Justice

[Scribe Lord]

Say I have the most wicked of villains. Alright now say at the end of the story the hero and the villain both get what they want and live happily ever after. (I realize that in some cases this would be contradictory, but humor me.) For instance, the hero saves his family, but the non-repentant mass murdering pedophile lives out the rest of his days smelling daffodils and drinking cocktails happily in a mansion. How is this going to make you feel?

My question isn't necessarily about triumph of good over evil. My question is, basically, if 'good' does triumph then are you expecting the 'evil' to be punished? How do you think justice should work in a story?

I hope I'm making myself clear. Also, I realize this is all subjective, I merely want another opinion on this.

 

[FatCat]

I guess I'd ask why the villain existed in the first place. The antagonist is there to serve the protagonist.

 

[Miskatonic]

I have a villain that ends up doing some pretty horrific stuff, gets his comeuppance, but ends up actually contributing to the success of some of the MC's goals. We never know if he can be trusted but to some degree he is redeemed.

I don't think evil having to be ultimately punished in order to bring some semblance of balance to the universe is necessary. However, giving the villain a complete 180 to have a "happy ending" may be something that doesn't permit the reader's suspension of disbelief.

Also, why did you choose those particular vices that the villain indulges in? Because they are shocking? The more extreme the villain is, the less likely a reader is going to find the particular fate your suggesting to be acceptable.

Of course villains get away with horrible things, just look at the ending to the movie Chinatown. It's messed up to say the least.

A mass-murdering pedophile just sounds like a one-dimensional character in the making, and any attempt to portray a more human side to him/her will be scoffed at.

 

[ThinkerX]

Old saying: 'eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'

Follow-up: 'everybody ends up blind and toothless.'

Which is where you end up with...unpleasant societies with people having murderous blood feuds going back centuries. Endless cycle, nobody wins, lines between 'just' and 'unjust' and 'good' and 'evil' get seriously blurred. Only real way out is absolution.

 

[Scribe Lord]

I have a villain that ends up doing some pretty horrific stuff, gets his comeuppance, but ends up actually contributing to the success of some of the MC's goals. We never know if he can be trusted but to some degree he is redeemed.

I don't think evil having to be ultimately punished in order to bring some semblance of balance to the universe is necessary. However, giving the villain a complete 180 to have a "happy ending" may be something that doesn't permit the reader's suspension of disbelief.

Also, why did you choose those particular vices that the villain indulges in? Because they are shocking? The more extreme the villain is, the less likely a reader is going to find the particular fate your suggesting to be acceptable.

Of course villains get away with horrible things, just look at the ending to the movie Chinatown. It's messed up to say the least.

A mass-murdering pedophile just sounds like a one-dimensional character in the making, and any attempt to portray a more human side to him/her will be scoffed at.

I used those vices for an example because they were one end of the extreme. That might have been a mistake. I simply want to know what people think of the protagonist and villain both getting what they want or arriving at some sort of compromise where neither side is punished.

 

[Miskatonic]

If you can write it so that it is believable then I don't see why not. You have to convince your readers of the plausibility without them having to ignore any contradictions.

The villain doesn't necessarily have to be completely devoid of punishment. Someone could be exiled but still retain their freedom for example.

 

[skip.knox]

If the villain is still around unbroken, then the story is not over. The villain could always return to do whatever it was that sparked the original story.

This isn't about justice, it's about storytelling. But if we restrict ourselves to justice, then I'd say no there as well. The whole point of justice is to render accounts. In your scenario, no accounts are rendered. If a criminal in real life dances in the daffodils, we feel outraged. Why? Because justice was not served. I suspect a reader would feel the same way toward a fictional villain.

 

[BWFoster78]

I simply want to know what people think of the protagonist and villain both getting what they want or arriving at some sort of compromise where neither side is punished.

The protagonist of a story has a goal. The antagonist is the person or force or whatever that opposes the protagonist's goal. Therefore, I don't understand how both the protagonist and the antagonist can succeed.

So you're asking one of two things:

1. Can the protagonist win, but leave the antagonist still alive and reasonably happy?
2. Can neither the protagonist or the antagonist get exactly what they want?

Thoughts:

A. You can do anything you want. The question is whether or not the reader will like what you did.
B. The reader's liking what you do really depends on i) genre expectations and ii) execution, not on abstract theory.
C. If you want to do one of these things, it's all about the set up. If 1, you have to portray the antagonist as sympathetic and allow for his redemption. If 2, you really have to signal throughout the book that the compromise might actually be the happiest medium.
D. Either can be done, but neither is as easy to pull off as simply having the protagonist win. The question is, "Are you a good enough writer to pull off a more difficult option?" I'm not at a point where I'd even attempt either of those outcomes.

 

[Helen]

Say I have the most wicked of villains. Alright now say at the end of the story the hero and the villain both get what they want and live happily ever after. (I realize that in some cases this would be contradictory, but humor me.) For instance, the hero saves his family, but the non-repentant mass murdering pedophile lives out the rest of his days smelling daffodils and drinking cocktails happily in a mansion. How is this going to make you feel?

My question isn't necessarily about triumph of good over evil. My question is, basically, if 'good' does triumph then are you expecting the 'evil' to be punished? How do you think justice should work in a story?

I hope I'm making myself clear. Also, I realize this is all subjective, I merely want another opinion on this.

I think it's thematic.

It's not so much the punishment and the failing, but the consequences of the wrong choice.

 

[TheCatholicCrow]

The protagonist of a story has a goal. The antagonist is the person or force or whatever that opposes the protagonist's goal. Therefore, I don't understand how both the protagonist and the antagonist can succeed.

So you're asking one of two things:

1. Can the protagonist win, but leave the antagonist still alive and reasonably happy?
2. Can neither the protagonist or the antagonist get exactly what they want?

I think this is a good point. Usually the protagonist and antagonist are at odds with one another and are typically working towards opposite goals. Assuming you're using a traditional structure (a "good" MC = protag. , "bad" character = antag./villain) this is difficult to pull off but depends on what they're after... if they both just want to be prom queen it might be as simple as one of them moving to a new school and voila - they're both queen ... or they happen to tie and share the title etc. If the villain wants to blow up all of Boston and the MC wants to save it - you can't have it both ways. But if he's trying to blow up Boston so he can find his long lost son and the MC wants to save the city, the MC can save the city and villain can find his son but that's probably the only solution. However, if he truly is villainous people might want him to be at least somewhat punished so maybe he finds the son, goes to prison (or gets sick), and stops trying to kill half the city . (super illogical stretch- I know but let's pretend like its a good example)

The reader's liking what you do really depends on i) genre expectations and ii) execution, not on abstract theory.

The thing about abstract theory is that it is culturally specific (American audiences will expect a different ending than, say, a Russian reader) and that it usually comes after the art - not before it. Which is to say it is based on what has been done rather than what can be done.

That being said, many (but not all) European & American stories (film, books, plays etc.) are deeply influenced by Christian principles (if not Christianity itself). You can find lots of things like Redemptive Violence (a "bad" character or fallen hero redeem themselves through sacrificial violence- they die for the cause or suffer for the sake of others making them a Messianic character who we can forgive because of it). You also get things like the tendency to punish the villain (regardless of the success of the protag.) Thus the flavor of God vs Satan can still be tasted in our tales of good vs evil.

Then you have Noir where generally nobody comes out on top. Everyone (except like 1 woman) is corrupt and has it coming. Here, nobody really wins and when they do it is in a bittersweet way - surprise the girlfriend was plotting your murder, she killed your best friend, lied to you, used you, gave you over to the police etc. She might die or go to prison but even if you get off for the crime your soul is generally crushed. Life goes on but the MC wakes to realize the world is still bleak and saturated with the stench of rotting flesh, decaying morals and corruption.

What you're proposing sounds to be the opposite of this. A rainbow and sunshine approach where nobody is left disappointed and everyone gets what they want the opposite of Noir so let's call this Blanc.

Theoretically I don't see why it can't be done. I'm generally a pessimist so if it isn't balanced with some suffering somewhere in the text, that is, if it ventures into Rom-Com territory, I'm not sure it would appeal to me personally but I know it's just the kind of thing some of my sisters would go for. It might be tricky but not impossible.

There are 2 well known and successful examples (that I can think of) which do this.

The first is Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights where there is no single antagonist and instead the role shifts around throughout the story. [In case you're not familiar or need a refresher ... ] During the early years of the first generation its Catherine's brother (Hindley). After the dog-incident you might say Catherine is an enemy to her own happiness. She's scared of her love for H & betrays not only him (her soulmate) but her own heart as well. When Catherine marries Edgar, Heathcliff is consumed by hate & becomes the antagonist (takes advantage of everyone to get back at Catherine) and eventually tries to keep the next generation (Cathy & Hareton) from being together and, knowing it will make her miserable, forces Cathy to marry Linton (as Catherine married Edgar). We still like Heathcliff because we know that his bitterness comes from his passionate love which extends beyond reason and life itself - as proven by the desecration of Catherine's grave and the return of her ghost.

^Instead of being tormented or punished in the end ... the antagonists are punished in life and given a moderately happy ending. When everyone is dead, Cathy & Hareton (generation 2) are free to marry. The souls of Catherine and Heathcliff (generation 1) are not left to rest but that's okay because they're united in death and are free to wander the moors together until the end of time. It took a lifetime of bitter struggles but everyone finds some sort of happy ending (as much they can given the circumstances).

The second is Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice takes a much lighter approach though Antagonist, again, is a dynamic role and not a character - there are scheming and immoral characters here and there (both of Mr. Bingley's sisters and Mr. Wickham) but Elizabeth's biggest opponent is (initially) Mr. Darcy. Obviously, they make their peace together and both end up happy. In order for this to happen though, as Mr. Darcy steps out of the shadows and becomes the MC's love interest, the role of antagonist shifts to Wickham, then Lady Catherine. Mr Darcy doesn't need to be punished as his love for Elizabeth is torture enough and he redeems himself by making up for his previous actions (setting Jane & Bingley up) and of course saving the Bennet family from scandal and winning over Elizabeth.

Perhaps consider something like these - not necessarily romance or chick-lit but something with complex and deeply flawed characters (all of which) make bad choices that make it difficult for the Protagonist to achieve his/her goals. In both W.H. & P&P even the MC takes a turn making poor decisions which alienate their lovers and prevents their own happiness.

 

[K.S. Crooks]

I think this goes to understanding that there are different levels of success and that the goals of the hero may not be completely contrary to the goals of the villain. If a villain wants to kill a stadium full of people and you're given two options- the protagonist saves their family, but everyone else dies OR their family dies but they save everyone else- which version would you consider more successful? What if everyone in the stadium was infected with a highly contagious disease with the potential t kill everyone in the city, should the villain be allowed to carry out their plan?
I think the grey areas are what make a story more interesting.

 

[MineOwnKing]

I think you're making it too unrealistic by using extreme characters.

If you want things to work out, try using A Midsummer Night's Dream as a possible reference.

In the play, the cast of characters, that we are not sure we like, but which we can readily sympathize with, each portrays their own strong desire to get whatever they want regardless of the consequences.

As a result of their stubbornness, there is much mischief and mayhem.

Granted, the play is a comedy, but some of the same ideas could be used for a more serious story.

All characters become more gray in this way and therefore their character flaws are redeemable.

 

[Russ]

Say I have the most wicked of villains. Alright now say at the end of the story the hero and the villain both get what they want and live happily ever after. (I realize that in some cases this would be contradictory, but humor me.) For instance, the hero saves his family, but the non-repentant mass murdering pedophile lives out the rest of his days smelling daffodils and drinking cocktails happily in a mansion. How is this going to make you feel?

My question isn't necessarily about triumph of good over evil. My question is, basically, if 'good' does triumph then are you expecting the 'evil' to be punished? How do you think justice should work in a story?

I hope I'm making myself clear. Also, I realize this is all subjective, I merely want another opinion on this.

Actually it is not quite as subjective as you might think. In the legal field we have done studies on what the public wants on various issues and what juries want and how juries reason. One of the things we have learned is that for a large part of the public their sense of justice is more tied into people who have wronged getting punished, rather than making the wronged party whole.

I think you run a risk of dissatisfying your readers if the bad guy gets away without appropriate punishment.