Background In my novel there are two antagonists, for ease let's call them Bad Criminal and Good Criminal. Bad Criminal is clearly just an awful person. Good Criminal has more of a conscience, but is weak and easily led by Bad Criminal. There are moments where you think Good Criminal is gearing up for some sort of growth arc, and he's gonna get it together and do the right thing, but in the end, he kind of fatalistically accepts his own inertia and does nothing. The problem: my beta (who I really trust) reported back that she really felt Good Criminal deserved redemption, and felt very aggrieved on his behalf (lol) But in fact, that was kind of what I was aiming for. I wanted it to be unsatisfying. I wanted the reader to get invested in Good Criminal and believe he could change and then be disappointed in him. I wanted to challenge the reader to ask themselves if there is really that much difference between Bad Criminal and Good Criminal after all. But I guess my beta didn't experience it like that. She just really liked Good Criminal and wanted him to get out and have a second chance and a happy ending and the whole shebang! So I have a few choices: Redeem him, which changes my message Make him less likeable so the reader isn't as disappointed Leave it how it is, but make my message more obvious What do you think?
Personally I'm a sucker for a good redemption arc, but that doesn't mean it's a better idea than your original one. However, if you choose to stick with it I would show the character failing to take the opportunity each time you tease possible redemption, so the reader really understands his inability to change. Teasing it and then just going 'haha nope, human frailty!' at the end is annoying and feels too much like deus ex machina to me. Sure people might be like that in real life, but fiction isn't real life. Just like you can't suddenly give the bad guy a brain aneurysm as he's about to blow up the world without foreshadowing, you can't just dump a bunch of character development without foreshadowing.
I would leave it alone. The ending must fit the story and over-all message for me, unless you lie the foundation that changes the message. Example: a common belief in your novel could be 'no one is born evil.' or 'even the darkest of people can change'. To change a villains fate might require lying down a foundation for that change, but don't trash on your main characters arc just to serve a secondary character. It has to be able their journey first, and their arc. My problem is with this statement: Bad Criminal is clearly just an awful person. If that's true then you have a one dimensional villain and they aren't that much fin to read about. I'd be looking to develop his character a little more. There can be many good guys, but we tend to follow just one (closely). There can be many villains, but he tend to hone in one one particular one. Those are the two main characters in many ways. Those are the two characters (normally) mostly effected by the others actions. I'd even consider blending your two villains into one (unless that's impossible) But you haven't said how much they feature and who is your character's villain. I just watched a movie where there was the big knob (for lack of a better word) and someone he recruited. The big knob was the main baddie but we saw him very little. Our character's actual focus enemy was the man he hired. Who seemed to, in some ways, be even worse. Just because there is one powerful villains doesn't mean he has to be the characters focus villain. Does your good criminal have an important role? Does he have a POV written for him? Is there enough substance to him that you could flip the story and write it from his perspective? If he barely features I see little point in changing your message for his sake.
I think it kinda depends. I, for example, would read a book with bad plot and great characters but not the other way around. A book makes the reader invested with the characters. I do think that if I get nothing satisfying from my investment in the characters and nothing satisfying from the plot, I‘d be upset. We want enjoyment from our book, so a really sad/unsatisfying ending is frustrating. Now this can be different depending on the genre. Certain genres will allow for this to be the case. So I would look into the expectations for my genre and then decide on that. Readers will generally expect certain things for certain genres and will be upset if certain molds are broken. I don‘t read many tragedies because I don‘t like sad endings for example. So maybe keep that in mind. If you want to convey a message, I‘d stick to it. Could you have a really positive conclusion to your plot? Then this would be a bitter happy end. I remember a game (SPOILER for Persona 3 | Spoils the ending) which was all about living and appreciating life. At some point everyone comes to believe they will die soon and the MC sacrifices his/her soul for everyone. The ending is incredibly positive and uplifting. The Mc‘s friends forget the MC’s sacrifice but, after things have become as great as they could, they suddenly remember and want to thank the MC but in the very last second before they arrive it is alluded to the fact that the MC dies of overexhaustion in their sleep. In the end the MC did die like predicted but they were able to protect everyone else and give them hope. While everyone was moping around the MC was the only one with conviction. They fought for life but it in the end it cost them theirs. I cried my eyes out because it was so sad. I hoped it interpreted it wrong but it was later confirmed that they actually died. This was a overly positive happy ending with a very bitter aftertaste.
I dunno. I tend to like a moral to my stories, and I think you've got a perfectly good one in having Good Criminal go down at the end. It's very much a matter of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Jean Valjean's redemption story in Les Miserables works because his original crime was committed for a good motive, and that strength and outward focus are still there after he's been beaten down and brutalized by the penal system. It can be awakened by a good external influence. What's your Good Criminal's motive for crime? If he's just in it for thrills or profit or whatever, it won't be surprising if little glimmers of humanity and selflessness go dark. Frankly, I think your idea is a good, strong one. Your beta reader sounds like a lovely person, but I don't think she's your audience.
I think as others have said it really depends on audience expectations and genre. I love a good redemption arc but equally I'm a sucker for bittersweet emotions. As part of good criminal's arc, could they become less weak but still not choose to do the 'right' thing? So they gain more courage in their convictions and come out from under bad criminal's shadow but ultimately don't use that to do good - that way they've still had a satisfying growth but still have moral weakness. Obviously I don't know anything about the story or how it ends - maybe if you could give us a bit more info it would help figure out what ending might work best in context?
Alternatively, you could go for a fourth option: hint at a possible growth arc, as you already have, but don't show it. Jesse from breaking bad came to mind. There were some hints that he could go and become a carpenter instead of a drugsdealer. When he was released from the 'enemy camp'in the final episode the option he chose was never shown. Edit: otherwise I would personally pick option 3. Adding in a redemption in a finished story -- un less you have a very good idea -- might feel forced. I think it's never a good idea to make a character less likeable. The fact your beta liked Good criminal is a compliment in my view.
For me the point has to be really important to not have redemption be key. Also their should be some sort of punishment for ignoring opportunity. It's like the book 1984 - Winston discovers the truth but rather than dying for it - forsakes it to save his own mortal existence. He becomes part of the soulless rabble - a living death wholly accepting the lie - that's his punishment. I think Orwell chose this to show how cowardice thrives in a society that forsakes the truth and could have only been the outcome for Winston who might have known passion, lust, and desire but not self-sacrifice, bravery or truth above mortality. So without really knowing what you're message is I would attempt to write a redemptive ending to see how it looks - maybe your beta read is right, or I would stick with your point and make sure you've emphasized it enough that the outcomes feels if not good, at least just for the point you're making.
Negative messages and themes are always much harder to pull off, but it can certainly be done. One major way authors do this is by making the ending feel inevitable, like this was the only possible way his character arc could have concluded. If you set your audience up with positive expectations (This character I'm invested in and like is going to grow into a better person) and subvert that expectation in a negative way, it's almost always going to make your readers feel like they've been cheated out of the positive thing you promised. 1984 has a horribly depressing ending, but not an unsatisfying one because we aren't led to expect that the characters will get a happy ending. How you make the characters final decision not to grow and stay a bad guy feel inevitable is a much more complex topic, and I'm not sure I have an answer. I can say, if you go with making the message clearer, do so heavily, and throughout the story, just making it clear after the final decision is still going to be unsatisfying.
My thoughts on this question may not help much, because my views on morality are very different from most people ... But I will share in case I am wrong and my thoughts will help you. I don't believe in morality ... Things like good and evil. Good and bad are just empty sounds to me. I believe everything is relative, so I look at the characters in terms of ideas and motivations. So for me these questions are the wrong questions. The correct question is what is the character's motivation? Can he get it without breaking the law? What is his worldview and character? What sacrifices should he make in order to achieve his goals in a criminal and non-criminal way and what will he prefer based on all this information? Disassemble the character a little more in order to understand what he is striving for and then it will be easier for you to associate with the character and understand how he will act. PS: We live in a world of paradoxes, and any most horrible act can be presented as good, and the most good can be presented as an evil act. For example, I'm sure the majority here will say that something needs to be done about global warming. But few people know that a person in a year of life simply pollutes the air by breathing just like 20 large trucks. Does this mean that the death of a person helps in the fight against global warming much more than any other method? Does it make killing and suicide moral if you say it is to save the world?
I'm a sucker for questions to establish motivation, give these a shot and see if they spark anything in your story. What is redemption to this character? To you? Why doesn't he get/want/need it? Can he still succeed in his arc, but fail to be redeemed? Pulls off the heist of the century, but loses everyone he cared about Can he fail in his arc, but find redemption in his new circumstances? Foils the heist of the century, but shows the power of doing the right thing from behind prison bars What is the relationship with Bad Criminal that leaves him so loyally manipulated? What circumstances brought Good Criminal into the lackey position? A job gone wrong, a life saved, an unpayable debt What is the conflict between these two that the reader is using to establish the moral compass of the story? Good Criminal has so much more(friends, family, hope) to fight for now, but Bad Criminal has what they want(power, position, control) Catharsis doesn't have to come from a happy ending that tickles the reader's heart and soul. You might find more traction with your theme establishing conflict that leaves Good Criminal with a clear choice between redemption and inertia. If the Good Criminal just continues on with no cathartic moment, then what is the purpose of telling this snapshot of their life if the rest of it is also on the same track? Hope this helps!
Did you ever think that maybe your beta isn't your audience? Not everyone is going to appreciate a tragedy or a story where the character never achieves their need. Did you happen to tell her what you wanted to accomplish and did she feel that you accomplished it despite her disappointment with the ending? To redeem or not to redeem is up to you. It's your story. It's hard to say what you should do with the story without more context. Maybe you can ask your beta how your story message didn't have the impact you wanted.
Have you tried talking to your beta reader again? One problem with talking to people soon after they've experienced something is that they're wrapped up in their emotions and not aware of their longer term feelings. I remember reading that Hollywood's use of screen tests has led to less memorable films, because people aren't responding to whether a film meant something to them long term, just whether they were happy with the ending. Imagine if Shakespeare had adopted that approach. "Did you enjoy Romeo and Juliet? You didn't like the ending? I'm hearing that a lot. I'll fix it before the general public sees it."
