No argument here. But a good author can pack an ending with surprises without having the Shadow/villains reign triumphant.




Sure. And a book titled "Give up and Kill Yourself, Loser" would be pretty special in the self-help genre, too. :-)




Which sounds like a negative to me. It would make the books themselves futile and irrelevant.

Narrative fiction, especially if it's long and/or dramatic (WoT is both), requires some empathy with the characters involved. That doesn't preclude tragedy altogether, but it does set some limits on what kind of tragedy or unhappy ending is worth writing.

Hamlet works because Claudius, at least, is killed. It works because we can look back at Hammie's mistakes and learn from them. We can empathize with the sacrifices he made and experience a ctharsis with his death.

Epic fantasies about the fate of the world can only go so far, and should only go so far. If you want realism and darkness, leave the Dark One imprisoned to emerge again in another Age; it will make us think. If you want a tragic ending, kill Rand, Mat, and Perrin; it will make us sad.

But if Sightblinder achieves absolute victory and destroys the Pattern, we would feel... nothing. We don't have the emotional capacity to weep for the loss of all creation, especially not from a work of fiction. That would shatter the suspension of disbelief and sever our empathy. The entire epic would mean nothing more to us than your post: It's just a clever idea someone scribbled down, and there's nothing "real" about it.