forced to kill someone she loved.