And neither left their audiences cursing...
...
That's self-indulgent of the writer, in my opinion, and puts his own sense of artistry ahead of the satisfaction of his readers/viewers.
I don't think giving an unhappy ending is necessarily a stunt to aggravate the viewer/reader. It might be, although I think it many cases there's a better explanation.
One example: I recall reading Alan Moore discussing his epic, legendary, all-time-great Watchmen story. He said that by the time he had finished writing Chapter 5, he knew that Rorschach couldn't survive. It wasn't that he felt like killing off Rorschach for
**** and giggles. It was that there was no way to resolve Rorschach's character with the events that would happen at the climax of the story. A resolution that involved anything other than Rorschach dying to defend his beliefs would have been untrue. It would have been dishonest, cowardly... the integrity of Rorchach's character *required* that he take the stand he did and there couldn't be any outcome other than Rorschach dying for his beliefs.
Rorschach dying in the way he did might have been upsetting to some readers/viewers... but picking any other outcome would have undermined the integrity of Rorschach's character, which had been firmly established.
This is the kind of writing I respect... writing where choices are made not with an eye to whether the audience will like it or not like it, but whether it rings true. Rorschach choosing that hill to die on rang true. No other outcome would have rung true. It was unsettling and upsetting... but it rang true.
From the Game of Thrones season 4, there were two notable deaths of major characters. One I hated, one I thought was wonderful.
With the Red Viper, it felt like his death at the hands of The Mountain, after he had easily dominated The Mountain in their duel, felt like a deliberate "
**** you" to the audience. I hated it. It felt like the way it was done was a deliberate effort to punch the viewer right in the kimmables. I understood from a narrative point of view that this was something that drove the story onward, but the way it was done really sucked.
With the Hound, on the other hand, I felt like his death was a perfect culmination of a beautiful and tragic story arc. I loved the Hound, more than any other character on the show, and when it became clear that either he or Brienne of Tarth wasn't going to survive season 4, I was horrified because I loved Brienne as well. So... the Hound, mortally wounded during the brutal brawl with Brienne and finds himself trying to goad his companion into killing him and ending his suffering. And the awful things he says, the things he hopes will enrage his companion enough to put him out of his misery, only manage to remind him of how far he fell short of the life he wished he had led. Instead of making his companion mad enough to kill him, all he accomplishes is making himself so sad he almost cries. I loved the Hound so much, and I hated that he died, but the way he died was so true to his character, it was a perfect ending to his story arc and it felt so true to the character the writer had created. Even though I was heartbroken to say goodbye to a favorite character, I don't think the story arc could have been ended any better. Ultimately, he died trying to be the knight in shining armor that he always wished he could be, and that rang so true for me that it put a lump in my throat and tears in my eyes and cemented my love for the character. Even though it was a sad moment, it was also a moment where the artistic integrity of the story created something especially meaningful for me as a viewer.
And make no mistake about it, the satisfaction of the readers/viewers is job one. Any sort of message you want to deliver on the side has to bear that in mind.
I think that viewers can be fulfilled by outcomes that aren't necessarily "happy". I mention the above Game of Thrones story involving the Hound as an example.
Having said that I have to admit that I bought the first book of Game of Thrones long before it became a TV show and it was so depressing with all the characters dying that I never finished it. I am watching the series, and enjoy it, but in a more cursory fashion. The only characters I actually like are the dwarf and the blonde.
I think a big part of the excitement of GoT is the knowledge that neither the dwarf, nor the blonde, nor Jon Snow, nor anybody else are necessarily getting a happy ending. It was hinted right from the beginning, but made abundantly clear starting at the climax of season 1 episode 9: the characters you think are indispensable, aren't. The happy endings you expect aren't the happy endings you're going to get. Somehow, despite the shock of season 1 episode 9, the show moved right along without skipping a beat.
As things have moved along, we've seen giant figures come and go... Tywin Lannister, Robb Stark, Magaery Tyrell, Stannis Barratheon, Roose Bolton... all of them seemed, for at time, to be very powerful, yet all eventually succumbed to factors beyond their control.
Ultimately I still think the ending will be happy... I'm still not sure I know for whom. That's part of the magic of the show.
-k