Upsetting stories where evil wins

[expentio]

This might be more of a rant than anything else, but I'd like to talk about reading experiences that truly riled me up (and not in a good way).
In both cases, it's simply about the fact that the author made the bad guy without redeemable qualities win.
The first traumatized me. Might be said a bit much, but at least it got into my head for hours, I couldn't sleep well that night, and even days later it made me think about it with a somewhat sick feeling.
It was a webtoon on the same named webpage.
To summarize it: Girl finds magical playhouse, things that are played there happen in real life in her home. Of course, she screws around with it. Her little sister gets a bit on the losing side, but not truly harmed. That one steals the playhouse and uses it to literally torture her sister through their parents and forces her to be neglected, who has to be aware of what happens, unable to do anything. After unsuccessfully trying to somehow prevent her sister from using the playhouse again, as it's hidden, older sister tries to make up, begs her little sister, and shortly it seems to work. Till she for a minor reason again gets to be the centerpiece, which makes little sister angry. Older sister begs again, but gets forced by her sister to die in an "accident", completely aware of it.
While it was supposed to be a horror story, the only horror was this asshole of a sister. Everything I got out of this is that the older sister should've killed this irredeemable brat before she can get back at her (before she gets to pull out the cursed playhouse; it has to be set up after all).
It simply hit me totally wrong that this is the kind of ending anyone would be fine with for their story.

What got me now to write this post was that I was just shortly ago reminded of it again. I read a story that kinda was torture porn. What made me stick to it was that the characters were fleshed out. Don't get me wrong, aside from the somewhat decent protagonist, the torturer was an irredeemable monster, who got off on this, and did it for greed and pleasure. However, the mere fact that the author put in so many chapters to describe the inner workings of the protagonist, her character and dreams while suffering through this, it made me kinda believe that maybe there'd be a turnaround. I kinda waited for the moment till this scum being would finally die in the most agonizing way possible, or better keep it alive like this. The author made it a masterpiece to hate them. Yet as an answer for a review I got just shortly ago that the story is probably not for me, in other words, the asshole is apparently going to torture the MC to mindbreak or death.

As I said, my insides somewhat turn around at the thought that anyone would create a deep character to torture them to death, just like the little girl died begging. If it's a shallow character, solely a setup for the scene, then I can ignore it somewhat, but the fact is, they weren't. It not even happened to give the story an interesting turn, because it was the conclusion. Now one can say that the fact that it put me off as it did might be proof of the literary effect, but I can't even get behind that. It rather feels like a troll. A prank that for once truly hurts the ones who were invested. It's like I would now after 250 chapters suddenly kill off my protagonists in the most gruesome way and close the story like this. I just can't quite relate to this. Why make a character to feel with, only to torture them to death?

How do you think about this? Is literature free to do everything in this regard for the sake of creativity, or shouldn't it be possible to generally maintain certain rules? In this case the absolute basics of karmic morality. Or should we instead all learn to kill our little sisters before they torture us to death?

 

[Valmond]

Someone never played those games, or read those stories with this sorta outcome.

Also, the point of tragedy is to bring forward emotions. A tragedy lands well, when the reader can feel for the character.

Given that it caused this in you, I’d say it landed well. The story is just not for you.

On a final note, literature is a free ground. There aren’t rules, just execution.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

Except in short horror fiction, I generally dislike that kind of ending - prefer ones where either the heroes win or the end is really ambiguous. But I know there is a demand for that stuff. And sometimes it is done well enough to not be too upset with the ending. Sometimes, but rarely IMO.

 

[expentio]

Someone never played those games, or read those stories with this sorta outcome.

Also, the point of tragedy is to bring forward emotions. A tragedy lands well, when the reader can feel for the character.

Given that it caused this in you, I’d say it landed well. The story is just not for you.

On a final note, literature is a free ground. There aren’t rules, just execution.

Still, I find there's a difference between tragedy like Romeo and Juliet and simply torturing likable people to death. The one has a certain artistic sense, there's reasoning and depth to suffering and consequences of action. On the contrary, the story I was referring to only was the MC being playball to a sick mind (the bad guy, maybe also the author). It was more about pulling something out of the character to hurt them deeper. Like "Oh, she wanted to be a pianist, let's cut off her fingers". It gets more into snuff than tragedy for me there. Is this truly art? Tragedies usually still have some form of morale or deeper sense. I couldn't see that here.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

I would say, compare The Watchmen (where the bad guy saves the world by murdering lots and lots of people and has the cool moment where he "taunts" the heroes with "Do you honestly believe I would be telling all of you this if you had any chance to stop it? It all happened five minutes ago!") to, say the movie Oculus (where the "bad guy wins" ending just ruined the film for me, especially after it set up not one but two ways for the victims to escape and "win")

 

[Valmond]

Still, I find there's a difference between tragedy like Romeo and Juliet and simply torturing likable people to death. The one has a certain artistic sense, there's reasoning and depth to suffering and consequences of action. On the contrary, the story I was referring to only was the MC being playball to a sick mind (the bad guy, maybe also the author). It was more about pulling something out of the character to hurt them deeper. Like "Oh, she wanted to be a pianist, let's cut off her fingers". It gets more into snuff than tragedy for me there. Is this truly art? Tragedies usually still have some form of morale or deeper sense. I couldn't see that here.

Yeah, this is part of the story telling process. The pianist without fingers. The point of this expression, is that they cannot be what they want.

Art comes in many shapes and forms, it is not just one thing, there are countless ways to express it. Just accept that the story isn’t for you, and move on.

It is fine, not everything has to be catered to everyone. When you try to appeal to everyone, you appeal to no one.

 

[expentio]

Yeah, this is part of the story telling process. The pianist without fingers. The point of this expression, is that they cannot be what they want.

Art comes in many shapes and forms, it is not just one thing, there are countless ways to express it. Just accept that the story isn’t for you, and move on.

It is fine, not everything has to be catered to everyone. When you try to appeal to everyone, you appeal to no one.

Ehm, I mean after the cut off fingers they get killed by getting their throat cut through. It's not actually about being who they want to be if this was only to kill them for good in my opinion. It seriously was only to add to the suffering before the end.

 

[Valmond]

Ehm, I mean after they get killed they're getting their throat cut through. It's not actually about being who they want to be if this was only to kill them for good in my opinion. It seriously was only to add to the suffering before the end.

And that’s part of the story process, I’d have to read it myself to do a break down. Though, within the written text there are meaning behind the smallest actions.

It may not appeal to you, which is okay. Though, it is part of the themes.

 

[LilRora]

Writing my own story, I wrote the ending with the intention to feel detached, incomplete. A number of people complained about it and a number praised it - I believe I have succeeded, and it may be the author of the first book you're describing did something similar.

Though it is not visible in modern fiction all that much, there is still a lot of stories that aim to induce specific emotions in readers - it can be disgust, unease, fear, happiness, peace, loss, or tens of other feelings. Some of them, if that particular emotion they are trying to make you feel is unpleasant in some way, may just be designed to make you dislike it. I've read quite a few stories that could fit there, like 1984, Monster Who Levels Up, or a manga Organ Divider.

I would need far more information than I have to guess what those two authors you're describing had in mind; they may obviously just be bad authors writing bad stories. In general, however, I think they should have the freedom to express anything and not be taken literally.

 

[BigBadBoi]

Average Sims playthrough

 

[C.Details]

Although i hate stories that steal possibilities from mcs and keep my distance from super dark stories. I don't think you should limit what people write, sometimes they write it to get some bad emotions out of their system.

Sure some do it because it's who they are, like or just feel but really, if you don't like something someone made then just leave them alone. Your energy is better spent on something positive.

 

[expentio]

Writing my own story, I wrote the ending with the intention to feel detached, incomplete. A number of people complained about it and a number praised it - I believe I have succeeded, and it may be the author of the first book you're describing did something similar.

Though it is not visible in modern fiction all that much, there is still a lot of stories that aim to induce specific emotions in readers - it can be disgust, unease, fear, happiness, peace, loss, or tens of other feelings. Some of them, if that particular emotion they are trying to make you feel is unpleasant in some way, may just be designed to make you dislike it. I've read quite a few stories that could fit there, like 1984, Monster Who Levels Up, or a manga Organ Divider.

I would need far more information than I have to guess what those two authors you're describing had in mind; they may obviously just be bad authors writing bad stories. In general, however, I think they should have the freedom to express anything and not be taken literally.

I see where you're coming from. Yet even if I try to understand that it's supposed to be art, if the absolute only intention of the piece is to make someone experience disgust, then I can't quite see them as a person I'd agree with. I can't even see them as someone likable. If they truly only intent to cause a form of suffering to those who interact with their works, then I feel like I should feel disgusted by what they did, as they just made the world a bit bleaker. Yeah, it doesn't have to be all sunshine, creativity is important and so, but I'm talking here about the precise case when the only idea is to make the reader feel bad, without any further deeper message, sense or meaning aside from this. If the story has absolutely nothing else but this, then I can't even appreciate it as art.

 

[Arch9CivilReactor]

There is this Manhwa called ‘Bones’ that emits the same energy. Why does the MC suffer every chapter? Unclear. He’s just endlessly tortured because everyone with a superpower is either crazy or psycho. Torturing him on sight. They don’t even have much a reason most the time.

It’s just endless pain for everyone in the story with no hope in sight.

 

[owotrucked]

I think grimdark is the genre where evil generally wins

I never read such stories, as I feel that reality already sucks enough.

For the magical playhouse, I feel like its moral unfolding isn't too far off reality. I can see three points to note: accountability, motive of siblicide, and human bonds

1. The most real reason to not violate social norms is accountability. I assume that 90% of people will always seize an opportunity to commit misdeeds when they can avoid the responsibility. The horror of fiction and real life is to grant power without its responsibility to anybody. The case of children is especially unique, as I feel like they are the closest to the wild state of animal and instincts. Evil is a product of natural evolution, and it's not only exclusive to human but to all ecosystems. It's the predator who harm its prey, it's the pyrogenic flower that induces wildfires, it's the disease that slips into an organism, or the parasite caterpillar who infiltrates the antcolony as a queen to feast on their eggs, and finally, the rulers who takes society hostage to get a cut. Children have not undergone any rite to adulthood to integrate into society yet, so natural evil methods to fulfill their goals aren't off the table at this stage.

Perhaps the biggest mistake of the elder sister was to toy with this unnatural power, not realizing the full extent of the harm it could do. It doesn't matter if she wielded it for innocent amusement, because that subjective line can be crossed at any time. If she didn't mind harming her sister for amusement, what's stopping her from going further?

I haven't read so I don't know how she was stopped, but if she didn't take responsibility to make up with her little sister, and had to be stopped through the little sister's evil mean (stealing the house) then her fate would be sealed. If she didn't relinquish her authority while she had power, then the little sister has no reason to do so either.

2. Siblicide is also a thing of nature, and one of the first stories of the bible. Some birds let their offspring fight to death until the strongest remains. It can be understandable when it comes to food for survival but clout sounds childish, right? Well it wasn't their sibling but there's a girl who killed a squirrel because it got more clout than her. Men can compete in different avenues to improve their chances of survival and reproduction, but women who evolved to rely on tribes couldnt do much to compete except being pretty or using clout, making it as much as a resource of survival as a man's ability to get food.

3. Human is a social species. We evolved to form community to help each others, and as a result, we've developped skewed personalities that can barely function alone. It's only after going through the rite of adulthood that we can realize the gifts we received and the value in others. A family should be the place where everyone support each other unconditionally. A married couple, forced to stay with each other even after passion has faded, is a trial to learn to accept and love other personalities, and as a result, learn to value all children regardless of what personality they end up with. It's an ideal that is rarely fulfilled in practice. In a society/family where people constantly compete with superficial metrics like grades or money, no one can truly love another. Competition pervades at every layer of family instead of acknowledgement and nurture. And the ultimate conclusion of that superficial competition is the deep insecurity that a sibling could be replaced at any moment.

So in conclusion, maybe the parents could have done better. Maybe the older sister shouldnt have let that house alone, perhaps she should have told her parent instead of falling for its allure, perhaps she shouldn't have used it against her little sister. Perhaps she should have gotten rid of her little sister when she had the opportunity like you say so (she started acting against her so she gotta finish the job). Perhaps the older sister would have gradually been vicious to the younger one if she had kept the power.

As for the second story: don't read torture porn lol

 

[TASTYLEADPAINT]

How do you think about this? Is literature free to do everything in this regard for the sake of creativity, or shouldn't it be possible to generally maintain certain rules? In this case the absolute basics of karmic morality. Or should we instead all learn to kill our little sisters before they torture us to death?

Personally, I think literature is free ground. As nice as it is for the good guys to win. It's just not the case sometimes, and I feel if authors were subject to those rules, stories would become boring very quickly.

I have experienced what you have gone through, though. It wasn't a novel but a revenge manga. The mc goes through a whole load of crap, and just when they are about to get revenge, they fall off a building, get brain damage and spend the rest of their life sipping food through a straw. It sucks. I want my justice! It irked me for a while, but now that I think about it. If that manga had a predictable ending, then I probably would have forgotten it. It wouldn't be something that has stuck with me all this time.

Idk it's a complex topic.

 

[Snake99]

There is nothing wrong with that type of story. Fiction is for exploring all kinds of themes and emotions.

 

[tobascoasako]

Bad guys ftw... in my head canon Death Note ended s1. Go for it man!

 

[Golden_Hyde]

my planned ending for my long-term project has the antagonist won...

but alas, the cost for him to pay is everything.

 

[Corty]

Honestly, reading your post, that sounded unique and as an interesting take on it and could work well as a horror story.