EDITED:
Most stories have happy endings. But some stories have endings that seem sad, but are actually happy. Joseph Krutch talks about this in "The Tragic Fallacy".
The main thing that Krutch points out is that loss can be a happy ending. The key to a happy ending is not to leave the characters happy, but to leave the readers happy. This is done by conveying a sense of nobility or "noble suffering". What makes the readers happy isn't that the character suffered, but that they suffered for a cause. This goes back to my blog post on "Tragedy and the Common Man". What makes tragedy a good genre is that the characters are willing to suffer, and even fail or die, for their cause or dignity. Unlike in other genres where a character might surrender or give up temporarily to regroup, characters in tragedies are stubborn in their beliefs and motivation. To quote Krutch:
“tragedy is essentially an expression, not of despair, but of the triumph over despair and of confidence in the value of human life”
Krutch points out how in Romeo and Juliet even though Juliet kills herself, she is able to convey the idea that she would rather die than lose love to the readers, and thus leave them happy at the end. In Hamlet, the entire family dying conveys the idea that justice in death is more important than an unjust life, and thus the reader is satisfied.
Oedipus Rex also does this. Even though Oedipus gouges his eyes out, he still is able to convey that he would rather know the truth than have bliss. His willingness to suffer serves as an example and something to aspire to. This leaves the reader happy, or at least content, with the ending. The best endings leave the reader knowing that there was no other possible option for an ending.
Here's a link the essay.
Most stories have happy endings. But some stories have endings that seem sad, but are actually happy. Joseph Krutch talks about this in "The Tragic Fallacy".
The main thing that Krutch points out is that loss can be a happy ending. The key to a happy ending is not to leave the characters happy, but to leave the readers happy. This is done by conveying a sense of nobility or "noble suffering". What makes the readers happy isn't that the character suffered, but that they suffered for a cause. This goes back to my blog post on "Tragedy and the Common Man". What makes tragedy a good genre is that the characters are willing to suffer, and even fail or die, for their cause or dignity. Unlike in other genres where a character might surrender or give up temporarily to regroup, characters in tragedies are stubborn in their beliefs and motivation. To quote Krutch:
“tragedy is essentially an expression, not of despair, but of the triumph over despair and of confidence in the value of human life”
Krutch points out how in Romeo and Juliet even though Juliet kills herself, she is able to convey the idea that she would rather die than lose love to the readers, and thus leave them happy at the end. In Hamlet, the entire family dying conveys the idea that justice in death is more important than an unjust life, and thus the reader is satisfied.
Oedipus Rex also does this. Even though Oedipus gouges his eyes out, he still is able to convey that he would rather know the truth than have bliss. His willingness to suffer serves as an example and something to aspire to. This leaves the reader happy, or at least content, with the ending. The best endings leave the reader knowing that there was no other possible option for an ending.
Here's a link the essay.