Genre conventions: Which end do readers expect?
I need help with the concept of my story:
My protagonists live in a mild dystopia. Think of your own country today ;-) They have the opportunity to kill about 20 persons, which will cause a fundamental change in their society that makes life much better for everyone. Imagine the effect being similar to:
- no one needing to work more than 50%
- with the prices remaining the same, everyone earning at least twice your current average national income
- no one earning more than twenty times that
- free public transport, housing, schooling, health services
You get the idea. No anarchy, socialism, or whatever, just what we have today with less inequality and better social system.
The story can have three endings:
- the protagonists cannot decide -- this might make for an intriguing but unsatisfying end
- the protagonists kill the 20 -- this be satisfying to the readers, but at the same time morally questionable
- the protagonists walk away -- this will be morally superior, but unsatisfying
If I managed to tell all three stories in a gripping and convincing way so that all endings resulted naturally from the storyline and characters, which end wozld satisfy readers most and what end would they expect in a YA dystopian novel?
Edit [2014-05-21]
In comments and answers there has been some complaint that you don't know enough to know what ending readers will prefer. You don't know about my protagonists, you don't know the society or "the 20", so obviously all depends on how I tell that tale. Sure. But that's not what I'm asking.
First, I'm telling you what kind of society it is. My question says: Imagine your own country. So – I hope – you know what kind of society you should consider. As for the protagonists or "the 20" (which is just a random number, not the number of people in my story), they really don't matter to this question, because this question is not about my story, but about genre conventions and reader expectations as they exsit before those readers even pick up this book.
The question is: Given a society like your own, which ending would readers expect or be most satisfied with, disregarding any specific plot. Do readers expect protagonists to kill the bad guys? Would they feel better if the protagonists had moral qualms and did nothing? In short:
Do readers enjoy self-administered vigilante justice? Or do they prefer moral heroes?
In the Seventies there was widespread support and approval among German students when the Red Army Faction killed employer and industry representative Hanns Martin Schleyer. How do readers of YA dystopian fiction today feel about social revolutionary terrorists killing key figures from politics to attempt a change in society?
There is nothing beyond the genre you need to know to answer this question. All you need is familiarity with the genre, current politics, and readers of YA fiction.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/10945. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
3 answers
Which end do readers expect? Either of the ones you given. Some will expect one, others the other
That's why you should choose neither.
You have two obvious options, plus a dull 'no choice made'. That's one point where the difference between a common book and an excellent one is made.
This is where the protagonist should not just decide or fail to make a decision. It's where the protagonist should get off the rails, refuse the choices given, and find a third way.(Warning! TVTropes). It should be a brilliant way that breaks the rules, sets things right, and as a bonus, leaves the one who set the rules out in the cold.
Who knows what it would be. Maybe blackmail them and force them to comply. Maybe show mercy, and when the mercy is taken for weakness, show them his true strength, terrorize them and cow them into submission. Maybe start killing, one by one, until the rest does what he wants. Maybe convince them, through sincerity, or opposite, bluff them into submission. Maybe let them talk in their defense, and then stand by their side. Maybe force them through a trial of fire, that will change them. Maybe recognize they are all figureheads, and kill the true mastermind - possibly finding the mastermind was his sidekick all the time.
I don't know what twist fits your story, but this is definitely the place where a twist should go. Always, see two simple options: choose third.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/10948. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
I think readers want a good story, not a particular type of ending.
After writing (or even just outlining) all three endings, you'll be able to decide, better than we can, which is the best. We really can't say without more of the details.
(On those details, though, I will say that: it depends greatly on the 20. Are they a secret society of corrupt leaders who greedily steal most of the society's money for themselves? Or just ordinary people. Why those 20?)
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/10946. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
I'm going to spin this around for you.
In Jeffrey Schechter's My Story Can Beat Up Your Story, Schechter suggests that a lot of theme is about the protagonist asking a thematic question, e.g.,
- "Should I settle for less romantically?"
- "Can I balance 'ordinary' responsibilities with my secret identity?"
- "How do I decide who to trust?"
And in opposition, you have an antagonist making a thematic argument on the subject, e.g.,
- "Give up the puppy-eyed longing, 'true love' with butterflies in your stomach is just a fairy tale for Disney movies!".
- "Never give up! You true love is out there somewhere, so never compromise on anybody who doesn't feel absolutely perfect for you!"
The antagonist's argument can be compelling, but it should (usually!) be also, ultimately, be wrong. The antagonist's confidence in his argument is what lets him be forceful, aggressive, unyielding. The fact that his argument is wrong (or, at least, flawed) is what lets the protagonist triumph at the end, finding a better answer to the thematic question.
So in the case you're describing, it sounds like a lot of the thematic question is, "Is killing justified if it guarantees utopia for all?".
What will make a resolution satisfying, or unsatisfying, is less which resolution you choose, and more what options you've set up:
- If you have an antagonist who lets personal morality get in the way of responsibility, then killing the 20 could be overcoming that antagonist's argument.
- But if you have an antagonist who claims practicality and responsibility override the requirement to act morally, then you'd want to go the other way, affirming morality even at great cost.
- These are just examples; your question and argument might be entirely different from what I've presented here. Maybe the question is "Is this dull life, filled only with drudgery and hard work, worthwhile?", and the antagonist argues "Make do with what you have, don't wish for more than what's realistic," and then ending it with killing the 20 might be saying "Yes, the drudgery really is so bad that it's worth dying or killing to eradicate it." You can go all kinds of different ways.
Once you have an idea of what the conflict is - the thematic question and the thematic argument - then you'll have a better sense of what kind of conclusion actually addresses the argument, and resolves the thematic question to some extent.
As long as you do that, I think you'll be absolutely fine with reader expectations.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads