[RavenDawn]

I have always had a fascination with endings where the bad guy wins.
As a child I devoured Robin Jarvis's books because they had sad, often brutal endings for the hero. Ending that you didn't want, but were powerful, and somehow still satisfying.

Is there a way to make your hero loose, your villain win, but to still satisfy the reader?

I have read a book which I enjoyed but many other readers hated (or so the amazon reviews would have me believe).
The main reason that people didn't enjoy it was that the main character was just plain nasty.
Yes, she was nasty. but the author wrote about her in such a way that even though she was bad, you still wanted her to win. I couldn't understand why so many people hated the book because the bad guy won. Surely hating someone but willing them to succeed is the mark of a good writer?

I realise that I have more than one question here, and really it is a topic that is open to discussion, but here are a few questions that intrigue me.

Can you have your hero fail, and have a powerful satisfying ending?

Can you have a bad guy you hate, but want to succeed, AND have a good guy you want to succeed at the same time?

Can you want the bad guy to fail and the hero to succeed and still be satisfied, if the hero fails and the bad guy wins?

What makes an ending satisfying? what makes it annoying, does going against the grain automatically make it suck?

What are your thoughts?

The Book to which I referred was: Empress - God Speaker Book 1 (by Karen Miller)

[RocketBoy]

I always want the hero to be A.)Good and heroic and B.)from him to win-out against the bad guys. Against my will, I was forced to watch the Facebook movie, I think it was called "The Social Network". In my opinion the bad guys won big time there. But not only that, but it was like the corruption and demise and fall of nerdom. I see myself as a nerd. When I was a kid in the 70's nobody liked being called a nerd. It was not until the mid-80's and a movie called "Revenge of the Nerds" came out where college nerds won against jocks that the idea of opening admiting you were a nerd came to my mind. Since them, I've need the word "nerd" become more defined (along with geek and dork) and I've seen nerds rise in social power. And, I listen to the Spill.com podcasts all the time, and I'm afraid that now nerds are becoming the badguy. They are becoming the towl-snapping bullies that the jocks used to be. So, if that's true, I might want to see them loose now and then. It would be okay if nerdom got a little crushed. It might be good for their souls and make them human again. This might happen. I mean if there really is any validity to Peak Oil, then there might be a global energy shortage, followed by a Second and Perminent Great Depression. That would be the end of fancy, micro-ship toys, overpriced statues at comic book shops, the end of pretty girls and animie conventions. It would be the rule of the physically strong again.

[hughhowey]

I think there is a very strong appetite for these stories, yeah.

[Taramoc]

To be honest, my favorite books are those in which is not really clear who are the good and the bad guys.

The conflicting parties have simply different and often opposite motivations. In that case, it's hard to define if the good or evil wins in the end, as long as it's satisfying I'm happy.

[KatG]

Can you have your hero fail, and have a powerful satisfying ending?

Yes, it's called a tragedy. (See Shakespeare's Hamlet.) You can have the hero succeed but die, like Hamlet, or have the hero succeed and it's not a good thing. (See Joe Abercrombie's Best Served Cold.)

Can you have a bad guy you hate, but want to succeed, AND have a good guy you want to succeed at the same time?

Yes, see C.S. Friedman's Coldfire trilogy. You can also have two good guys who are in opposition to each other.

Can you want the bad guy to fail and the hero to succeed and still be satisfied, if the hero fails and the bad guy wins?

It would depend on the story and the stakes. Since heroes are very seldom white, and in fantasy bad guys are only sometimes all black, there are many ways to jigger it.

What makes an ending satisfying? what makes it annoying, does going against the grain automatically make it suck?

What you are talking about are readers' preferences, not story crafting. Different readers will have different preferences. For instance, Karen Miller is a bestselling author and the Empress book did pretty well, so while many readers didn't like it, others did. Some people will only read very dark books; others prefer to avoid anything that seems too dark or horror tinged. Many readers have a wider range. So it's much more a matter of what you the author want to explore.

You may want to check out the works of Joe Abercrombie, R. Scott Bakker, Peter V. Brett, Brent Sanderson, C.S. Friedman, George R.R. Martin, Steven Erikson, Glen Cook and Mark Hodder, to name a few.

[RavenDawn]

Thank you for the interesting answers. I have in fact read hamlet, all of Joe Abercrombie's books, Peter V. Brett, Brent Sanderson, George R.R. Martin, Steven Erikson, Glen Cook etc.

As I mentioned I happen to love a tragedy, but I am more interested in others take on it.
How the ending affects them, and what they love/hate, particularly with reference to villains.

In the novel I am working on at the moment I am aiming for a very Grey vs Grey feel with no absolute hero's or villains, people doing bad things for what they feel are good reasons etc however I also want my "hero" to fail and I am interested in how people are still satisfied if the hero they (presumably) are rooting for dies/fails at the end.

What if the hero makes a choice which creates a marked change on his character, a decision which is the climax of the book and chooses "wrong", chooses evil. Becomes what he set out to destroy?
Would you as a reader rebel at the thought of the person you have followed on a journey, through dangers and adventures in pursuit of a goal that is presumably good, make a choice which is against all he had set out to do/become/fight against?

[Pugio]

One possible way to have the "villain" win and still leave the reader satisfied is to make the villain your protagonist. George Fraser's Harry Flashman novels spring to mind. Flashman is a liar, a coward, and a cheat, but a ton of fun to read about and I find myself rooting for him more often than not. PN Elrod's I, Strahd is good about this too, better in fact than any D&D-based novel has a right to be.

[Pugio]

If you want another great example of how the heroes can fail and still leave the audience satisfied, then you owe it to yourself to watch: The Wire.

[tmso]

Hmmm, I'm a realist. Though I love a good hero, meaning good as in morally good (or, at least, what I think is morally good), I know that life is not always fair or right. So, though I want a satisfying ending, I don't mind if the hero dies or gets a little bloody to end up at what is "right".

The Life of Pi by Martel has always been a huge favorite of mine, as well as The Road by McCarthy. And though I am a GRRM fan, I'm a fan not because of his Ice and Fire series (though I love them), but because of Hunter's Run. Oh, and I can add Hugh Howey's name to that as well now. ;)

All those writers delve deep into the dark sides of humanity, allowing our brilliance to shine through with that darkness, rather than despite it or without it. Did that make sense?

[RavenDawn]

actually Pugio, i'm in the middle of the second series! :)