Hmm... don't know about that.
In a series I am currently obsessing over, several characters get a happy ending, but only one of them actually has an "Earn Your Happy Ending." This isn't to say that the other characters didn't face conflict or even peril to get their endings; of course they did. But they weren't constantly mistreated where the audience could watch for the course of the entire series. He was. They didn't seem to have long-term damage done to their psyches, which may have been fixed or at least improved in the ending. He did. See the difference?
So are you saying it's only EYHE if the character has "scars" left even after the ending? The article doesn't mention that. You said the other character's did face conflict and peril, yet they don't qualify for for EYHE. Why not? Is it just a matter of degree? If so, where is the limit? Exectly how much adversity does it take to go from regular happy ending to EYHE?
No, I said the damage was improved/fixed by the ending (without that it wouldn't be much of a happy ending at all). It is mainly a matter of degree, but I think the degree can be marked by:
- Continuous affecting suffering (usually a series ending)
- Affecting suffering that requires a lot of time or effort to break free from (usually a single entity ending)
Basically, there are moments of conflict and peril that are integral to the stories, but the characters who go through them don't have to "earn" their happy ending because the characters are overall pretty well-adjusted even before the happy ending.
Edited by PPPSSC
Ok, so basically adversity and evil has to be the status quo until the very end, almost like the inverse of Sudden Downer Ending. I guess that makes for a trope, though the article makes a poor job of conveying it, it's really short and a bit weasel-worded.
I'm seeing a lot of variation in how this trope is used.
The page gives it as characters going through undue hardship but managing to bring forth a victory despite the odds or expectations, right? But I've seen it used for what are clearly Bittersweet Endings - sure, the characters may have suffered, but their endings were not happy. They died but accomplished their goals, or they lost everything but survived the destruction, or something along those lines.
"Aside from works that have no conflict of course like Barney or whatever" - Kaiser Mazoku
Chekhov
Thought this raft of Fan Wank belonged here.
- Harry Potter goes through hell and loses several friends along the way, but in the end, he is able to defeat Voldemort through The Power of Love.
- Well maybe. It's not like they didn't think he was dead the last time the "power of [Lily's] love" killed him. Nor is there any evidence that the society that caused the problem in the first place has changed at all. Not to mention that most of Voldemort's supporters are still alive and free, while Umbridge killed most of the Muggle-borns.
- Those are all valid points, but I think that the epilogue was meant to show that everything turns out amazingly well, at least for Harry and his Nakama.
- Mainly the epilogue was meant to make sure no one would pressure her to do sequels.
- Rowling has stated in interviews that [[spoiler:there were changes to the Wizarding world following the defeat of Voldemort, helped by Harry and Ron taking jobs as aurors and Hermione first working to improve the lives of House Elves and then taking a job in Magical Law Enforcement. Kingsley as the new Minister apparently fixed stuff up as well, and since virtually everyone and thing that supported Voldemort was at the final battle, it would be safe to say that most of the Death Eaters were killed or captured. The book implied that a lot of Muggle-borns went into hiding (and some were saved by the heroes). And Rowling also stated that Voldemort was trapped in the limbo Harry visited and would be unable to come back as a ghost, so by all accounts he's gone.
- Those are all valid points, but I think that the epilogue was meant to show that everything turns out amazingly well, at least for Harry and his Nakama.
- Well maybe. It's not like they didn't think he was dead the last time the "power of [Lily's] love" killed him. Nor is there any evidence that the society that caused the problem in the first place has changed at all. Not to mention that most of Voldemort's supporters are still alive and free, while Umbridge killed most of the Muggle-borns.
How is it Fan Wank if it comes from Word of God? Or did you mean the initial Justifying Edit that required the refutation?
I think this trope should be given a better description at the top of the page...the one we have is a little too wordy
Hide / Show Replies
Hello? Anyone there?
I think people need to understand the trope...so the summary of it should be simplified.
Take It To The Forums. No, they won't eat you. Here
is the place.
Deep Dungeon Sith Lord
'Sides, there's no such thing as a happy ending in real life.
"Stealing is a crime and drugs is a crime too BUT if you steal drugs the two crimes cancel out and it’s like basically doing a good."
The thing about real life is that a happy ending doesn't happen all at once so you may have to earn many different parts of a happy ending one day at a time.Besides curing smallpox differently counted.
Have a nice day!
My Namesakes
Does the games in the Tales Series count as this trope? They usually take place in a Crapsaccharine World with White and Gray Morality.
"Think like a man of action, act like a man of thinking, and don't be a dumbass."
This trope is way too general. "Protagonists face great adversity, but overcome it and earn a happy ending". That's like 80% of all modern fiction.
Hide / Show Replies