Endings

[extrapenguin]

(But! The Guardian rewatchalong has yet to end. Episode 35, with time travel talk!)

Observation of the day: Other people seem to have a much higher tolerance for fairytale endings than I do; I find a lot of the more wish-fulfillment-y ones unrealistic and prefer stuff like "no matter what the rules are, you can live happily within them" to "if the author likes you, the rules will go out the window for your HEA". Perhaps primarily because the former is a thing that can happen while the latter is not applicable to reality.

(By "the rules go out the window", I mean stuff like e.g. a slash ship in a royalty arranged marriage AU in a world where there is no mpreg, no sexual nonexclusivity to create an heir with a concubine, and no stuff to handwave away the lack of biokid heirs, whether that be worldbuilding so that the monarchy is nonhereditary or simply a mention of there being a convenient nephew for them to adopt. There are lots and lots of other ways to go full fairytale in a fashion that I find unbelievable, but this scenario is perhaps the easiest to explain.)

Comments

[ranalore]

I find a lot of the more wish-fulfillment-y ones unrealistic and prefer stuff like "no matter what the rules are, you can live happily within them"

Whereas I find that a horrifying echo of the mainstream's harmful fantasy message that the marginalized could be happy if we would just conform to societal and cultural norms, and we don't do so out of willful maliciousness, rather than because those norms inherently exclude us. I prefer the message that the rules are adaptable, that accommodations can be made, while I fight for a reality where that's the case.

[extrapenguin]

I think you interpreted it more narrowly than I intended? Characters fighting to change society's rules and succeeding is fine, characters subverting society's rules is fine, characters searching for accommodations and finding them is fine. My problem is with stuff where the rules of the universe are thrown out for the sake of the HEA - e.g. if men get orange horses and women get green ones, and all unions must have two horses of different color, but then suddenly after a lot of angst everyone just goes "eh, stay together despite not meeting the religious requirements" or whatever. (Example was crappy but hopefully illustrative?) Deus ex machina happy ending vs earned happy ending, basically. Or rules being adaptable vs rules not applying to you for no explained reason.

[ranalore]

I think you interpreted it more narrowly than I intended?

I believe your own examples are demonstrating that I have interpreted it correctly. There are assumptions at the bottom of both your initial "arranged marriage" example and this example that are rooted in that mainstream message, as is the idea that characters must explicitly address or challenge certain plot points, or do something extraordinary, in order not to be subjected to this imposition of a false universalism. If that's your reality, I'm glad I don't live there.

[extrapenguin]

I mean, this is a question of worldbuilding - if the rules of the fictional universe, whatever they may be, are thrown out with no explanation or foreshadowing for a HEA, then my disbelief is unsuspended. It also makes me feel sad, like the author believes it's impossible for people like me to have happy endings without "divine intervention" in the form of an author bending the universe. I'm glad it works for you, but it doesn't for me.

[ranalore]

I can honestly say I've never read such an ending, perhaps because stories with this problem usually have other problems that crop up earlier, which cause me to stop reading before I get to the end. I have read, for example, same-sex arranged marriage royalty AUs in which the question of an heir is not specifically addressed, because the story's not about dynastic succession, or the question is implicitly answered by background details such as noble fostering and adoption, the existence of concubines and/or siblings and extended family, the couple in question working to overhaul the government, magic or science that would allow for, in essence, petrie dish babies, and so on. For me, these options would need to be explicitly excluded to end up at the scenario you're talking about. That's what I mean by the base assumptions of the false mainstream message, which always tries to narrow the world more than it is.

[extrapenguin]

the question is implicitly answered by background details such as noble fostering and adoption, the existence of concubines and/or siblings and extended family, the couple in question working to overhaul the government, magic or science that would allow for, in essence, petrie dish babies, and so on
Yes? My "exceptions" section covers those. I was talking about things where such things aren't addressed.

I also don't read stuff that does the Thing, and in general don't read mundane/modern AUs. This post wasn't actually about any of them, but rather inspired by my thoughts on my WIP and its ending and meditating on what sort of ending I'd consider fitting.

[ranalore]

My "exceptions" section covers those. I was talking about things where such things aren't addressed.

Your exceptions cover these things being specifically addressed. I'm talking about these things not being excluded. I don't need my getting-together arranged-marriage AU to also be a getting-an-heir story (in fact, I skip getting an heir stories, because kidfic is not my thing and pregnancy storylines of any kind tend to run into my triggers hard). As long as I'm not specifically, explicitly told "there is no way possible for this couple to ever name an heir," I'm both an experienced and imaginative enough reader to fill in possible scenarios for myself, if I need to think about the question at all. That's not "auctorial intervention to waive the rules," that's "the author is focusing on other things in this story," which is a perfectly legitimate and realistic narrative option.

I'm sure there are any number of things in the universe of your WIP that you are not focusing on, because any narrative, of necessity, leaves things out. Do you really feel you must specifically address them in order for the ending of your story to be realistic? Can't you simply leave the possibilities open, and trust your readers to fill them in?

[extrapenguin]

Let's see if an itemized list would be clearer?

1. If the worldbuilding sets up something (e.g. medieval era same-sex arranged marriage for the sole heir of the kingdom, a woman knight in which deviation from stereotypical US gender roles gets the death sentence) then any implied issues or contradictions must be dealt with at least at the brief handwave level.

2. Stuff where the worldbuilding covers whatever the issues or contradictions might be (e.g. it's fantasy and any two people can generate babies with a ritual, the society isn't sexist) doesn't need to handwave them. It can, and it can bring texture to the narrative or a subplot perhaps, but it's not necessary.

3. Stuff that would be in category 1 but don't do the necessary handwaving often feel flat and unrealistic to me, especially when the aim was realism/naturalism.

I hope that clarified matters!

[ranalore]

I assure you, matters were clear before. However, what is also clear at this point is that this is an unproductive discussion, and so I will disengage. Good luck with your WIP!