Should good always prevail over evil?

[Steerpike]

I think the sentiment that the struggle between well-defined good and evil is outdated is false, and in fact those types of stories continue to dominate, in terms of mass appeal, even though in terms of number, morally ambivalent stories are on the rise.

Look at the books and movies that have been the most popular in genre fiction over the past decade - the ones that have risen to the level of cultural phenomena. Harry Potter, Twilight, Eragon, Hunger Games, Star Wars, The Wheel of Time (not a phenomena, but hugely popular), and the Lord of the Rings all have very well-defined good and evil, and the struggle that takes place in the story is between the two opposing sides. Even though The Lord of the Rings was written long ago, it remains true that the last decade has seen the height of its popularity. The Narnia books remain popular as well. Further, even in the ranks of books that don't get to those same levels of popularity, there have been many, many books with the pure good v. evil theme over the past 25 years or so (which is well after the time the more morally ambivalent work starts showing up), and many are extremely well done (Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionavar Tapestry, for example). On the other side, Game of Thrones is probably the only one that comes close to being on the same level of popularity, and most of the works I mentioned above exceed it.

What's the biggest grossing moving of the current year? The Avengers. Again, well-defined good and evil.

Outdated? I don't think so. This approach seems to me to have never been stronger in terms of sheer popularity, and it dominates the most popular works in Fantasy even today. There is something about that dichotomy and rooting for good over evil that still resonates with a vast swath of the audience, and I doubt that will change any time soon. The real question is whether the morally ambivalent, gritty works that are on the shelves now will have the long-term staying power of good v. evil, or whether they'll end up being a fad that fades away.

 

[BWFoster78]

I think the sentiment that the struggle between well-defined good and evil is outdated is false, and in fact those types of stories continue to dominate, in terms of mass appeal, even though in terms of number, morally ambivalent stories are on the rise.

Look at the books and movies that have been the most popular in genre fiction over the past decade - the ones that have risen to the level of cultural phenomena. Harry Potter, Twilight, Eragon, Hunger Games, Star Wars, The Wheel of Time (not a phenomena, but hugely popular), and the Lord of the Rings all have very well-defined good and evil, and the struggle that takes place in the story is between the two opposing sides. Even though The Lord of the Rings was written long ago, it remains true that the last decade has seen the height of its popularity. The Narnia books remain popular as well. Further, even in the ranks of books that don't get to those same levels of popularity, there have been many, many books with the pure good v. evil theme over the past 25 years or so (which is well after the time the more morally ambivalent work starts showing up), and many are extremely well done (Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionavar Tapestry, for example). On the other side, Game of Thrones is probably the only one that comes close to being on the same level of popularity, and most of the works I mentioned above exceed it.

What's the biggest grossing moving of the current year? The Avengers. Again, well-defined good and evil.

Outdated? I don't think so. This approach seems to me to have never been stronger in terms of sheer popularity, and it dominates the most popular works in Fantasy even today. There is something about that dichotomy and rooting for good over evil that still resonates with a vast swath of the audience, and I doubt that will change any time soon. The real question is whether the morally ambivalent, gritty works that are on the shelves now will have the long-term staying power of good v. evil, or whether they'll end up being a fad that fades away.

Kinda goes to support the opinion that everything has been done. A writer may think that he's being terribly original by having the bad guy win, but, in reality, it's been done.

My advice is to write what you want. If the idea of evil winning is what inspires you, then that's going to be your best story.

I'd have a hard time writing something that didn't end up relatively happy, and I'm not going to try too hard to break myself out of that vein.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

"GvE" is how a lazy guy types "good vs. evil"

Now that this discussion's been resurrected, I have to say that

If I want to be involved in a storyline where the bad guys win, I have a day job.

is a damn funny line!


And I agree with what's said on this page. GvE is timeless, and let's face it, in a morally ambiguous crowd you can pick out heroes and villains. Don't deny that you see horns on the Lannisters, except Tyrion, who gets a halo. Same with a morally corrupt crowd--you side with the lesser evils. Anyone here watch Boardwalk Empire? I'm rooting for Nucky Thompson and Al Capone simply because they're not (portrayed as being) as evil as fictional sociopath Gyp Rosetti.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Outdated? I don't think so. This approach seems to me to have never been stronger in terms of sheer popularity, and it dominates the most popular works in Fantasy even today. There is something about that dichotomy and rooting for good over evil that still resonates with a vast swath of the audience, and I doubt that will change any time soon. The real question is whether the morally ambivalent, gritty works that are on the shelves now will have the long-term staying power of good v. evil, or whether they'll end up being a fad that fades away.

It would be instructive to look at works from 30+ years ago and see which ones from those era are still popular, and whether the balance between "black and white" (BW) and "shades of gray" (SG) has shifted at all. I'm too lazy to actually do that research, though.

 

[Anders Ämting]

I think it's a silly question, honestly. The important thing is to not disappoint your readers.

If your readers are so unable to suspend their disbelief that the hero winning seems unrealistic, you simply haven't written your story well enough. And if your readers actually wants the villains to win, something has gone very, very wrong.

 

[ALB2012]

Well I think one of the reasons people read is to escape reality... usually there evil does triumph over good, at least in the short term. The news is full of war, death, murder etc. It is nice to lose one's self in a world where the bad guy gets splatted.

I suppose it depends though... sometimes good and evil are relative- example Emperor Zog is lord over a large empire- there is not a great deal of freedom, rights are to some extent restricted and there are no elections. Some people are poor and some are rich- such is the way of things but no one is so poor they starve. But there is peace- even if it is enforced peace.

Freedom fighters appear- they want the right to vote, they want equality, they want all the things revolutionists want. They begin a campaign, war ensues, or at least conflict. People who are not directly involved die- there is civil war. Many people are now poor, starving and lots of people die. The empire is fragmented, old disagreements surface and small mini conflicts happen.
Several years later ( or generations) the war is over- the Empire either is victorious but now clamps right down on what freedoms there were, anyone who defies them dies etc etc. OR a new order appears, trying to govern a broken empire. The economy is broke- war is expensive. Half the population is dead or maimed the New Order cannot decide who is in charge etc etc.

Where is the good and evil here?
Freedomfighter- revolutionary-terrorist. That depends whose side you are on.

Sometimes it seems the bad guy must win- because in the grand scheme of things the good option is only good on the surface.

 

[Anders Ämting]

Well I think one of the reasons people read is to escape reality... usually there evil does triumph over good, at least in the short term. The news is full of war, death, murder etc.

You know what else is full of war, death and murder? Fantasy novels.

So, yeah. I don't think we read fantasy to escape the evils of real life. I think we read fantasy to escape boredom.

To quote George Lucas: "Drama is conflict, conflict means violence of one kind or another." The reason we get a lot of bad news is because the good news isn't nearly as sensational. The problem with this is, of course, that we tend to get a pretty bleak outlook on life.

However, there are a lot of good news out there. Happy endings happen in real life all the time, we just don't get to hear about them. And that's exactly why it's dangerous to think that the triumph of evil is more realistic than the triumph of good - because it reinforces an illusion too many of us are already living in.

 

[Chilari]

I've been lurking in this thread but haven't yet posted, so now's the time to do that.

I'm rather on the fence over the actual question being asked. However, when we turn it to "should the protagonist always win?" I do have an answer: No.

The protagonist isn't necessarily "good", though they often do represent the whiter side of the spectrum compared to the antagonist. Certainly in shades of grey morality stories, it is perfectly acceptable for the protagonist to lose. In fact I wouldn't mind seeing more of these - handled well of course. In order for the protagonist to lose, though, the author needs to meet certain criteria. They should know from the start that this is going to happen; they should use the protagonist's flaws primarily in leading to the protagonist's loss, rather than outside forces (though outside forces, like the antagonist's abilities and resources, can be a contributing factor); and they should keep it ambiguous until a suitable climactic moment near the end of the book whether the protagonist is going to win or not: set up the protagonist's flaw early, so it's clear failure is possible, but make them both likeable enough and skilled/smart/determined enough that winning is possible and that the reader roots for them to win. Then bring that great big flaw back in at a crucial moment, have the character fail to overcome it at this crucial moment, and watch the show as hope spirals down into the abyss. That's what I'd like to see in a "protagonist loses" story.

Going back to the original question asked: should good always prevail over evil? Well, one could argue that in a certain light, such a protagonist as described above might be a prime example of evil triumphing: the character's vice (evil) overcomes their virtues (good), leading to the character's ultimate failure in their endeavour, which might well be an external example, if they were fighting for good against evil.

So I suppose no, good doesn't have to prevail.

But where it doesn't it needs to be well set up, clearly established as an option to the reader, because there's nothing worse in a story than something coming right out of the blue right at the end - it's like giving the reader the middle finger. I hate surprise twists. Well established twists, fine, but if you're writing a detective novel where, at the end, the murderer turns up at the detective's house, kills her then commits suicide, that's not a twist, it's the author trying to be smart and different and it's not a good story. (Note: this is an actual story my mum was telling me about; she told me that though the author is really good with all other aspects of the story, pacing, prose, characterisation etc, this ending, and a similarly out-of-the-blue one in a different book, has resulted in the author being on mum's "blacklist". That story is an example where evil does, sort of, prevail (the killer ended up dead himself, but the protagonist did too; she's dead. That's evil winning done wrong.)

Plus, I don't think good should always prevail because that sets up the expectation that any good guy will win, thus the reader doesn't need to worry that the good guy will fail. Sure, main characters can die, but generally it's dead by sacrifice, enabling them to win the cause or save someone else's life at the cost of their own life. Good still wins. And yes for many the journey is more important than the destination - how the good guy wins and what it costs, rather than whether they win. But still, the prospect of failure is only believable if occasionally, not often but sometimes, the good guy doesn't win. But having the good guy lose must be handled so carefully to stop the reader from being disappointed. It must be a believable loss, with the possibility clearly established. And it must feel like the "right ending", suitable for the story, inevitable in some ways. Like Of Mice and Men, it was never a cheery tale and by the end the events seemed to inevitably lead to only one conclusion, and it fit and it was right because it was there all along, but still you wanted George and Lennie to get their dream, but it just couldn't happen. Okay, so that's not a good vs evil story, it's about dreams vs the harsh reality of the Great Depression, but you get the picture.

I think really, what I'm trying to say is, whichever side wins, it's got to be a good story.

 

[BWFoster78]

Where is the good and evil here?
Freedomfighter- revolutionary-terrorist. That depends whose side you are on.

This is a good point.

In some fantasy stories, the protagonist struggles against the ultimate evil. Defeat of the good guys means that the world is thrust into everlasting darkness.

Others represent ALB's point. We see a set of circumstances where characters fight against other characters. The viewpoint of which side is "good" is determined only by the way the author chooses to represent the characters. Most of the time, the reader is going to root for the protagonist and decide that his viewpoint is the "good" one.

This storyline, however, is not meant, imo, to show "good vs evil" but rather the story of particular characters.

So, in case 1, if evil wins, it's a pretty depressing end to the book.

In case 2, you have what Chilari discussed. You certainly can choose to have the protagonist fail. The world will not end. That's not typically the kind of story I want to write or read, but it certainly can be done and done well.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

The important thing is to not disappoint your readers... if your readers actually wants the villains to win, something has gone very, very wrong.

Totally agree.

In order for the protagonist to lose, though, the author needs to meet certain criteria. They should know from the start that this is going to happen; they should use the protagonist's flaws primarily in leading to the protagonist's loss, rather than outside forces (though outside forces, like the antagonist's abilities and resources, can be a contributing factor); and they should keep it ambiguous until a suitable climactic moment near the end of the book whether the protagonist is going to win or not: set up the protagonist's flaw early, so it's clear failure is possible, but make them both likeable enough and skilled/smart/determined enough that winning is possible and that the reader roots for them to win. Then bring that great big flaw back in at a crucial moment, have the character fail to overcome it at this crucial moment, and watch the show as hope spirals down into the abyss. That's what I'd like to see in a "protagonist loses" story.

Great points. Agreed.



I'll use Cowboy Bebop (anime) as an example of something that satisfies both of the above. And I'll use spoiler tags in case there's actually someone who is interested in Cowboy Bebop and hasn't already watched the whole thing years ago.

Spoiler: Cowboy Bebop's ending

Spike dies, but the ending does not disappoint.

Reasons why I loved it:

1) As Chilari said, a character flaw has to be the protagonist's undoing. Spike loves Julia. He finds her, but fails to protect her. He dies avenging her.

2) As Anders said, the reader (viewer in this case) doesn't WANT the villain to win. The villain doesn't. He dies, then Spike bleeds out from his fatal wound from the duel. The antagonist's goons were there to stop Spike but they lowered their guns and saw that he was no longer a threat.

3) As Chilari said, the ending fit the story. I wasn't given the middle finder when Spike pointed his finger like a gun at the syndicate gunmen and said "Bang!" before slumping over. Spike was so cool, he even died cool. It was a sad, but memorable ending. I honestly couldn't think of how a happy ending would have been more satisfying.


I think the key here is, however, that the protagonist died, but still accomplished something. I didn't even feel like Spike lost, in a way. He won in the sense that he did what he set out to do. He won enough that his story was worth telling.

 

[Steerpike]

I didn't read your spoiler, Sidekick. I forgot about Cowboy Bebop. I saw a few episodes long ago. I wonder if it is on Netflix.

 

[Steerpike]

So, in case 1, if evil wins, it's a pretty depressing end to the book.

It can be. Though Eve Forward had an interesting take in her fantasy book Villains by Necessity, which takes place after the good guys have won an epic battle against evil, vanquishing the forces of evil. Everything is now run by the good guys, ostensibly to the benefit of all. Only it's not that great, and it turns out the world needs a few villains

 

[Sparkie]

I didn't read your spoiler, Sidekick. I forgot about Cowboy Bebop. I saw a few episodes long ago. I wonder if it is on Netflix.

I picked up the boxed set at a retailer. Less than 20$ (U.S.) for the whole series. Can't get much better 'bang' for your buck (pun intended).

Back to topic now. I think the 'Good bests Evil" concept has a lot of life left in it. Long after we're all gone from this world, people will still be telling stories of heroes who defeat villany in its various forms. It's an old and true method of telling an entertaining tale, and entertainment is what matters.

 

[BWFoster78]

It can be. Though Eve Forward had an interesting take in her fantasy book Villains by Necessity, which takes place after the good guys have won an epic battle against evil, vanquishing the forces of evil. Everything is now run by the good guys, ostensibly to the benefit of all. Only it's not that great, and it turns out the world needs a few villains

That sounds interesting.

I think, however, I'm discovering that my point of view is greatly influenced in that I prefer characters to plot. In the grand scheme of things, I find that I don't care all that much about whether the side I'm rooting for is "good" as much as I care if I have a good time following them through the story. In the end, I can't imagine not feeling disappointed if they don't find some measure of success and/or happiness.

 

[Steerpike]

I think, however, I'm discovering that my point of view is greatly influenced in that I prefer characters to plot. In the grand scheme of things, I find that I don't care all that much about whether the side I'm rooting for is "good" as much as I care if I have a good time following them through the story. In the end, I can't imagine not feeling disappointed if they don't find some measure of success and/or happiness.

Yes, I think characters and the connections to them are the most important. By the time you reach the end of the story, there should be something satisfying about the resolution to the character's struggles. Even if there are deaths for some characters, it is important that they mean something (for main characters, at least). The kind of 'success' I like to see may be a fulfillment of their goals or plans, or something more subtle like the realization that what they wanted isn't that important after all, and so on. There are many satisfying ways you can resolve the conflict. If I'm reading heroic-type fantasy, I want the characters to prevail overtly, through arms or whatever.

 

[BWFoster78]

Yes, I think characters and the connections to them are the most important. By the time you reach the end of the story, there should be something satisfying about the resolution to the character's struggles. Even if there are deaths for some characters, it is important that they mean something (for main characters, at least). The kind of 'success' I like to see may be a fulfillment of their goals or plans, or something more subtle like the realization that what they wanted isn't that important after all, and so on. There are many satisfying ways you can resolve the conflict. If I'm reading heroic-type fantasy, I want the characters to prevail overtly, through arms or whatever.

Agreed. Though I tend to enjoy the guy-winning-the-girl-as-the-bad-guy-limps-away kind of ending in most cases. Character growth and change is really the important, overarching concept.

I think that's why I typically don't enjoy short stories as much as novels. I read once that short stories tend to focus on ideas whereas novels focus on character change (pretty sure that was from Telling Lies for Fun and Profit).

 

[Anders Ämting]

I'll use Cowboy Bebop (anime) as an example of something that satisfies both of the above. And I'll use spoiler tags in case there's actually someone who is interested in Cowboy Bebop and hasn't already watched the whole thing years ago.

Spoiler: Cowboy Bebop's ending

Spike dies, but the ending does not disappoint.

Reasons why I loved it:

1) As Chilari said, a character flaw has to be the protagonist's undoing. Spike loves Julia. He finds her, but fails to protect her. He dies avenging her.

2) As Anders said, the reader (viewer in this case) doesn't WANT the villain to win. The villain doesn't. He dies, then Spike bleeds out from his fatal wound from the duel. The antagonist's goons were there to stop Spike but they lowered their guns and saw that he was no longer a threat.

3) As Chilari said, the ending fit the story. I wasn't given the middle finder when Spike pointed his finger like a gun at the syndicate gunmen and said "Bang!" before slumping over. Spike was so cool, he even died cool. It was a sad, but memorable ending. I honestly couldn't think of how a happy ending would have been more satisfying.


I think the key here is, however, that the protagonist died, but still accomplished something. I didn't even feel like Spike lost, in a way. He won in the sense that he did what he set out to do. He won enough that his story was worth telling.

I'd like to contrast this with the ending for Samurai Champloo, from the same creator:

Spoiler: Samurai Champloo's ending

-Mugen and Jin are two badass swordsmen, and they start of trying to kill each other literally on sight. Then they are forced to cooperate but still try to kill each other a couple of times along the way. The main reason they both go on living is because they are so even as fighters than neither can get the upper hand.

-Throughout the story, they become companions who basically tolerate each other, but still have this grudge/rivalry going on. They both defeat powerful opponents, sometimes competing for the same kill.

-Towards the end they seem to have developed a kind of grudging respect and basically cooperate pretty well. They even show a certain degree of concern for each other's lives, if only in a "he deserves a better death/I should be the one to kill him" kind of way. You still have the feeling their old rivalry has been left unresolved, though.

-Final episode. Mugen and Jin have both defeated their respective final opponents, but at a high price. They have both fought harder than ever before and they are both seriously injured and exhausted. But they are still alive, the villains are dead, the girl is safe, and if they just stop now everthing will be fine. But they still want to finish their rivalry in one last showdown. Neither says a word, they just swing their swords together on last time... and both blades shatter simultaniously. Then they both go: "Screw this! Let's just call it a tie," and part ways.

That was one of the most satisfying conclusions to any rivalry I've seen.

See, this story could easily have ended like Cowboy Bebop, in fact I was momentarily worried it would end with them both killing each other. But that wouldn't really have suited the theme. For whereas Spike's story is about revenge, Mugen and Jin are all about the way they contrast and compliment each other - that they balance each other out in the end.

 

[Penpilot]

It can be. Though Eve Forward had an interesting take in her fantasy book Villains by Necessity, which takes place after the good guys have won an epic battle against evil, vanquishing the forces of evil. Everything is now run by the good guys, ostensibly to the benefit of all. Only it's not that great, and it turns out the world needs a few villains

D'oh.... I have the same idea in my potential projects pile. Sigh... I got to check out this book and tweak my rough outline... hahaha.

Any way, back on target. It all depends on the type of story you intend to tell and the promises you make to the audience. Take a story like the Princess Bride. If the hero looses in that story, I'm going to be pissed, because for the type of story it its, the expectation is that good will triumph.

But then take A Game of Thrones. I've only read the first book but, from the expectations that have been set up, evil could possibly win, and I could accept that as an ending because of the type of story and world it is.

The ending must follow from the story. If it doesn't then it's cheating.

 

[Mindfire]

I wonder how people would have reacted if Return of the Jedi ended with Vader beheading Luke, the Rebel Fleet being destroyed, and the Death Star blowing up Endor.

 

[Steerpike]

I wonder how people would have reacted if Return of the Jedi ended with Vader beheading Luke, the Rebel Fleet being destroyed, and the Death Star blowing up Endor.

Wouldn't have bothered me IF there was more to come. If that was the end of the whole thing, it would be rather disappointing.