Quote:
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
What's interesting about the modern crop is how few of them have happy endings. In the atomic bomb and evil aliens boom in the 50s, it was all resolved by the last page (or end credits). The message being that we could overcome if we only just kept calm and carried on. Now the message is you're all going to die so it doesn't matter what you do.
|
I'm not one who believes in the "always a happy ending" mentality. Sometimes a tragic end is better than a happy one. But even so, I'm one who still likes to have them from time to time. My three will all have happy endings to a degree. One is a straight up traditional happy ending, the second is semi-happy (they survive, but it's still hard times ahead), and the third I'm debating how to end it, be that happy, semi-happy, or mixed. (ie, both happy and tragic)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
I think the "cycles" you've seen have more to do with media looking for something they haven't promoted lately, and dredging up old themes to rehash for the public's dime. Apocalyptic fiction and monsters have a nostalgia value that makes them popular with audiences, a known product and an easy sell.
|
You make a good point about the media. They do seem to sorta drive the tastes and fears of the population. Maybe that's why everyone calls them sheeple. lol.
Quote:
|
The closest I've dealt with fiction after the fall would be... oh, wait, I can't actually tell you, or link you to it. Oh, well... use your imagination. At any rate, I have no personal interest in writing apocalyptic fiction. I'd much prefer to write about the next rise than the imminent fall.
|
I think the easiest way to go about that is to do like what Walter Miller did in a Canticle for Leibowitz. He started not with the disaster, but the aftermath and the rebuilding to a new pinnacle that would eventually end in disaster again. It was a very interesting way to tackle the whole Apocalyptic/Survival genre from a new angle.
