Eucatastrophe

[alison]

This from a conversation I was having last night...

We were speaking about the particular elation you can feel after encountering some great work of art. This elation has nothing to do with whether what you've watched is "happy" or not. It happens to me with tragedy (Shakespeare, Beckett). Anyway, it made me think again about Tolkien's essay "On Fairy Stories", in which he coined the term "eucatastrophe":

The 'consolation' of fairy-tales has another aspect than the imaginative satisfaction of ancient desires. Far more important is the Consolation of the Happy Ending. Almost I would venture to assert that all complete fairy-stories must have it. At least I would say that Tragedy is the true form of Drama, its highest function; but the opposite is true of Fairy-story. Since we do not appear to possess a word that expresses this opposite--I will call it Eucatastrophe. The eucatastrophic tale is the true form of fairy-tale, and its highest function.

The consolation of fairy-stories, the joy of the happy ending: or more correctly of the good catastrophe, the sudden joyous 'turn' (for there is no true end to any fairy tale): this joy, which is one of the things which fairy-stories can produce supremely well, is not essentially 'escapist', nor 'fugitive'. In its fairy-tale--or other world--setting, it is a sudden and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur. It does not deny the existence of dyscatastrophe, of sorrow and failure; the possibility of these is necessary to the joy of deliverance; it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief.

It is the mark of a good fairy-story, of the higher or more complete kind, that however wild its events, however fantastic or terrible the adventures, it can give to child or man that hears it, when the 'turn' comes, a catch of the breath, a beat and lifting of the heart, near to (or indeed accompanied by) tears, as keen as that given by any form of literary art, and having a peculiar quality.

The argument was that the elation you feel on watching a tragedy or reading some marvellous fairy tale is essentially the same; both reveal a possible truth, whether joyous or tragic, and that makes you feel happy. I sort of say ye-es, but I think that it's different all the same. Any thoughts?

[Fionnoula]

hmmm it's one in the morning here so my brain isn't working very well..so i don't quite understand that...i think he means that feeling when the hero and the heroine finally get together...i can relate to that.. there is a sense of elation when things turn out alright in the end..you've put so much emotion into these charcters that to see them happy is a great feeling..i'm not sure what he means about the sesnse of elation about a tradegy..i can't say i get that...

[Ward]

You've never had a revelatory sense of transcendent awe at an exquisitely realized tragedy such as Hamlet? That is what Tolkien means, he means that the emotional and intellectual pleasure one feels from a true work of art is that same regardless of outcome of the plot or the tone; the epiphany of truth profoundly communicated satisfies the same aesthetic (he would say spiritual) need in us.

I would agree completely, and I should think that if we all reflected on the pleasure we get from literature most of us would also see that the actual outcome of the events of a book aren’t really of much importance when compared to the things we really read for; emotional catharsis, imaginative transcendence, and a sense of connectedness with the greater truths of our experience.

[alison]

Beautifully said, Ward! That's more or less where I'm coming from. Fionnoula, I meant that watching a great production of a great play (or painting or novel or whatever), even if the outcome is corpses all over the stage or even nothing happening at all, always leaves me with a feeling of elation.

Actually, Tolkien was positing eucatastrophe as the opposite of the kind of cathartic satisfaction we might feel from a tragic drama. Being a kind of Platonic Catholic, he says that these moments of eucatastrophe give us a glimpse of a transcendent and joyous reality beyond our own. Whereas the classic Aristotlean explanation of tragedy is that it brings to the surface and releases "pity and terror", and so makes us face our own fears.

But, like you, I'd say that both these feelings - which certainly for me can be extremely powerful - are part of aesthetic experience that, at its best, is euphoric; and part of the power of that experience is that I feel that what I have seen is somehow expressed truly. I was watching Endgame once and wondering why it left me feeling so light, given what it was saying was so absolutely bleak; and I thought, it's because Beckett isn't lying, and you know he isn't. But that's a rather complicated thought...ideas of truth in this aesthetic sense (or as you say Tolkien would say, spiritual sense - I find myself reluctant to take the spiritual out of it, although I'm not at all religious) can apply to fantasy as much as to Beckett. But different art functions in different ways for different means.

Of course, there is such a thing as a tragic fairy tale or fantasy as well...

[Fionnoula]

well as i do at least five times a day i've got completely the wrong end of the stick.. ..but anyway i do get what you mean..i saw a Rembrandt in a museum in Germany, and even thought it was bloody and horrible, it was the most amazing feeling to actually see such an stunning painting..am i closer to the mark now?...sorry i'm just trying to work this out becuase i think it might be helpful in understanding some of my english lit texts..

[Dawnstorm]

I wonder, wether the perceived difference between Tolkien's position and yours has something to do with the differnce between content and form.

If you order fiction according to content (say, fairy-tales contain eu-catastrophies and tragedies contain dys-catastrophies), you might come up with Tolkien's conclusion. Two different paths to revelation.

If you order fiction according to form (taking a certain type of content and portraying it in an unexpected manner), you night come up with the conclusion that it's not the content that matters, but the idea that - in a fictive context - you are allowed a fleeting moment of connection to "something bigger".

These positions are not irreconcilible, I think. It's all a matter of focus.

Contentwise, I'm not convinced that core of fairy tales is the "happy ending". That's certainly not true if I include Oscar Wilde's explorations into the genre. Or Hans Christian Andersen... Tolkien's comparison would have made more sense if he'd classified fairy tales along the eu-/dys-catastrophy axis. It's still an interesting point, though.

As for your point, here's a question: Is there any difference in your reaction to happy endings and unhappy ones (or even mixed ones)? Both may be exhilarating, but in the same way? Really?

[Am I making any sense?]

[alison]

Hi Fionnoula - yes, that's the kind of feeling I was talking about. Because it is amazing to see a brilliant expression of something. But what is that feeling? There's no need to analyse it; it's the experience that counts, and those kinds of feelings are very difficult to articulate. But it's interesting to try...

As for your point, here's a question: Is there any difference in your reaction to happy endings and unhappy ones (or even mixed ones)? Both may be exhilarating, but in the same way? Really?

That's what I'm wondering - it's often harder than one realises to sort out subjective responses. I think that there is something in that euphoria that is similar, if not the same; but it's obviously triggered by very different catalysts. And I - and everyone else - have differing reactions to differing works of art, so it doesn't make a lot of sense speaking as abstractly as we are here, anyway.

A big difference - maybe the telling difference - between me and Tolkien is Tolkien's Catholicism. What I would think of as a human possibility (a generous kind of joy or temporary release from the burdens of existence) JRR would think of as a glimpse of a higher level of being, also a human possibility but in another world/reality. Elsewhere he disses drama anyway, as an inferior artform to epic poetry; it relies too much on "character". Maybe for Tolkien drama is, in the end, just too vulgarly material - almost existential! I don't know.

Poets are always saying things like "content is a function of form" or vice versa. And I have to say, I have a lot of trouble separating the two.

And totally with you on the tragic fairy stories (Wilde and Andersen did some of the most beautiful examples). I think the "happy ending" thesis would probably be very difficult to sustain: if you look at Perrault or Grimm, most of the happy endings were tacked on later, and the original stories are rather black, with the ogre mother in law subplot in Sleeping Beauty, say, or Little Red Riding Hood simply being eaten up...

You're making sense to me, Dawnstorm; or at least as much as I'm making...

[Dawnstorm]

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?

Interesting thought experiment... (as the actual experiment is pretty much beyond our means).

[alison]

Well, there's two things here: first the formal structure of pieces of work; and then the subjective experiences of its effects. How about this:

A tragedy communicates grief and horror by deliberate manipulation of its audience (I don't mean anything negative by this); the drama is structured to create a sense of inevitability. We know from the opening scenes that Macbeth or Agamemnon or Oedipus is doomed. The Ancient Greeks knew the story already; the revelation of plot wasn't the point, but the enactment of pity and terror was. If you see a good production of a Shakespearea tragedy, the last half hour is always completely gripping: by that time the story has focused to its final playing out and denouement. You know what's going to happen, again, but finding out about the story isn't the point - the point is the playing out of an action that started at the beginning of the play, or even before it (Lear's arrogance, Macbeth's burning ambition, Paris' abduction of Helen). You see catastrophe (or maybe in Beckett's case post-catastrophe) played out before you, and that creates a perverse kind of joy, certainly a sense of euphoria. Maybe part of that euphoria is that we, as audience, can both witness and survive catastrophe. It's a way of humanly processing the ultimate personal catastrophe, which is death.

In fairy story, as JRRR outlines it as a formal imaginative work, the formal manipulation of the work, the enactment, is towards an opposite effect, an inevitable eucatastrophe. (He goes to a lot of trouble to distinguish this from the kinds of neat happy endings you see in Hollywood movies, where everything is neatly tied up - that's not what he means). The sudden "turn", the unexpected lift of the heart, admits joy; but in Tolkien's definition of it (and mine) it's a joy that goes beyond the individual and lonely self, and it creates a rent in reality that admits a fugitive glimpse of another possibility. For Tolkien that's a frankly religious glimpse; the lands of the Uttermost West, the immortal places of the Elves, are for Frodo and others visions of death. Certainly, moments of intense joy can make one feel intensely mortal and and aware of death. So maybe this is where these two things link up in the psyche.

[Dawnstorm]

So, both the tragedy and the fairy tale operate on the assumption that life being more complex is part of the reading/viewing experience. And this difference creates similar reactions: "it's not us... yet" for tragedy, and "could have been different, though" for a fairy tale.

I must admit, I'm a bit confused when it comes to my own reactions to stories. I have a hunch it's more along lines of character/psychology/empathy than along lines of eu-/dyscatastrophe. Typed up two versions of a paragraph, but none made sense to myself. I'll let it work inside me...

[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!

[Alassë]

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?

Alassë

[Silver Serpent]

Well that's the general idea i got...