This may seem like an awkward scenario for a story's ending. My plot revolves around a constant struggle of the protagonist against the antagonist's forces, and eventually the antagonist himself. I've had some trouble finding an appropriate ending - I've already theorized about having the antagonist succeed over the protagonist, subverting a common trope of the "hero always wins" dilemma. However, recently another proposition had also crossed my mind.
What if neither the protagonist nor the antagonist is successful? Is this realistic, as a general idea? Would it be possible for neither side's goals to be accomplished, and in their attempt to fulfill their ambition, they sacrifice themselves and fail as a result? It is indeed partly to give a sense of "unfinished scrutiny" as victory is given to nobody, and failure is awarded to both sides. While the antagonist is no longer a threat, the protagonist is no longer a hero.
I understand that this is only plausible if the two opposing side's motives are not solely to eliminate each other as individuals, in which case both would be the winners. Rather, their influence is what has been left damaged - the protagonist's positive influence has been destroyed, while the antagonist's negative influence has been destroyed as well. Overall, I see this as creating a sort of "neutral" effect - neither good nor bad has come out of the final climactic ending, because of the two ideological opposites that collide with each other and eventually collapse.
Is this kind of scenario technically impossible, because the concept of defeat for either the protagonist or antagonist is dependent on the other's victory?
This kind of concluding effect may seem quite vague and hard to grasp, as I'm not sure as to whether the ending to any story is meant to be based on a black and white perspective of success vs. failure on either side.
No comments:
Post a Comment