The program for "Iconoclasm: The Breaking and Making of Images," a conference taking place from the 17th to the 19th of March at the University of Toronto includes a paper by Angela Toscano (English, University of Utah): “Form and the Formulaic: The Iconoclasm of Happily Ever After in Popular Romance.”
Readers who prefer chick lit to romance might well argue that it is chick lit which is iconoclastic in its breaking of the conventions of the romance genre. According to Ferriss and Young
Supporters claim that, unlike traditional, convention-bound romance, chick lit jettisons the heterosexual hero to offer a more realistic portrait of single life, dating, and the dissolution of romantic ideals.
Both fans and authors of chick lit contend that the difference lies in the genre’s realism. Chicklit.us explains that it reflects “the lives of everyday working young women and men” and appeals to readers who “want to see their own lives in all the messy detail, reflected in fiction today.” (3)
Stephanie Harzewski, who received the Romance Writers of America’s 2006-2007 Academic Research Grant to assist her in completing her recently published Chick Lit and Postfeminism (2011) is apparently one of those who think that “Chick lit is [...] a more realistic version of the popular romance" (Newswise).I wonder how much people's evaluations of what constitutes "realism" are shaped by their own experiences and beliefs. What little chick lit I've read has not depicted anything like my life, but then, by the time I finished my undergraduate degree I was already engaged to be married, so I've never experienced life as a young, working, single person.
I'll readily admit that many things in the romance genre are unrealistic; how many vampires do you know? All the same, I find romance's central belief in the possibility of "happily ever afters" quite realistic, and perhaps that's because my "romantic ideals" remain undissolved after more than a decade of marriage.
So what do you think? Are happy endings iconoclastic, realistic, or both?
-----
- Ferriss, Suzanne and Mallory Young. Introduction. Chick Lit: The New Woman’s Fiction. Ed. Suzanne Ferriss and Mallory Young. New York: Routledge, 2006. 1-13.
- Newswise. "Instructor’s Book Analyzes ‘Chick Lit’ Genre." 31 Jan. 2011.
My (somewhat limited) reading of chick lit has led me to think that it has rapidly developed its own conventions - particularly regarding its depiction of what the life of young, single, working women. I'm more familiar with UK or Irish authors (like Marian Keyes or Helen Fielding) and not at all with sub-genres like Christian chick lit, but it does seem to me that their world has its own dimensions even as much as any regency romance or western does. It will be realistic for some readers, but not for a lot of others - I would argue that a lot of readers are dipping into the culture depicting in a lot of chick lit books rather than necessarily experiencing it themselves. Candace Bushnell's Sex in the City characters have more to do with Eloisa James' Desperate Duchesses than me or most of my friends! But like anyone else I enjoy the messiness and the glamour.
ReplyDeleteI also think that whilst romance might not always be the central element of chick lit, the protagonists are often seeking a Happy Ending and readers are often left feeling that if it isn't happening right now, its over the horizon.
I'm not ready to give up on happy endings just yet ;-)
I've just been blogging on my musings about the influence on fairy tale on the romance genre - I was wondering if that was something you or your colleagues had looked at?
I've just been blogging on my musings about the influence on fairy tale on the romance genre - I was wondering if that was something you or your colleagues had looked at?
ReplyDeleteI'll supply a link here for anyone else who'd like to go and take a look at your post.
To answer your question, yes, there has been some work done on the connections between fairy tales and the romance genre, but not a lot:
Crusie Smith, Jennifer, 1999.
'This Is Not Your Mother's Cinderella: The Romance Novel as Feminist Fairy Tale', in Romantic Conventions, ed. Anne K. Kaler and Rosemary E. Johnson-Kurek (Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press), pp. 51-61. (and online).
Lee, Linda J., 2008.
'Guilty Pleasures: Reading Romance Novels as Reworked Fairy Tales,' Marvels & Tales, 22.1: 52-66. (abstract)
There have also been a couple of short dissertations on the topic:
Jossart, Deborah A. 2004.
Transforming the fairytale: a diachronic study of utopias of popular romance. Thesis (M.A.)--University of North Dakota, 2004.
Lohmann, Jennifer, 2006.
" 'Beauty and the Beast' Themes in Romance Novels." A Master’s Paper for the M.S. in L.S degree. April, 2006. 41 pages. (This one's available online.)
If anyone knows of other items, please let me know!
Also relevant is a list of fairy-tale-inspired romances at the Sur la lune website, though the author of the site says "I haven't updated it in a year or more. It's too time consuming."
I'm hoping to include a bit about fairy tales in the book I'm working on about the literary art of Harlequin/Mills & Boon romances but given the nature of that project, I don't plan to delve into the psychological aspects of fairy tales.
This is probably extraneous but ... that is the most perfect book cover for a topic that I have ever seen in my life. It echoes, to perfection, the images used in chicklit and then slightly exaggerates the sexuality to make any reader the reader 'think' about what they're seeing when juxtaposed by the message of postfeminism.
ReplyDeleteI've not seen enough of the "images used in chicklit" to make that connection, but I also thought it was a very good cover. Because of the positioning of the top strand of pearls, I read the image as suggesting that consumerism is a form of expression (the pearls have writing on them) which takes the place of other forms of expression (it blocks the woman's mouth).
ReplyDeleteI think personal experience matters a great deal. I read mostly romance, with very little chick lit. A friend recommended a chick lit book, which I read. The book was fun, but I thought the heroine was totally unrealistic, and not very sympathetic, either.
ReplyDeleteI am a "single working girl" in my early thirties, but since my university days I haven't known anyone who gets drunk on a regular basis, makes excuses to avoid work, stays in a boring dead-end job without thinking or planning anything else, and in general seems clueless about her life. To me the heroine sounded as a 20-year-old immature student, and not a 30-year-old independent woman.
Turns out, my friend (who is not at all like that) though the heroine was quite realistic. Apparently she has known many similar people in real life, and the character rang true to her. So we had radically different opinions as to whether this book reflected reality.
"since my university days I haven't known anyone who gets drunk on a regular basis, makes excuses to avoid work, stays in a boring dead-end job without thinking or planning anything else, and in general seems clueless about her life."
ReplyDeleteI don't know anyone like that either (or if I do, they haven't mentioned their binge drinking to me), and I don't think anyone I know would feel they could afford a pair of Manolo Blahniks (though I wouldn't recognise a pair if I did see one).
I get a similar feeling of disconnectedness from other people's reality when reading many of the "lifestyle" features in newspapers. I have to conclude that there are many, many different social circles, and there may not be a lot of overlap between them.
The very few examples of chick lit I have read seem to have heroines who are practically half-witted: childish, irresponsible and shallow. But I can't claim any detailed knowledge of the genre. However, I do know some young professional women in my own field, and they seem to me to be sensible and mature.
ReplyDeleteHaving a number of sexual relationships during one's early adult years does not mean that one has to behave like an idiot. I was in my 20s in the 1960s, when it first became socially acceptable (and practical, because of truly reliable contraception) to have a series of partners, and I did, but this did not mean that my life was ever chaotic or out of control, nor did it prevent me either from pursuing my career or from eventually entering into a permanent relationship which has now lasted, happily, for 40 years.
The HEA is perfectly realistic, in my view. There are many, many long-term, happy and stable pair-bonds about. Many successful writers of conventional romance and romantic suspense are themselves women who have been in happy marriages for decades; they write what they know.
No doubt the typical daft airhead chick-lit heroine existed in the past and still exists today, but I doubt if she is particularly representative of any generation of young single women.
Hi Laura,
ReplyDeleteOn a separate note, thanks so much for all the book recommendations - I can see some interesting reading in the months to come!
The Jennifer Crusie one sounds especially interesting... I'm off to take a look now.
Thanks again!
Charity Girl, I think you'll enjoy the Crusie, and please email me if you can't get hold of the Lee and would like to read it.
ReplyDelete"nor did it prevent me either from pursuing my career or from eventually entering into a permanent relationship which has now lasted, happily, for 40 years."
Now that you've mentioned this, it makes me wonder if comments about the lack of realism in romance might be based on a misconception that all romance heroines are virgins who have never had a previous romantic relationship.
Obviously there still are quite a lot of virgin heroines in the romance genre, but there are also a lot who have been sexually active prior to meeting the hero and "eventually entering into a permanent relationship." It's just that because romances tend to fairly tightly focused on a central couple they don't tend to show the reader as much about the heroine's life prior to meeting her partner-to-be.
"The HEA is perfectly realistic, in my view. There are many, many long-term, happy and stable pair-bonds about."
According to Acevedo, Aron, Fisher and Brown (2010):
Acevedo and Aron (2009) suggest that intense romantic love (with intensity, engagement and sexual desire) exists in some long-term relationships, but generally without the obsession component common in the early-stages of relationships. Similarly, Tennov (1979) in her book on love and limerance describes how some older people in happy marriages replied affirmatively to being ‘in love’, but unlike those in ‘limerant’ relationships, they did not report continuous and unwanted intrusive thinking. Finally, in-depth interviews carried out by a member of our research team (BPA) suggest that some individuals in long-term love report symptoms common to newly in love individuals: craving for union, focused attention, increased energy when with the partner, motivation to do things that make the partner happy, sexual attraction and thinking about the partner when apart.
Their own research found that "In sum, the ‘wanting’, motivation and reward associated with a long-term partner may be sustained, and can co-exist with ‘liking’ and pleasure, aspects of attachment bonding."
So yes, there's plenty of evidence that love in romantic relationships can survive in the long term.
----
Acevedo, Bianca P., Arthur Aron, Helen E. Fisher and Lucy L. Brown. "Neural correlates of long-term intense romantic love." Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 2010. [Available online.]
Laura wrote: I find romance's central belief in the possibility of "happily ever afters" quite realistic, and perhaps that's because my "romantic ideals" remain undissolved after more than a decade of marriage. So what do you think? Are happy endings iconoclastic, realistic, or both?
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with what Northrop Frye has written about ‘happy endings’:
* Comedy usually moves toward a happy ending, and the normal response of the audience to a happy ending is “this should be”… Anatomy of Criticism, Princeton University Press, 2000, pg 167
* Happy endings do not impress us as true, but as desirable, and they are brought about by manipulation. – Anatomy of Criticism, pg 170
* The conventional happy ending of romance may seem to us faked, manipulated, or thrown in as a contemptuous concession to a weak-minded reader. In our day ironic modes are the preferred ones for serious fiction … But if the conception [of a work of fiction] is genuinely romantic and comic, the traditional happy ending is usually the one that fits… - Secular Scripture, Harvard University Press, 1976, pg 134
* One of the things that comedy and romance as a whole are about, clearly, is the unending, irrational, absurd persistence of the human impulse to struggle, survive, and where possible escape. It is perhaps worth noting how intense is the desire of most readers of romance for the happy ending.– Secular Scripture, pg 136
While I certainly have seen evidence of abiding, committed love in relationships, I don’t find the ‘happily ever after’ endings of romance accurately represent what Frye would call the ‘canons of probability that we find in our own experience’. As Frye points out, readers of romance would not want them to end in an ironic tone that reflects the pain and trials of the real world that even those in committed, loving relationships experience. However, I do think the desire for happy endings is a truth about the human condition – the ‘unending, irrational, absurd persistence’ of humans to hope for and desire the ‘should be’.
"I don’t find the ‘happily ever after’ endings of romance accurately represent what Frye would call the ‘canons of probability that we find in our own experience’."
ReplyDeleteIf the happy endings in romance were literally like the ones in fairy tales where it's stated that "they all lived happily ever after," then I'd agree with you, but I don't think they are.
I think romance readers want to leave the protagonists at a high point in their lives but we know that the closing paragraphs of a romance aren't really an "ending." When you leave the protagonists at the end of a romance novel there's no guarantee that they're never going to encounter any difficulties ever again. I've read some romances in which this is touched on quite explicitly: I can think of a couple in which one of the protagonists has had cancer and knows they may only be in remission, I can think of at least one in which there are ongoing family problems and another in which the novel concludes with the couple facing the possibility that they will never be able to have the children they want. If I thought about this longer, I'm sure I could come up with more examples. Oh, yes, Georgette Heyer wrote a series of interrelated novels, These Old Shades, Devil's Cub, Regency Buck and An Infamous Army and the hero and heroine of Devil's Cub are shown in An Infamous Army to have less than perfect relationships with their descendants. The ending for the hero and heroine of An Infamous Army is itself quite muted after Charles returns from Waterloo
so shattered that he could not take her in his arms, so weak that the smile, even, was an effort. There was much she had wanted to say to him, but it had not been said, and perhaps never would be. No drama attached to their reconciliation: it was quiet, tempered by sorrow.
Yet in spite of all, as she sat hour after hour beside Charles, a contentment grew in her and the vision of the conquering hero, who should have come riding gallantly back to her, faded from her mind. Reality was less romantic than her imaginings, but not less dear. (400)
Pamela Regis writes that
For comic heroines, including the heroine of the romance novel, the freedom at the end of the book is often provisional. Like the comic hero, the heroine is freed from ritual death: her life is restored to her, symbolically or actually. Like the hero, the heroine is freed from the barriers to her union with the hero. Unlike the hero, the heroine's relationship to society and, in many cases, to the state, is not that of a prince or ruler who will lead that state, but that of a woman whose freedom is constrained by that state. The heroine's freedom in the form of her life, her liberty, or her property may be in doubt not only in the original society that promotes the barrier, but also in the new society at the end of the work. Nonetheless, the heroine's freedom, however provisional, is a victory. She is freed from the immediate encumbrances that prevent her union with the hero. (16)
----
Heyer, Georgette. An Infamous Army. 1937. London: Pan, 1961.
Regis, Pamela. A Natural History of the Romance Novel. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania UP, 2003.
Is our discussion, perhaps, exploring the difference between the terms ‘happy ending’ and ‘happily ever after’ (HEA)?
ReplyDeleteI believe I’ve seen the term “Happy For Now” (HFN) used for the kinds of ‘happy endings’ you described that admit the possibility of pain/trials in the future for the couple beyond the “end” of the story (the protagonists at “a high point in their lives”… which I guess implies the possibility that it might well be “downhill” from there. :)) Your original statement was that you found ‘the possibility of "happily ever afters" quite realistic’, but perhaps you meant HFN? While I don’t think HFN endings equate to Frye’s ironic mode (the current mode of “serious” literature), I think they might reflect some movement in contemporary formulaic romance away from the “romantic” tendency and towards the “realistic”.
I think the quote you included from Regis is quite interesting, as it points out the ‘happy ending’ in romance may be more limited for a woman than a man. As Regis describes, for the heroine in contemporary formulaic romance (and also for heroines of classic novels that incorporate the courtship plot), a ‘happy ending’ might only mean that the heroine gets her man (“union with the hero”), not that she attains freedom in her ‘life, her liberty, or her property’. While there are many – including myself - who would not feel such a situation equates to the term ‘happily ever after’, I can appreciate the viewpoint that even such a provisional, limited “victory” for the heroine [getting her man] is the closest women in some situations might be able to get to the “should be” of a ‘happy ending’. The romantic tendency of the work may help some readers to block out the reality that the heroine’s freedom at the end of the work is still “constrained by the state”. A novel that does not try to disguise such constraints of reality would, to me, show some ironic tendencies.
It is not clear to me in your response whether you agree or disagree with Frye’s statement that “Happy endings do not impress us as true, but as desirable, and they are brought about by manipulation". I believe you are saying happy endings (at least in terms of HFN rather than HEA) can impress some readers as both true and desirable? Or are you saying in contemporary romance conventions it is understood that “Happily Ever After” does not really mean happily ever after?
"are you saying in contemporary romance conventions it is understood that “Happily Ever After” does not really mean happily ever after?"
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what I'm saying, unless the hero and heroine are immortals, which is occasionally the case in paranormal romance, in which case they possibly could be happy ever after.
But in romances set in the real world, with mortal protagonists, the readers know that the protagonists are bound to die at some point; they aren't going to live for ever.
So when the term HEA is used in talking about romances, I think it generally means that there's a certainty that the couple will stay together, through whatever troubles may come their way, until death parts them at what one hopes will be some distant time.
When the term HFN is used, it implies that the couple may not have made a permanent commitment to each other, but the possibility has been left open that they will make one in the future.
Here's how Lucy Monroe explains the difference between HEA and HFN:
HEA stands for happily ever after. The concept of course is that two people fall in love, commit to a lifetime together and despite the challenges and obstacles they face, they keep their love alive and their relationship from crashing on the shoals of apathy and dishonesty that account for so much of our divorce rate stats.
HFN stands for happy for now. The concept being that two people fall in lust at least, commit to seeing where things go and may or may not stay together. They'll probably fight for their relationship, after all, they've negotiated the dangerous rapids of romantic conflict and taken the risk to open their hearts - at least part of the way.
With these definitions, I don't think the HFN is more realistic than the HEA, it's just more open-ended with regards to the central relationship.
With these definitions, I don't think the HFN is more realistic than the HEA, it's just more open-ended with regards to the central relationship.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the excellent explanation of the contemporary romance conventions for the terms HEA and HFN! I find it interesting that you do not find the HFN more realistic than the HEA. I would speculate many in contemporary society would find the open-endedness of the HFN as a far closer reflection of the ‘canons of probability that we find in our own experience’ than the HEA’s foregone conclusion of ‘staying happily together until - a hopefully distant - death’. I would think the romantics among us – I being one! - would say the HEA is closer to the “should be”/desirable/”romantic”. Given my now-improved understanding of the definition of the HFN, it impresses me as reflecting much less of Frye’s “romantic” tendency than the HEA, and, therefore, more realistic than the HEA.
I would speculate many in contemporary society would find the open-endedness of the HFN as a far closer reflection of the ‘canons of probability that we find in our own experience’ than the HEA’s foregone conclusion of ‘staying happily together until - a hopefully distant - death’.
ReplyDeleteI did some speculating in my post:
I wonder how much people's evaluations of what constitutes "realism" are shaped by their own experiences and beliefs.
As AgTigress and I have been saying, the concept of the HEA, as defined above, does reflect our experience of being in a happy, long-term romantic relationship.
Obviously, though, other people will have had different experiences, and it wouldn't surprise me if that affected their assessment of both the HEA and HFN.
I would tend to suppose that in real life HEAs are less common than HFNs, since most people who are currently in a happy long-term relationship will probably have had more than one previous relationship which was less happy and broke up. But just because something is less common doesn't make it unrealistic; mice are common and realistic, gorillas are rare but realistic, unicorns are depicted as rare, and are unrealistic. Happy long-term romantic relationships are, I think, a lot more common than gorillas.
I definitely do not agree with Frye's dictum, “Happy endings do not impress us as true, but as desirable, and they are brought about by manipulation". To be honest, I think that it is a very blinkered and facile judgement.
ReplyDeleteNot only my own experience, but that of many, many couples, gay and straight, whom I know or have known well throughout my life confirm, for me, that happy pair-bonds are not only desirable but common. Maybe even surprisingly common. But because these days they often succeed a period of temporary and perhaps turbulent relationships, early adulthood may not be the best time to make that judgement, when it is only those in one's parents' generation or older that have actually had time (say, 20 years or more) to develop long-term bonds. If a person and all her friends and acquaintances are currently working through a changing sequence of partners, then 'HEA' may seem unrealistic. But look around those same people 30 years down the line, and the picture may look very different.
Another key thing here may be our definition of 'happy'. In the context of relationships, I think few people would define 'happy' as 'living in a permanent and intense state of unalloyed bliss'. All life has its rough patches, so the 'happy couple' won't necessarily appear all that happy at certain moments in a lifetime. My own parents met when they were 17, were married at 23, and remained together for 68 years, till my father died at 91: nobody who knew them would call their marriage anything other than 'happy', but at the same time, there were certainly some periods in those 68 years when there were serious problems and difficulties. The term 'a happy marriage' refers to the overall balance and tenor of a complex and evolving relationship over the years and decades, not to a constant state of starry-eyed euphoria.
I very much agree that each individual’s experience and situation in life will be a large factor in what they deem to be realistic. I can certainly see that there may be a portion of contemporary formulaic romance readers who, like you, believe the HEA endings of such books portray reality, just as I am sure you understand why there are many – such as myself - who do not.
ReplyDeleteI hope my point is not lost that those who find the HEA ending “romantic” (desirable) rather than “realistic” (reflecting reality) appreciate and enjoy romance because it is the portrayal of the ideal. As Frye states, ”The romance is nearest of all literary forms to the wish-fulfillment dream”. I don’t think those who appreciate the romance form for that reason need feel any discomfort in that fact. One of Frye’s key themes is that “greater realism” in a work of fiction does not mean “higher value”. Even those who, due to their experience of life, have more cynical/ironic views about life & the “as is” of reality can partake in the ‘unending, irrational, absurd persistence’ of humans to hope for and desire the ‘should be’.
"I very much agree that each individual’s experience and situation in life will be a large factor in what they deem to be realistic".
ReplyDeleteThat's true, but the fact that there simply are many, many people whose personal experience of long-term relationships is that they are often happy and stable over many decades, means that the HEA should not be perceived as realistic only by those people: it simply IS realistic, by objective criteria. By the same token, unhappy outcomes to romantic affairs are ALSO realistic, since they are experienced by many other people. Happy romances are more desirable than unhappy ones, but both are realistic, since both happen to large numbers of people (and of course, individuals may experience both happy and unhappy relationships in their own lifetime).
It seems to me that Frye is saying that while the HEA is desirable, it is unrealistic, but if so, he's wrong. It's both desirable AND realistic, whether a given reader happens to have experienced it or not. And unhappy romances are undesirable, but also realistic. The antonym of 'desirable' is 'undesirable': that of 'realistic' is 'unrealistic'. To contrast 'desirability' with 'realism' as though they were mutually exclusive seems to me a very dubious kind of special pleading, a confusion of fact and principle.
I have never experienced domestic violence in my own life, nor in the lives of anyone I have known well, but I don't say, because I have never encountered it personally, that it is 'unrealistic', no more than a horrible fantasy. Alas, I know it is a reality for many people.
Not to beat the subject over the head too much, I just think that the judgement that happy relationships are some kind of airy-fairy fantasy is quite mistaken. Desirability or otherwise is another issue, a matter of taste and principle, and should not be confused with the observation of what actually happens in real life, both good and bad.
Harriet, I've been mulling over your comments about realism and fantasy and they've inspired me to find out a tiny bit more about what scientists have discovered about long-term relationships, ideals and reality. I've only been able to scratch the surface but I'm hoping to put up a post about it on Monday.
ReplyDeleteIn my non-blog work I've been writing a bit about realism in the romance genre and your questions about the HEA made me realise there were a few areas I hadn't covered. So thanks again for a very thought-provoking conversation.
Laura,
ReplyDeleteOne thing that struck me during the conversation was the different interpretations of what the terms “Happily Ever After” and “happy ending” mean/imply. For example, at first glance, an earnest statement that there is objective criteria that can prove “Happily Ever After” IS realistic might strike many outside of romance-land as quite amusing or unusually naïve. It is necessary to understand the far more limited meaning of that term to that person (HEA = long term relationships are possible). At issue, however, is there are all kinds of connotations about what the term “Happily Ever After” means/promises, particularly given its obvious ties to the use of the term in children’s fairy tales.
I find it of note that the RWA, in its definition on its website, makes no use of the terms ‘happy ending’ or “Happily Ever After”. (I also noticed that the Lucy Monroe definition of HEA makes no mention of “happiness” either). It is my assumption that there is a great deal of word-crafting and thoughtful deliberation that goes into the RWA’s official definition. I find it quite interesting, therefore, that, when defining a genre famous (or infamous) for its happy endings, the RWA has elected not to use that term in its definition.
Thanks for your part in the conversation! :)
It is my assumption that there is a great deal of word-crafting and thoughtful deliberation that goes into the RWA’s official definition. I find it quite interesting, therefore, that, when defining a genre famous (or infamous) for its happy endings, the RWA has elected not to use that term in its definition.
ReplyDeleteSome years ago Jennifer Crusie's wrote the following, which would support your assumption:
As RWA heads into the new millennium (which will begin on Jan.1, 2001, she pointed out pedantically), we’re completing the transition begun years ago that has taken RWA from a great support group to a great professional organization. But as we redefined RWA, we realized that we also needed to remodel our definition of the romance genre since the one on the website was archaic at best. We needed something short and punchy that described the genre in all its glory, something that would be easy to remember, something the press couldn’t make fun of.
She explains why they decided against using the phrase "happy ending":
some of the best romances don’t have happy endings, they’re bittersweet.Those who write romances about protagonists who have experienced tragedy during their struggles shouldn’t have to tack on Disney endings to qualify as serious romance novelists. It was at this point in the discussion that people began saying, “Well, when I say ‘happy ending,’ I mean . . .” and it became clear we were going to have to define “happy ending” in the definition.
The discussions on this one pretty much boiled down to “endings that make the reader feel good at the end of the book.”