Is Karma absolutely necessary in fiction?

[Sewblon]

I had an argument with Kish on the Order of The Stick board, and some other board members, right now I only remember Cracklord and Optymistic by name(sorry if I spelled your name wrong Optymistic) who claimed that every character in a work of fiction must get what they deserve at the end of the story. I don't believe this because I watched, and enjoyed, The Usual Suspects In which Kayser Soze, the principle antagonist, escapes capture and punishment in the end. and the film version of The Silence of The Lambs, In which Hannibal Lecter does the same. to give a few examples. This has been bugging me for a long time so I decided to get the opinion of the rest of the forum community. So what do you guys think?

[Morty]

I say that it's not. In real life, people don't always get what they deserve, so it shouldn't be a requirement in fiction either. It all depends on the general mood of the story.

[valadil]

Karma makes sense in fiction. Events left unresolved will leave the reader feeling unsatisfied.

However, that can be exploited by an author. Harry Potter is a good example. There's so much unresolved unfairness toward Harry, especially from his family, that you can't help but get on his side. And because he doesn't whine about it he's instantly likeable. Rowling has deliberately given everyone around Harry bad karma and is able to cash in on it without resolving a thing.

George R.R. Martin certainly doesn't do karma. He kills anyone he feels like. And he's more likely to do it while they're in the middle of the action instead of when their plots are resolved and their debts are paid off. To me, this makes the deaths even more meaningful. Usually in fiction, a character is laid to rest when their work is done. Not so with Martin. Character's die in the heat of the action and all that they worked towards will fall apart.

Ned Stark dies because he won't sink to the lows of King's Landing. He died precisely because he maintained good Karma. Had he sided with Renly instead of giving Cersei a chance to escape, he probably would have lived to become king. Suck on that, karma.

[truemane]

The one iron-clad rule in fiction (as a writer and as a reader) is: Everything in the story needs to make a point. Even if the point is there is no point.

So, if character getting their just deserts advances the central theme(s) then they should get it. If getting away serves the stroy better, then so be it.

Literary Karma means everyone gets what the story deserves.

[kamikasei]

Of course not. That would make all fiction in to morality plays.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

The one iron-clad rule in fiction (as a writer and as a reader) is: Everything in the story needs to make a point. Even if the point is there is no point.

So, if character getting their just deserts advances the central theme(s) then they should get it. If getting away serves the story better, then so be it.

Literary Karma means everyone gets what the story deserves.

^ This.

Sometimes, amoral or evil characters are sympathetic by displaying some other virtue that the audience will empathise with.
In the OP's examples, the characters who get away with it do so by being smarter than those chasing / imprisoning them - so the karmic action in those stories is that being dumb gets you killed in nasty ways / loses you the bad guy.

[Indon]

TV Tropes to the rescue (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KarmaHoudini)!

While karma is indeed the general case in storytelling, this is obviously a major subversion considering how long this page is.

Also, have fun surfing the TVTropes Wiki for the next hour.

[Jayngfet]

I don't believe in Karma, I believe in consequences. If you help people, that gives them a reason to help you when you need help. If you go around killing people that leaves a lot of angry friends and relatives, and authorities looking for you. You can get away from it now but if you keep doing horrible things it's only a matter of time until someone gets angry enough or you piss off the wrong people. People won't exactly rush out to save the live of a wanted murderer/rapist/mime.

[Dervag]

Ha! Made my save against TVTropes link!
[collapses from strain]
[gets back up]

Anyway. No, karma is not strictly necessary in fiction. However, it is often desirable.

The reason: most fiction is meant to entertain (possibly among other things). There are few things the audience finds more entertaining than watching bad things happen to someone who we think deserves it. That may not say good things about humanity, but it's still true.

Therefore, you can usually make your fiction more entertaining by having the villain come to a karmically appropriate horrible fate. Watching the heroes get a reward at the end can also help entertain the audience; it's satisfying to watch people earn a happy ending.

So, in short, karma may not exist in real life, but most of us wish it did, and like to pretend it does for purposes of a story.
__________

If you're going to write a story without the valuable props karma provides, be ready for people to not enjoy reading it; this is a common problem in (for example) existential literature. The story is still good art, but it leaves you feeling confused and depressed, rather than happy.

At the other end of the scale from the classics of modern literature, the lack of karma is also a common complaint against badly written characters. Either they get lots of unearned rewards, or they don't get lots of earned punishments. Either way, the reader is left frustrated by their desire to see karma fulfilled. The annoying and unpleasant character didn't get blown up like they wanted, the long-suffering sidekick wound up passed over for rewards and glory in favor of the useless angsty "hero" who accomplished almost nothing. That sort of thing.

[Oslecamo]

I would say that some fictions are based up on there not being Karma. Like Black Adder. Kinda.

[Otogi]

Is Karma absolutely necessary? Dude, fiction's not absolutely necessary.

[Satyr]

Is Karma absolutely necessary? Dude, fiction's not absolutely necessary.

Since every person has his very own subjective take on reality, fiction is not only absolutely necessary, it is inevitable.

And no, I don't think that Karma is necessary. In most cases, I find some kind of cosmic, unprecenticed retribution /comeuppance/ enforced happy end more annoying than anything else. Plausible consequences are necessary for a good tale (because if it doesn't make sense, it is not a good tale after all) but if these consequences do not grow organically from the intrinsic logic of the story's setup, they are just a deus ex machina after all.

And I think that only the desperate and the insane should truly hope that everybody gets what they deserve.

[JonestheSpy]

Let's not forget that horrible things happen to good people all the time in both fiction and life. Just because things tend to work out, good or bad, for the main characters doesn't mean life is fair.

That's actually something I can't stand in movies and fiction - when there's all this death and disaster all around, but it's really just shock value and the fact that the reader identification figure and their buddies come out well makes it all okay. Ursula LeGuin put it pretty well when dissing Larry Niven's novel Lucifer's Hammer: A meteor wipes out most of humanity, but instead of a tragedy it's portrayed as having a happy ending because most of America - including Los Angles - survives.

[snoopy13a]

In order to establish a villian, innocent characters need to suffer. Thus, for every Macbeth, you'll need to sacrifice some Lady Macduffs.

Obviously, these innocent characters don't get what they deserve.

[Dienekes]

Not even a little.

Most of my favorite stories shoot karma in the face.

Not all though of course. I can enjoy a good karmatic ending if it makes sense. But it's not nearly necessary.

[tribble]

No, Karma isn't necessary in fiction, in fact a lack thereof is necessary, for the macbeth/lady macduff reason shown earlier; the suffering of the innocent creates conflict, which is vital to a story.

however, A *small* amount of karma goes a long way.In a song of ice and fire, I found
the deaths of the mountain that rapes and lord goldpoop and that slimy little viserys immensely satisfying.

[Remmirath]

It does obviously depend on the mood of the story - if a moral anecdote is what you're going for, it would be a bit odd if villains didn't get what was coming to them. If you're going for realistic or dark, it'd be equally odd if they all did.

I think that generally the most important thing is that what happens to the characters makes sense. You don't want someone being caught when there was no believable way he would be, but on the other hand, you also don't want him escaping if there was no way he could.

It's just as annoying to me if every character gets an ending they don't deserve as if they get one they do deserve.

[Makensha]

Thus, for every Macbeth, you'll need to sacrifice some Lady Macduffs.

Thanks for the non-spoiler spoiler. I'm currently reading Macbeth, and now I know. Thanks.


Anyway, I think that having an occasional movie where the bad guy gets ripped to shreds by some alien in a bloody and violent manner is good for the soul. I just don't think all stories should end this way. In fact, a lot don't just for the sake of possible future sequels.

[Dervag]

Let's not forget that horrible things happen to good people all the time in both fiction and life. Just because things tend to work out, good or bad, for the main characters doesn't mean life is fair.

That's actually something I can't stand in movies and fiction - when there's all this death and disaster all around, but it's really just shock value and the fact that the reader identification figure and their buddies come out well makes it all okay.On the other hand, consider the opposite type of story. Imagine that the author treated the chances of getting killed in a major battle or disaster the way they really are: imagine they determined who lives and who dies by rolling dice. Death is random and inherently meaningless, and there is no guarantee that anything you do will have any correlation with your fate at the end of the day.

There are good stories that could work like that. But there are an enormous number of stories that can not be told that way, because most stories aren't about dead people. The fact that someone is the protagonist shouldn't grant them invulnerable magic armor, yes. But conversely, the fact that someone is the protagonist should guarantee that their story is of interest. Stories of the form "Janet was living in a city menaced by an erupting volcano and got crushed under a collapsing building, the end" or "Bob went to war and then got killed in the first artillery barrage when a shell landed in his foxhole, the end" are certainly realistic, but they're not at all entertaining.


Ursula LeGuin put it pretty well when dissing Larry Niven's novel Lucifer's Hammer: A meteor wipes out most of humanity, but instead of a tragedy it's portrayed as having a happy ending because most of America - including Los Angles - survives.Hmm.

I see her point. Lucifer's Hammer can arguably be seen as one of the predecessors of the modern disaster film (it would make a pretty damn good one in its own right, if not for some of the groan-worthy political aspects), and that is a major problem with the genre.

I'm not sure I see it that way. It's got a happy ending in that the world didn't come to an end, so you've got this optimistic "we're going to rebuild our civilization" vibe at the end. But the only way to kill that off would be to end the novel with "and then everyone dies," which raises the problem I describe above. Novels about dead people are usually boring or unpleasant.

Also, Los Angeles got flattened; I don't know what you're talking about there. Yes, some refugees managed to make it out of the ruins ahead of the tidal waves, but the city itself was just freaking gone.


Thanks for the non-spoiler spoiler. I'm currently reading Macbeth, and now I know. Thanks.Makensha, Macbeth is one of the classics of English literature, and it's been out for four hundred years. People are allowed to cite it openly.

I mean, it's like a World War Two story: nobody expects you to keep quiet about the fact that the Germans lose the war because of the risk of spoiling the ending for people who've never heard of it before.

[Forever Curious]

I mean, it's like a World War Two story: nobody expects you to keep quiet about the fact that the Germans lose the war because of the risk of spoiling the ending for people who've never heard of it before.

WHAT!? Germany lost? Thanks for the spoiler...:smalltongue:

But on subject: no, karma is not nesecarry and is mood dependant (as has been said before).

[Capt Spanner]

I personally feel a deep dissatisfaction if characters don't suffer in some way or another for their sins. This can be introspective as well as external. A character doing bad things and being wracked by guilt over it can be just as effective - or even more effective - then being punished straight up.

For example: V. has recently had to face up to her habit of blasting first and asking questions later, and has been made to stare the consequences that has in the face while under the influence of some evil souls. The whole event has quite seriously caused her to reassess her priorities in life, and in this way karma will assert itself.

Of course, it's not always appropriate. James Bond kills countless mooks over the course of the films and rarely has to face up to the consequences - and the films are better for it.

[Alyss]

Karma makes sense in fiction. Events left unresolved will leave the reader feeling unsatisfied.

Karma is not the same as resolution. You are correct about stories requiring resolution - almost every single one does (for example, Silence of the Lambs is resolved at the end, even though Dr Lector escapes), but said resolution doesn't require anyone to 'get what they deserve' (an entirely subjective idea anyway).

[Avilan the Grey]

I had an argument with Kish on the Order of The Stick board, and some other board members, right now I only remember Cracklord and Optymistic by name(sorry if I spelled your name wrong Optymistic) who claimed that every character in a work of fiction must get what they deserve at the end of the story. I don't believe this because I watched, and enjoyed, The Usual Suspects In which Kayser Soze, the principle antagonist, escapes capture and punishment in the end. and the film version of The Silence of The Lambs, In which Hannibal Lecter does the same. to give a few examples. This has been bugging me for a long time so I decided to get the opinion of the rest of the forum community. So what do you guys think?

The obvious answer is of course not.

However I absolutely loathe movies that ends like that because I feel I could just have watched the news. After all, the bad guys getting punished is not exactly the most common end IRL.

[Alyss]

Always? Really, so many films are the better for non-karmic endings.

[chiasaur11]

Well, Dervag raises some good points vis a vis only watching the interesting, and therefore not entirely realistic stories, although I figure the people arguing for everything going to hell as the best thing for stories in general tend to take a very odd filter to reality.

Hmm.

Well, I agree karma isn't necessary for a solid ending. I mean, nobody kills Humperdink and that works.

On the other hand?

Leaving the villain happy, healthy, and there was nothing anybody could do about it ha ha? That tends to be rather unsatisfying. To paraphrase Steve Martin, When you tell a story, here's a radical new idea: HAVE A POINT. It makes things so much more entertaining for your listeners. (Note: Life sucks and there's nothing you can do about it is seldom a good point.)

One of the worse books I've read on this front is The Chocolate War. The whole thing is a depressathon, with the moral being, as far as I can see "Turn your back on hope and love. Conform. Conform!"

I mean, sure, rebellion against unjust authority fails all the time, but most books at least bother to get across the idea "So what? Better to fight and die than just sit there and let something that wrong continue. Worse things out there than pain."

So, uh...

I'm fine with stories that don't occur in a fundamentally moral universe. I just prefer if that state of affairs isn't treated as something to just knuckle under and take.

[LurkerInPlayground]

The whole point of tragedy is that bad things happen to good people.

[chiasaur11]

The whole point of tragedy is that bad things happen to good people.

Well, sorta.

The whole point of classical tragedy?

Bad things happen to good people...

And it's their own fault.

[Optimystik]

@ OP: No worries about misspelling my name - that's the spelling I originally wanted when I signed up here anyway.

@ Lurker - very few tragedies have the misfortune that has befallen the character be completely unrelated to their own actions. Those that do are often commenting on the inhumanity and brutality of an external force, and that is the point.


TV Tropes to the rescue (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KarmaHoudini)!

While karma is indeed the general case in storytelling, this is obviously a major subversion considering how long this page is.

If you read that page, you would realize the overarching theme for all of those examples is disappointment. When an antagonist can behave like a bastard and not only avoid comeuppance, but indeed fall out of the story never to be mentioned again,

So no, it's not a subversion at all. Do stories exist where the bad guy gets off scot free? Yes. Do some of those stories have no sequel or resolution at all? Also yes. Are those stories generally considered subpar? A resounding yes.

Also, everything that truemane said.

[Dienekes]

So no, it's not a subversion at all. Do stories exist where the bad guy gets off scot free? Yes. Do some of those stories have no sequel or resolution at all? Also yes. Are those stories generally considered subpar? A resounding yes.


Don't they also clunk in with them The Usual Suspects, Watchmen, Les Miserables, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Pink Panther, Titanic, Arsenic and Old Lace, Uncle Tom's Cabin, and many others that are considered great pieces of fiction?

Saying that a theme like karma houdini is generally subpar is like saying generally any theme is subpar. It really depends on who's doing it and how effectively. You can personally not like it (myself I detest contrived romances, I wouldn't go so far as to say all of them are terrible and subpar stories, but I have yet to find one that held my attention for more than 10 seconds) but that says little about overall quality of a theme.

[kamikasei]

Optimystik: well, was the OP's statement that you

...claimed that every character in a work of fiction must get what they deserve at the end of the story
accurate?

Because "the bad guy shouldn't get off scot free" and "everyone has to get what they deserve" are two very different propositions.

[Kneenibble]

I had an argument with Kish on the Order of The Stick board, and some other board members, right now I only remember Cracklord and Optymistic by name(sorry if I spelled your name wrong Optymistic) who claimed that every character in a work of fiction must get what they deserve at the end of the story. I don't believe this because I watched, and enjoyed, The Usual Suspects In which Kayser Soze, the principle antagonist, escapes capture and punishment in the end. and the film version of The Silence of The Lambs, In which Hannibal Lecter does the same. to give a few examples. This has been bugging me for a long time so I decided to get the opinion of the rest of the forum community. So what do you guys think?

Kayser Soze (trusting your spelling) and Dr. Lecter both did get what they deserve. Both movies are set up to demonstrate their awesome genius against the petty and mundane world in which they exist, and excuse, if not justify, their right to do as they please.

What I'm about to say won't work across the board, but I'd argue that characters in fiction always get what they deserve, and it's the author's job to make the case in his hothouse-world for that desert.

Karma is relative, to really scrape it down simple.
Karma is a construction that the author controls in casting a desired light on the contained text-world, would be a more specific way to boil it down.