As webmaster for a couple of New York Times bestselling authors, I see a lot of comments and questions from fans. Some I’ve seen thousands of times. “Where do you get your ideas?” “Will you come to my town to sign?” “Are you going to make a movie based on your books?” “When is your next book coming out?”
But every once in a while—and it’s a rarity these days—a question comes in that I haven’t seen before, one that makes me wonder. One I know other readers might have great interest in. The question in today’s poll pops up every few months but I’ve never really seen it addressed outside of a writing seminar about the durability of the Hero’s Journey and its importance to storytelling in our civilization from a very early moment:
Will you ever write a book where evil ultimately triumphs over good?
For me personally, I haven’t really seen it. Maybe Elric? Maybe Thomas Covenant? The best story I’ve seen where evil is presented in flattering light is The Sundering duology by Jacqueline Carey. Banewreaker and Godslayer are super underrated.
I’ll let a menagerie of today’s best writers to take a crack at answering it the question though. They are the ones you are interested in:
Brent Weeks: “Your question is flawed. In many of the most memorable exemplars of SFF, evil does win. Or at least it wins in a way. Or if good wins, it’s a pyrrhic victory. There’s quite a few ways to tackle this question, and I will leave the approaches I miss to the capable hands of my colleagues, who will doubtless wrap it up above and below me. But let me give you a few examples. In the Odyssey, Odysseus wins… except. He wins except that he has missed raising his son, he’s missed having more children, and he’s been absent from his wife for many years. When he comes back, Ithaca is a shattered remnant of what he lost, and he himself is greatly scarred by his experiences. In the same way, in The Lord of the Rings, Frodo wins. But that victory takes so much out of Frodo that he can never again be that simple hobbit from the Shire. He stays for a time, not truly connected to anyone except the other wounded warriors, and then must leave for the other Grey Havens. In The Empire Strikes Back, now widely heralded as the greatest of the Star Wars movies, Luke loses. He loses his hand, and his innocence. Even attempting to die rather than join his father, whom he admits is stronger.To these shining examples, I will immodestly add my own work. In The Way of Shadows [minor spoiler here], the good guys don’t win. The city is lost, and many of the people we love die.
So between these titans of literary history and the genre, and modern publication, I don’t think that we can say that “the bad guys winning” is unheard of. It does happen, even in stories we love, and that tells us something about the truth of human conflicts. As Tolkien knew, intimately, the veterans who come back from war are not the halcyon boys who naively went to fight it. I think this recognition is key to the efforts in our genre to temper the triumphalism of the adolescent thought that war is cool.
The greater question, behind your question, may be why do we want happy endings? And that I will leave to my colleagues.”
Why do we crave happy endings, indeed? What psychological need drives it? Why is it a cross-cultural phenomenon? Terry Brooks touches on this in the next piece:
Terry Brooks: “Publishers will publish anything if they think it will sell. Writers will write anything if they feel strongly enough about it. And all sorts of stories, both long and short, fiction and non-fiction, in which evil wins out over good, have been published over the years. So even to suggest that evil never wins at the end of the story is wrong-headed.From my point of view, the question should be more personal. Why do I not write stories in which evil wins out?
The answer is both simple and complex. Simple, because the short version of any response begins with my disinterest in writing such stories. Complex, because my life and worldview do not readily embrace the prospect of obtaining any enjoyment from writing or reading stories of evil triumphant.
I am a positive sort of guy, and I don’t want to write stories in which good does not prevail. I sometimes read stories in which evil wins out – at least in the short run – but this never makes me wish that I could sit down and write one myself. I know the world is a tough place and lots of bad things happen and right doesn’t always prevail over wrong. But I’m really not interested in exploring those kinds of stories. This gets back to how I grew up. I was a small, dweeby sort of kid who got beat up a lot and later simply got in fights a lot, and who never felt that he fit in. So I spent my time lost in books where kids like me struggled with problems but always found a way to work things out.
So those were the kinds of stories I set out to write long ago. What interested me was how the underdog overcame the odds and emerged victorious. Not unbloodied or whole or with friendships intact or with the girl or with a clear path to the future, but with some semblance of success and at least the suggestion that better things lay ahead. What interested me then and now was looking at the ways in which we struggle to find our path and do the right thing – even without knowing where our path lies or what the right thing is.
I guess the bottom line is that I don’t think another story founded in evil overcoming good would be refreshing or compelling. I think it would be banal. I think it would just make me sad. Especially if I wrote it.”
Is Terry on to something here? Do readers who ask this question really have a banal desire to have their asses kicked by a story that is not uplifting? What is it that drives these kinds of readers? Dave Wolverton/Farland tackles the question from an emotional angle:
Dave Wolverton: “Readers read in order to engage in an emotional exercise. They place themselves under stress as they vicariously live through an adventure. To have evil win would force your story to have an unsatisfying ending, which would leave the reader feeling as if he had been cheated. He hopes to see the story brought to a successful resolution.In other words, if I had the bad guys win, my readers would abandon me and never buy another one of my books. They’d feel cheated, and rightly so. The author has an unwritten contract with the reader, one that the author dares not violate, at least not on purpose.”
Peter Orullian also follows Terry and Dave:
Peter Orullian: “Evil (or the bad guy) winning is certainly done. Sometimes it’s called “Karma Houdini.” Dystopian novels do this quite a bit. Horror fiction does it fairly often, too. Examples of evil winning include: The Silmarillion, The Children of Hurin, Brave New World, Storm of Iron, Pet Sematary, Animal Farm, Madame Bovary, Hannibal, much of Mieville’s work . . . you get the point. So, I’m not quite sure it would qualify as refreshing if the antagonists won, since they get their fair share of wins. For my money, though, even when writers do this it’s not so refreshing. It’s going to sound maudlin, but I think most readers want their escapism to provide a degree of hope and uplift, triumph even. Reality is rife with bummers. I’m glad to read about characters going through hell to get to a more hopeful outcome, but failure on top of that? I’m thinking life is too short to read to many such stories. If I want to be depressed, I’ll turn on the news.”
C.S. Friedman takes it another way:
C.S. Friedman: “Those are really two different questions. An “evil” character is someone with reprehensible qualities. A “protagonist” is the main character of a book. There is no reason one could not have a protagonist who was evil. Moorcock popularized the concept of the anti-hero, a main character with a dark nature, and it was particularly popular in the 80’s. Most vampire literature depends upon blurring the line between good and evil, and often evil characters — or at least semi-evil characters — win. Barbara Hambly’s Those who Hunt the Night has a human protagonist who winds up having to protect some really nasty vampires. His “win” is not having his wife murdered by them, while they continue to prey upon makind. And my own Coldfire trilogy has a character of indisputable evil, forced to ally with a religious idealist who once vowed to destroy him. They win some battles — and lose others — together.The protagonist question is different. Protagonists are generally the main characters of a book, with whom the reader identifies. Most people find a book satisfying when the protagonist accomplishes his goal, for the same reason that they find a football game satisfying when their home team wins. How many die-hard sports fans have you heard say, “Wow, my team got trounced and won’t be in the playoffs, but it was worth it, because the other team was so much fun to watch!” Very few. It’s the same with readers.
But there is no reason a protagonist has to be a good guy.”
So there you have it. From some of the best in the genre weighing in. What do you think? Would you be satisfied reading a book where evil wins? If so, why? Vote below and comment!
I chose to comment here since I could not decide if I wanted good to win out over evil. On one hand I think that even if an outcome has evil winning over good, it could be used to demonstrate to readers why evil shouldn’t win out, a sort of moral lesson. But I also like to truly touch an audience even if it may be in a negative way, to elicit a response and perhaps give them a needed twist. Many of my protagonists have a dark or at least tortured side, usually dealing with guilt, real or imagined.
On the other hand, I think that good winning out is a type of catharsis for readers, they can identify with the protagonist and feel that they have somehow participated in the good result. Hence the popularity of action-adventure movies/books.
So, I couldn’t decide. Absolutely fabulous article and wonderful insights from the authors!
Might I say that your poll’s options seem flawed? I have no issue with seeing evil win, if evil deserves to win. I want a story that is a good story. I want an interesting narrative that draws me in. If that narrative is set up so that seeing evil win is the right ending, the best ending the book can have, then I want to see evil win.
It’s not about good guys always winning. It’s about good stories always prevailing, whatever that might mean.
Good point, Shade!
This question is far too difficult to give just a yes or a no answer. I voted “No,” because in the end I want the protagonist, who, at least in the books I read, is “good” more often than “evil,” to prevail. However, I think people usually want the protagonist to win simply because the protagonist is who we know. Even if the protagonist is Hannibal Lecter, as the saying goes, “Better the evil you know than the one you don’t.”
The Al’Thors, Lecters, Dresdens, Baggins’ and Potters have been part of our lives for years. We want them to succeed just like we want a friend to get a promotion at work. They’ve become our friends and as long as they survive, we can go on imagining what their next adventure will be.
I’m certainly not saying the protagonist should win every battle, but I do want them to win the war. If they have a few missteps or defeats on the way, that just makes the final victory that much sweeter. Really, what would The Lord of the Rings have been if Frodo just had a sunny stroll, rode the escalator up Mount Doom, and flipped the ring in like a penny at a wishing well?
Antagonist prevailing over Protagonist may be a good change of pace. It might make a story more realistic. But, I don’t think it makes a story more fun.
Of course, what qualifies as a “good story” is subjective, entirely dependent on the reader. Some readers won’t want to see evil win out. Others will erringly think evil winning the day is fresh.
The interesting thing to me would be understanding the reasons for a reader’s sensibilities. But that’d take time away from reading another book . . .
The value in Shawn’s question, and these writers’ responses, might be in realizing that there are various reader expectations and responses to story.
It would be very refreshing. Evil or the villain can be the most important part of the story. Kahn and Vader to this day are some of my favorite characters.
Should evil ever win? Yes. Would I read a story where evil won and enjoy it? Yes. My favorite movie of all-time has evil winning the day, Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back. I thought it was a great ending and left just about everything in ruin for the good guys. What a refreshing story and of course in the very end the rebels won. But if you take that story on it’s own, evil had won the day.
A series ending with evil being the winner in the end really depends on how well it is written and the characters. I tend to root for the villain so bring on the story!
neither evil or good win ultimately. all we get are short moments in time where there is struggle between opposing forces. a novel that would proclaim one force as the ultimate winner (ultimate as in … forever) is not possible to imagine … at least for me. what would such a world look like? hell? heaven? these are big concepts, ever challenging human thoughts. well, i’d be interested in someone trying to write that…
Losing a Loved One to a drunk driver, as collateral damage in a shoot-out between drug dealers, or any other random senseless crime can never be undone. You can learn to get on w your life and even flourish again. But evil has won. It is a victory that will last forever.
I remember seeing an interview between Brandon Sanderson and Peter Orullian where Sanderson mentioned that he does not see his characters as being good, evil, or shades of grey. He sees them as people who perform actions motivated by their own reasoning, sometimes we agree with them and sometimes we dont.
People will try to apply the good and evil scale to things because it is a structure that makes sense but in reality, and in fiction, people are far more complicated than a good / evil dichotomy would suggest.
For me, it doesn’t matter whether good or evil wins in the end, what matters is that the story follows a natural progression from beginning to create an ending that is satisfying and makes sense.
I would definitely say this is a tricky question. Especially when you have to define conscience, motivation, good and evil etc. It’s almost religious. Seriously, read any religious book and evil sometimes wins a battle, but good always wins the war. I think it is because an entertaining and for lack of a better word ‘good’ story has to have a structure. Therefore if an author wants evil to win he has to make chaos seem reasonable, and again we need to define good and evil. Not so easy to write or convince readers of…
“The Al’Thors, Lecters, Dresdens, Baggins’ and Potters have been part of our lives for years. We want them to succeed just like we want a friend to get a promotion at work. They’ve become our friends and as long as they survive, we can go on imagining what their next adventure will be.”
Ok.. I can admit I’m a bit confused here. I can’t imagine myself ever wanting Hannibal Lecter to succeed in anything. I watched Silence of the lambs, and was royally pissed when he escaped without Jodie foster putting a bullet in him. unless of course you are talking about a different lector.. in which case I’m clearly not sure what series/character you are referring too.
For my part, I echo Peter O’rullian, Terry Brooks and David Farland’s sentiments. The world is not an especially nice place. It could be better, and indeed should be better. There are not a lot of really heroic events in the real world, one person changing the course of history and improving the lives of millions. In the real world it tends to work the other way around. And if I want to see that sort of thing, thats what the news is for. I’m not saying that I want sugar coated books like some of Brook’s earliest.. I don’t mind the characters facing loss and hardship along the way.. that makes their journey seem real. But ultimately I do want them to prevail.
Screw Evil.
It’s worth knowing that anti-hero’s aren’t ‘evil’ either, their more neutral. I have no issue with neutral’s but I tell you this. If your villain in a story is evil (i.e. mass murderer, psychotic dictator citing the queen of hearts ‘off with their heads’, cruel gods delighting in pulling the legs off lesser beings etc. etc. etc.) than he/she/it should fail.
I equate literature as escapism. I’ve little interest in non-fiction reading and as such I read as a means to forget the crap hole existence that is everyday survival. The last thing I need are more reasons to be depressed, or witnessing through literature good well intentioned protagonists being ground underneath the heals of some jackrump with an overinflated ego and a serious case of sociopath. Don’t care if it’s ‘fresh’ don’t care if it’s ‘realistic’ . One should not equate rotten evil eggs with ‘freshness’ anyhow, and realism should not be why your reading fantasy fiction.
So screw evil!
I must say I personally prefer a story where neither ‘Evil’ nor ‘Good’ wins. because that just means the story is over, If I am enjoying the story of coarse I don’t want it to end. I like the adventure itself and yes it is satisfying when the main character has achieved what he/she set out to do. I think this is why I love Terry’s books so much, the ‘constant’ battles between good and evil, there must be both to keep the balance it is the nature of things. Say for example if the Word wins, well then there would be no more adventures. it would be boring! what then would the Ohmsfords do that we would care to read about?…if the Void wins?.. well without good what would the demons have left to control?. it would all just be boring and then Terry wouldn’t have anything else to write about… that is a sad day that I do not look forward to.
Both Viridian & Charlie are on the right track, I read fantasy & sci fi because it ain’t real Buddy! it’s escapism. Get out from under real life & burn the midnight oil with a cracking good novel. Like in olden days before TV & Internet, we listened to story tellers to entrance & enthrall us round the camp fire. Thats what a good author should do. Concepts of good & evil are relative anyway. One persons monster is anothers hero. Just let the goodies win in the end! At least by Book 3 or 4 or5 or….
Instead of asking should evil ever win,ask why a book following the antangonist along his path is never written.Why don’t we see books where a black hearted,pure evil villain is the lead and main force of evil?The clash of good and evil from evil’s view.I’d certainly do a lot to read such a book.
I think the difference is between “winning battles” and “winning the war”. Evil can and likely will have many smaller victories over the Forces of Good – hence the scars and sacrifices and prices paid by the heroes.
The original question pertains, I believe, to the idea of Evil “winning the war” – LotR if Sauron reclaimed his ring and enslaved all of Middle Earth, for example. That clarification made, the Greek tragedies are perfect examples of that: Oedipus Rex. Other examples include Ethan Frome. H.P. Lovecraft.
Stories revolving around Evil’s supreme triumph do exist, but as Mr. Orullian pointed out, “if I want to be depressed, I’ll turn on the news.”
To answer ValleyButcher’s rhetorical question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU
this is how the LotR should have ended
But I think it all depends on the brilliance of the author. I prefer to read novels where the protagonist is potentially good at heart and overcomes his own unique conquest, to be vague, and the story leaves me pleased and something to think about. But this is because I believe as most that I am “good” myself, in my own way. Thus I can relate to the protagonist.
But let’s say the author give’s me a pure evil main character but with something to relate to, lets assume we all have an “evil” side, that might be different all together. As long as the evil is dazzling and not abhorrent as to make me hate myself for liking a well written tribute to the occult, I think it might be really entertaining. But the recipe to something like that might be too odd to concoct in the mainstream. If it isn’t already out there.
As long as the book entertains and keeps me thinking “it’s just fantasy man, don’t worry” I might just enjoy being outraged…
Personally, I would love a story where there isn’t a good/evil slant – but rather one that explored the idea of perspectives and how each person is doing what is right for them. Similar to Song of Ice and Fire as it stands today, or the way in which the Midkemians and Tsurani are explored through the Magician/Empire series. On each side, there are good people, on each side there are those who you desperately want to fail. Even the concept that Brent Weeks presents in Black Prism through the protagonist is unique and interesting.
I enjoy traditional fantasy when I want escapism, but there are times that I want to be challenged and have my beliefs questioned, and in those times I don’t want a clear cut good and evil side.
I think this question is a bad one, to an extent evil should always win as Mr weeks pointed out a lot of great storys have evil winning in part and the protagonists only having a partial victory that cost them part of themselves be that who they are, their lover or their friends. I won’t vote in the poll as I think to give a good story with depth and a fulfilling ending evil always needs to win sometimes, allowing the already opressed protagonists to rise above the odds and be the underdogs. Good examples are in Brandon Sandersons Mistborn series (spoiler alert lol) Kelsier (not sure of the spelling here) dies but this allows the uprising to begin and he dies as a martyr but vin loses her teacher and strongest attachment.
I question the possibility of anyone writing a truly evil character as the protagonist, because an author would enevitably explain the reasons behind why the protagonist is behaving in this manner, which would humanise the protagonist and thus the reader will be able to follow the rationale behind the protagonists actions, that in turn absolves the protagonist of true evil leaving behind just another protagonist the reader can identify with.
The question of “evil” conquering over “good” I feel they’re too arbitrary and therefore again, evil winning is a slim possibility, in a literary sense I’d say evil wins when the protagonist loses at the end and that’s not a satisfying end for the reader in most cases.
Now a book where your loyalties are shifted from one protagonist to another would be a delightful read especially if the two are opposing characters, so long as the one your loyalties are to wins at the end.
Good & Evil are only concepts that are based on personal perceptions of what is morally right & wrong. this is also based on our social up bringing, our circle of influence & often just plain need. We are getting into Philosophy here! Sometimes good & evil is just a point of view. I bet the devil’s mum thinks her little boy is just missunderstood. I simply want a good read with a satisfying feelgood ending eventually, preferably with a few volumes between beginning & ending. If you want flawed characters with plenty of warts try Joe Abercrombie’s series. A vividly realised Torturer, & a very flawed cast of unlikely heroes. And for any of you who have also had the misfortune to wear the brown underwear of combat , his book “Heroes” tells it like it is! No there is nothing good or evil in combat , there is only surviving. History is written by the “winners” not by the grunts who were there.
I have often wanted to write a book where the “evil” charactor is the protagonist, and wins. If I thought I could ever successfully write a book such as that, I definetly would. And I don’t mean evil as in, has some bad charactor traits, or a dark past. I mean evil as in, sociopath, wants to enslave whole worlds type evil, but I’m going to make you see it from the villain’s eyes the whole time. You may not be able to sympathize with the protagonist, and put the book down, but I know enough people who are curious; just enough to want to see inside the villain’s head, even if they may regret it. Sometimes evil should win; at least in a book that you can close.
So, in writing my own short stories and hoping to one day write a full novel I have toyed with the idea that maybe the good guys shouldn’t succeed. There are other titles in which evil may not win, but never truly are defeated. I won’t say which for fear of spoilers. Also, in video games this happens — the bad guys winning– that is. Particularly, Kuja in FF6, FF4 in Japan I believe, starts the game off by completely destroying the world. From then the good guys must fight to destroy him still. In my own opinion, this is the only way the public will accept the bad guys winning, at the beginning and giving the good guys a chance to fight back. I, however, hope to one day see this change.