[alison]

Sometimes it can be perilous articulating these things, too, as it can "fix" it, whereas the responses are actually fluid and inarticulate. I'm one of those people who can't help thinking about these things, but I try not to let that overwhelm that first anive experience, which seems to me the most important thing. Still, I'd be interested in hearing what you end up thinking...

[Dawnstorm]

Sometimes it can be perilous articulating these things, too, as it can "fix" it, whereas the responses are actually fluid and inarticulate. I'm one of those people who can't help thinking about these things, but I try not to let that overwhelm that first anive experience, which seems to me the most important thing.

Don't worry, I just can't take myself too seriously when I switch to intellectual mode. It'll all be just an approximation of the real thing (and having ideas about your reactions changes them anyway). This makes having a serious discussion a balancing act for me... ;)

Still, I'd be interested in hearing what you end up thinking...

Been a while, but here I go.

1. I'm primarily an empathic/sensual and intellectual reader. So, basically I derive reading pleasure from vivid or clever "scenes". I'm less of a moralistic or a philosophical reader. That means that I don't expect a book to cater to my world view. Finding something to be "true", or "just" is unlikely to give me a feeling of exhileration. For primarily moral works (such as Utopian fiction) I tend to switch to intellectual mode, as words such as "good", "evil", "just"... evoke no emotional response.

2. I'm a sucker for the "distinct voice". I'll read beautiful, or interesting, or intriguing, or flowing language, even if the content holds no appeal. I love the short stories of Virginia Woolf. One of my favourite SF authors is Ian MacDonald. I like to read Kathe Koja, when I get the chance. People who have a voice of their own.

3. I appreciate the strange, the unusual or the absurd. I think that's what drew me towards SFF, above all. So, I'll basically prefer genre literature that take their cue from Kafka et al.

4. I'll read fragments, too. I don't need a resolution (unless "curiosity for the ending" is the only thing that keeps me going; but that's more likely to happen for movies than for books). While I tend to shy away from series, I'm not afraid of buying a book or two from series that look intriguing. Also, an ending doesn't make or break the book for me.

Obviously, if I enjoy a book for (2) or (3) primarily, it'll be irrelevant whether there is a happy or a tragic ending. If I find an ending to be "bad" (for whatever reason), obviously it won't matter either, whether the ending is a happy one or not. "Bad" endings are most likely ones that are too simple, too clear; I don't want an ending to close off the story neatly (that's why plot driven books often hold little appeal for me; they tend to be too carefully constructed...).

Whether an ending is happy or not will matter most, if I read for empathy or vivid scenes. A happy ending will leave me relieved, or simply happy. A tragic one may bring me down, or even frustrate me. But those feelings are part of the "reading experience". If a book managed to evoke such an emotion, it's a success.

Actually, I tend to prefer books that evoke conflicting emotions in the end. Books, where it's hard to tell, whether we've got a happy or a tragic ending. I like set-ups, where, say, the author builds up sympathy for both sides and then pits them against each other. (This is quite often the case in Japanese anime; where it's often man against fate instead of good vs. evil.)

Intellectually, all I ask of an ending is to be consistent with the concept. Basically, I hate "cheap" happy endings. I don't mind utterly cheesy sentimental stuff, if it's consistent (and if the characters are likeable).

To summarise, the nature of the ending has more of an effect on my reading experience if I read for empathy or vivid scenes. It's of secondary importance with primarily intellectual reads, and utterly irrelevant if I read for style or for the weird.

[Silver Serpent]

woha-that was long!:eek:

[Alassė]

and deep!! Not sure my brain can cope with this.


That's what I'm wondering - it's often harder than one realises to sort out subjective responses.

Surely aren't all of our responses subjective??

The question, then, would be, if I watched you reading the conclusion of a story, whether I would get better over time in telling wether you've just read a story with a happy ending or one with an unhappy one, wouldn't it?

Let me see if i get this...

To relate to Alison's books to most of us on this forum (well me at least) it doesn't matter what the ending of the story is, whether all of the favourite charcters die or live happily ever after. Simply through reading the books i have gained enjoyment (and i guess you could say euphoria).

I would also "enjoy" reading the end of the books even while (if) people were dying. I may be crying at the same time.. but it would give me a sense of fulfillment to simply know what happens.

Is that right? :confused:

Alassë

[Silver Serpent]

Well that's the general idea i got...:rolleyes: :)

[Lemur_Girl]

man, I,m not good at putting my thoughts into words when it comes to serious stuff like this...all I have to say is this:

I've never been to a real play or opera, or anything...and I don't get this feeling anymore, but I get that particular elation you people are describing whenever I see a well done, dramatic movie commercial, like the one for Narnia (by the way I'm not saying that the Disney movie for Narnia is a defined work of art, it was just the way it was presented to the audience)... I think it's the combination of so many art froms (music, acting, viual arts etc.) that gets me, but I get this tingling, and goose bumps. I,ve asked other people about this, but they always say:"what are you talking about? Yeah that movie looks good..." and sometimes in books I get that feeling too...that feeling that you can only get when the events are performed to you by written word and you've been on a journey with those characters...it might have something to do with the fact that you can never see other real life individual's thoughts, it's something that's just very emotional...

[Dawnstorm]

Let me see if i get this...

To relate to Alison's books to most of us on this forum (well me at least) it doesn't matter what the ending of the story is, whether all of the favourite charcters die or live happily ever after. Simply through reading the books i have gained enjoyment (and i guess you could say euphoria).

I would also "enjoy" reading the end of the books even while (if) people were dying. I may be crying at the same time.. but it would give me a sense of fulfillment to simply know what happens.

Is that right? :confused:

Alassė

Sorry, didn't see this till now (I'm an infrequent visitor of Alison's board).

You're pretty much on track, here. :)

***

What you quoted from me, though, was meant as a thought experiment: If I saw you reading a book's ending but didn't know which book you were reading, could I tell by your body language whether you're reading a happy or an unhappy ending?

Think of it as a game: Have a story with two alternate endings. Get random people to read one of the endings (at random), and then try to guess which ending they read, just by watching them read.

Often, this would be easy. But, who knows, there might be surprises.

[danyl]

hmmm.
ive read this thread but am not entirely sure what to make of it.
are you talking bout a sense similar to catharsis but not catharsis because its not a tragedy? :confused: :confused:

[Dawnstorm]

are you talking bout a sense similar to catharsis but not catharsis because its not a tragedy?

Yep, basically.

The word "catharsis" is a bit confusing in that respect, because it's initially been developed in discussions about tragedy, but it had impact beyond that in psychology (hormonal balance; psychoanalytic catharisis).

Personally, I would say that we're actually talking about catharsis of different types, because different emotions are affected, but it's catharsis in both cases (catharsis by pity etc. in tragedy; by relief in eu-catastrophe).

The opposite would, then, be the denial of such an emotional cleansing; the plays of Brecht would be an example, or the "noir" sentiment - that a happy end means little if you don't tackle the problem at the roots (but that won't happen as the characters who realise that are all cynics).

Cathartic stories (tragedies or eucatastrophes) end with a bang to purge the whimper.

Non-cathartic stories end with a whimper, or just stop (and don't resolve the tension at all).

For example:

Imagine a story, where two friends drift apart, end up fighting on different sides, and then face each other (but are still friends). (Anime-favourite, that one ;) )

Various endings:

1. They fight each other:
1. a) One kills the other (tragedy)
1. b) They kill each other (tragedy)
1. c) One refuses to fight, but the other, chosing honour, kills him. (--)
1. ca) The one dying understands and just looks incredibly sad (tragedy)
1. cb) The one dying can't believe what's happening and dies with a look of surpise on his face (tragedy, bordering on noir, but still tragedy)
1. d) They fight, but before their fight ends, one of them is killed by another (random) combattant (noir)

2. They refuse to fight each other...
2. a) ...and end up being hunted by both parties (eucatastrophe)
2. b) ...and die in the battle defending each other (despite the outcome - death - I'd still call this eucatastrophe, because the focus of the story - friendship - is victorious - it would depend on the focus of the author, though)
2. c) ...and manage to strike a peace between the warring parties, or just defeat them all (stupid Hollywood happy-end; pure wish-fulfillment)

3. The story ends on the battle field, when they face each other, and leaves their decisions open. (ending at the height of tension; no emotional release at all = drawing attention to the situation itself)

Try to make up a simple story like that and think through as many possible endings; then think of what the endings would do to you, emotionally.

[snekababs]

Been away for a while so im desperately trying to catch up on the new chat. This is a very intersting topic! Very thought-provoking too...

I personally think that that feeling of euphoria comes only when the book is SO well written, and the characters SO well expressed, that the pleasure comes from simply reading more about the character (e.g. Alison's novels of course :p). The shame with books that are this wekk written is that we begin to feel as though the characters are real, and when the book ends, the charater stops doing things and therefore "dies" until the next book brings more of their adventures. We don't find this sad because we know for certain that the character will return... it is almost like they are simply asleep for a year. When the reader relates to the character so closely, almost anything that happens to them is wonderful (and one could say euphoric) to read becuase it is creating more depth to the character in our mind, and developing the charater even further.

I don't quite agree with the tragedy thing though... i can't imagine getting that same feeling when/if Cadvan dies (I certainly didn't feel happy when cadvan "died" in The Riddle) But maybee thats becuase I didn't think he would come back.

Hmm just a few thoughts to mull over... sorry if i'm stating the obvious and the conversation has already moved on!