Kevin's Watch

Few series like TCoTC or LotR, WoT, etc. lack a central antagonist/final confrontation with this entity. I thought the Nausicaä comics would've gone without some climactic battle at the end, but in the end, the protagonists fought against a sinister, massively powerful living artifact who happened to be the source of the technology responsible for the devastation throughout the rest of the earlier sections of the narrative.

One reason for this kind of thing, I'd guess, is that it provides for a very dramatic conclusion to a story. But there are other ways to pack action into a story's climax. Think of Close Encounters of the Third Kind or Princess Mononoke (or the Nausicaä movie) for instance. None of these episodes required a good guy facing off against an evil guy to be intense. And intense they were, very much so.

So my question is: which do you prefer, if you prefer either: a final showdown or... I don't know what you'd call it... problem-solving?

I think it all depends on the information. For example, with WoT, we are being built up into expecting a final battle of apocalyptic proportions, and I'd want that battle, dang it! I wouldn't want a massive battle resulting in the forces of evil being sealed off again sort of deal. Now, if the story were written differently, that could be perfectly fine.... it really all depends on the story.

Take your example, if there was never an embodiment of evil in the entire series, I can't see how it would be a good idea for the climax to involve an embodiment of evil... that seems sloppy.

Orlion wrote:I think it all depends on the information. For example, with WoT, we are being built up into expecting a final battle of apocalyptic proportions, and I'd want that battle, dang it! I wouldn't want a massive battle resulting in the forces of evil being sealed off again sort of deal. Now, if the story were written differently, that could be perfectly fine.... it really all depends on the story.

Take your example, if there was never an embodiment of evil in the entire series, I can't see how it would be a good idea for the climax to involve an embodiment of evil... that seems sloppy.

I guess my question could be reworded: which kind of story do you prefer, one that leads (logically enough) to a final battle, or one that leads to, again, not sure this is the best turn of phrase but, problem-solving?

Personally, I'd like to see more of the latter. Part of it is the pacifist in me, but it's also a sense of realism. No one ever went one-on-one with the Nazi leaders, and even had anyone done that, I doubt it would've brought about the defeat of that regime as directly as the One Ring's being melted leveled the Black Tower in turn.

EDIT:

Consider Western civilization's premier soteriological narrative: the life and crucifixion of an Aramaic carpenter-cum-personification of heaven. There's nothing to it about going one-on-one with a great demon (except with respect to the decidedly internal struggle with demonic temptation during the 40-day trial in the desert). Yet it's very striking. And I think similarly constructed narratives could be just as striking.

I can think of a few examples where an expected grand finale turns into something else. A Wizard of Earthsea, for example. Had LeGuin followed a more traditional story-telling mode, there would have been a climactic battle. As it happens, the conclusion she wrote is far more satisfying.

Anne McCaffery's Pern novels often had villains, sure, but the story was overcoming thread, not fighting battles in a traditional sense. It could be said that thread was a villain, but I think it's better to see it as a force of nature to be overcome.

I guess I'd say battle. I think a long story that ends with "Eureka! *click* ... well, let's get back to what we were doing" is kinda lame.

Perhaps "battle" is to specific for what I would look for. But I think a climax where there's a cost to be paid and a chance to be taken in order to achieve something is a better story than one without.

Usually an antagonist is involved in most stories. But not all. You have your Man vs. Environment, Man vs. Society, etc. stories, too.

Kalkin wrote:I can think of a few examples where an expected grand finale turns into something else. A Wizard of Earthsea, for example. Had LeGuin followed a more traditional story-telling mode, there would have been a climactic battle. As it happens, the conclusion she wrote is far more satisfying.

Anne McCaffery's Pern novels often had villains, sure, but the story was overcoming thread, not fighting battles in a traditional sense. It could be said that thread was a villain, but I think it's better to see it as a force of nature to be overcome.

Well, even Covenant v. the Despiser in White Gold Wielder wasn't exactly a battle, or it was but not won in the usual way (not like in The Power That Preserves, for instance). However, it was still a showdown, and didn't Ged confront Cobb or something in The Farthest Shore or whatever? (I could be totally wrong on this, since I don't have an altogether clear memory either of which characters were involved or even what the concluding novel was in the Earthsea series.)

As for Pern: just goes to show how worth it it would be for me to read more of those books. For the life of me I don't know why I lacked the motivation to go over more, but I only went over (although I *had* a few others) the first 2 entries in the Harper Hall trilogy.

(Incidentally, would Linden v. the Sunbane count as overcoming a natural disaster? Something like that?)

wayfriend wrote:I guess I'd say battle. I think a long story that ends with "Eureka! *click* ... well, let's get back to what we were doing" is kinda lame.

Perhaps "battle" is to specific for what I would look for. But I think a climax where there's a cost to be paid and a chance to be taken in order to achieve something is a better story than one without.

I know there's got to be something dramatic, some kind of action. I'm less inclined to say that it has to be some kind of struggle, even an internal spiritual one, though. Take Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I mean, maybe you could count the lead characters' infiltration of the military base as a sort of conflict, that they were in conflict with the military, but still...

I guess to answer your reformated question... it still depends

For Fantasy, I prefer a final battle climax.

For Science Fiction, I think the better kind are ones that are resolved in a problem solving manner.

Mighara Sovmadhi wrote:I guess my question could be reworded: which kind of story do you prefer, one that leads (logically enough) to a final battle, or one that leads to, again, not sure this is the best turn of phrase but, problem-solving?

Either kind is fine with me. Or as Orlion said, it depends.

However, I will say that the "problem-solving" kind of finale is one of the reasons (among many) why I admire Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It takes action hero Kirk and puts him in a story where it's brains that resolve the conflict, not brawn. Kirk didn't punch anyone in the movie, but I don't see him as a lesser man because of it. But I'm not totally opposed to brawn either - I absolutely loved the Trek reboot. I can enjoy both kinds of Trek.

I know many Trek fans hate TMP for straying from what in their minds Star Trek is all about. Which is an attitude that personally baffles me, because I honestly believe TMP does hold true to what Trek is about, in its purest, noblest form. But I digress.

I like 'em both. Either way, the really important (and sad) thing is that the book is over.

--A

Mighara Sovmadhi wrote:Well, even Covenant v. the Despiser in White Gold Wielder wasn't exactly a battle, or it was but not won in the usual way (not like in The Power That Preserves, for instance). However, it was still a showdown, and didn't Ged confront Cobb or something in The Farthest Shore or whatever? (I could be totally wrong on this, since I don't have an altogether clear memory either of which characters were involved or even what the concluding novel was in the Earthsea series.)

As for Pern: just goes to show how worth it it would be for me to read more of those books. For the life of me I don't know why I lacked the motivation to go over more, but I only went over (although I *had* a few others) the first 2 entries in the Harper Hall trilogy.

(Incidentally, would Linden v. the Sunbane count as overcoming a natural disaster? Something like that?)

Yes, the following Ged stories did have a more traditional climax, particularly The Tombs of Atuan but the first book had a very unconventional ending.

I can't recommend the Pern novels enough. I found all of them enjoyable. I've always thought that McCaffrey wrote meetings better than anyone.

matrixman wrote:Either kind is fine with me. Or as Orlion said, it depends.

However, I will say that the "problem-solving" kind of finale is one of the reasons (among many) why I admire Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It takes action hero Kirk and puts him in a story where it's brains that resolve the conflict, not brawn. Kirk didn't punch anyone in the movie, but I don't see him as a lesser man because of it. But I'm not totally opposed to brawn either - I absolutely loved the Trek reboot. I can enjoy both kinds of Trek.

I know many Trek fans hate TMP for straying from what in their minds Star Trek is all about. Which is an attitude that personally baffles me, because I honestly believe TMP does hold true to what Trek is about, in its purest, noblest form. But I digress.

I assumed you were a Trekkie!

I agree with you. Never had a problem with TMP, other than it being a retelling of a story they already did (The Changeling.) Kirk did have a reputation as a computer-killer, though.

As an aside, any comments as to why two of the Doctors (McCoy and Pulaski) exhibited the kind of racism that man had supposedly outgrown? Discuss.

That might be better suited to the Star Trek/Wars forum. Are you talking about in the series? Or TMP?

--A

Have to join the "it depends" crowd. In Fantasy, and much SF, the conflict with some mythic force is kinda standard in the genres [generalization I know; there are lots of exceptions, and in fact I like reading the exceptions]. The same is true of spy thrillers and lots of horror.
I think it really depends on the kind of story [of course], and the tension-building skills of the author.
One of the things I like about SRD, is the way he mixes in other kinds of conflict without getting off track...integral sub-stories that don't distract from the main one.
What I hate is well written books/films, whatever in a "small arena," that, without any good reason or clue, breed super-size sequels with epic confrontations. [Heinlien did this a bit with all the Lazarus Long books, x-files near the end, McCaffery/Pern after a while].

However the author resolves character conflict is fine by me. If that takes a confrontation with an enemy, fine. If not, fine.

...the Queen of THOOOPT strikes again...

Kalkin wrote:a more traditional climax, particularly The Tombs of Atuan but the first book had a very unconventional ending.

You should come over to the Watch's sister site, Ahira's Hangar and join in the group read/dissections in The Archives of Roke forum. We're on Tombs now...

Mighara Sovmadhi wrote:As for Pern: just goes to show how worth it it would be for me to read more of those books. For the life of me I don't know why I lacked the motivation to go over more, but I only went over (although I *had* a few others) the first 2 entries in the Harper Hall trilogy

Source of my user name...

Kalkin wrote:I can't recommend the Pern novels enough. I found all of them enjoyable. I've always thought that McCaffrey wrote meetings better than anyone.

No argument from me.
Too bad her son seems not to have her gift.

I really hope Anne finishes After the Fall and doesn't leave it to Todd to complete. So far he's had nothing to do with the ninth pass and after, IIRC. I really hope it stays that way...

matrixman wrote: I know many Trek fans hate TMP for straying from what in their minds Star Trek is all about. Which is an attitude that personally baffles me, because I honestly believe TMP does hold true to what Trek is about, in its purest, noblest form. But I digress.

That's weird... I'd expect that argument for the new Trek movie, but not for TMP... I'd expect people to say it was just done badly.

I love the story and the idea of TMP, but I hate sitting through it

Nah, I still like it.

--A

Whatever's appropriate for the story. Which is the answer for pretty much every question regarding narrative, except in a few cases where you're dealing with experimental techniques.

Mighara Sovmadhi wrote:One reason for this kind of thing, I'd guess, is that it provides for a very dramatic conclusion to a story. But there are other ways to pack action into a story's climax. Think of Close Encounters of the Third Kind or Princess Mononoke (or the Nausicaä movie) for instance. None of these episodes required a good guy facing off against an evil guy to be intense. And intense they were, very much so.

I think Mononoke is a matter of perspective. Man and nature are mutual antagonists; a confrontation between man and nature is taking place, but Ashitaka represents an outside perspective, or maybe someone on both sides, a human infected with the weird nature-anger-taint that (as far as I remember) only acts up against other humans; he has aspects of both sides, kinda like San.

And even though both completed series end with a confrontation with Lord Foul, it is worth noting that both confrontations involve Covenant concluding that he has to be at peace with his antagonist (or at least that trying to destroy Foul will just let Foul win).

I guess my question could be reworded: which kind of story do you prefer, one that leads (logically enough) to a final battle, or one that leads to, again, not sure this is the best turn of phrase but, problem-solving?

I guess I don't prefer either. I am pretty sure that in the world we live in right now, there is no evil entity so singular and so powerful that such a climactic end to things would ever occur. However, I don't particularly oppose the construction of such an entity for the purpose of a "good yarn", and I think there are thought provoking questions to be asked in the wake of such a battle.

Science-fiction and fantasy are particularly well suited to constructing such confrontations. One series I like particularly well for this is Zindell's "Requiem for Homo Sapiens" series. The final confrontation between Danlo and Hanuman uses science-fiction to elevate Hanuman into an incredible threat, a man who will build a synthetic god and aims to incorporate all the matter in the universe into it. But ultimately, the conclusion of the series is not a conclusion to all problems in the universe, or even in the galaxy (the "silicon god" is the pre-eminent hostile supercomputer, though there are also benign super-beings like Kalinga). The real instrumental turn is in Danlo himself.

Moreover, in terms of resolving the more immediate problem (the Ringists' control of Neverness) the most important events are in the hands of Bardo, a completely different character. Danlo contributes by preventing Hanuman from issuing the orders of battle, but the immediate problem which most characters in the book are concerned with isn't decided by the protagonist.

Kalkin wrote: As an aside, any comments as to why two of the Doctors (McCoy and Pulaski) exhibited the kind of racism that man had supposedly outgrown? Discuss.

Don't know much about Pulaski. That's, uh, ST:TNG, right?
As for McCoy...he didn't mean to be racist, honest! I assume you're talking about his tendency to name-call Vulcans? Maybe when they, or rather when DeForest Kelley made McCoy the no-nonsense, "down-to-earth" character he was, it also had the effect of making him very anthropocentric. Not even sure if that makes sense. But you asked. And I answered in my own clueless kind of way.