Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/10966
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/10966
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

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.

Original score: 7