Posted by Maureen on 7/10/2007, 10:44 pm, in reply to "Re: I know I'm not Maureen but....." Most readers feel that life is too short for being programmed into a bout of depression, and they have a perfect right to resent being depressed by somebody else, on purpose. (Especially since depression's depth and frequency seems to be connected not just to neurochemistry, but also to certain bad habits of thought, like brooding or imagining that all is useless and everyone hates you.) Even a sad story needs moments when a bit of happiness or hope peeks through; or at least it ought to have changes of pace to give the reader a bit of a mental break. A satisfying story keeps the reader's enjoyment (and mental health!) in mind, as well as the fact that readers can easily choose not to read a story, or stop in the middle. Of course, it is difficult to prove to a reader that you are worthy of their trust. That's why stories need to start in an entertaining and interesting way; it's a sort of promise to the reader, or a payment in advance. Probably part of what makes tragedy sad but not depressing is that tragedies point out "If he hadn't done this, or this, he would have been all right. He could have chosen this other path, but chose not to." So perhaps tragedies believe in free will, but depressing stories don't.
69.135.190.29
But that's the point. People do need to learn to deal with hard times, and therefore stories should _deal_ with depressing subjects, but plan _not_ to depress the reader. Give people a sad ending or a happy ending, but not a pointless gray one.
Message Thread: