How not to write a cliff hanger ending?

Christa, I must admit, I'm confused about this part of your question:

"...my ending wants to be final but vague in the same way because their story does go on, this was just one part of it."

You must be writing sections of something (a novel? A book of short stories?) and you want each to stand alone, is that right? Writing the ending of a novel is different than writing the end of a short story, whether or not the characters are used in the next section or story. It serves a different purpose in each.

More information, please...

I'm not going to be particularly helpful without details, but I'd write it the way your MC wants it, and try to make that fit into your vision.

Because if the MC is really obviously twisted to your will, a reader's going to be like, "wtf this is NOT what he would do! seriously!"

so um, yeah, that wasn't helpful. but try to do both.

Of course characters go on with their lives after the novel ends. Or with their half-lifes or deaths or undeaths, as the case may be. When the novel ends with the readers sensing that these guys have a lot more adventures in them, that's what's called "series potential."

However, to stand alone the novel must reach a point of resolution and calm, however tenuous and temporary. It must satisfy the reader. If there is to be a series, then the reader should want more, but he shouldn't be left too hungry to wait or with the feeling that an unfinished plate has been snatched away from him.

What sets off alarms in your post is that the MC wants to "turn bad." From that I assume he's been "good" all along. How finished and satisfying your novel is going to feel to the reader will depend on how well you've foreshadowed the MC's change, how much internal sense that change makes for him, and whether the change brings him to a resting point, a closure of some sort, an epoch ended.

As for cliffhangers, no novel meant to stand alone can have one. The cliffhanger requires a drop into the gulf below, which is the sequel.

1. Ask yourself which questions your story has raised about each of the characters.
2. Determine if you have answered those questions throughout your story.
3. For the questions that remain unanswered, ask yourself if they really NEED to be answered for the story to make sense.
4. Answer the questions that need answered and leave the other questions up to the reader's imagination.

That's the best advice I can give without actually reading the story.

And they all lived happily ever after...

or did they?

There are two parts in the writer-reader contract.

Part I: what makes sense to the writer, and what makes sense to the characters. If the writer knows there is a second story going on after this one, how is she going to resolve that....

Part II: what is satisfying to the readers. Do they want the story to be resolved at the end? Chances are, no one wants to be left hanging at the end with a "...to be continued" because, sometimes it's never continued (say, that book didn't sell well).

A writer must work hard to reconcile part I and part II. The ending of a story should make sense to the writer and what he or she tries to accomplish, but it also must be satisfying to the readers without leaving them with more questions than answers. It's NOT a good feeling to be left dangling unless Book 2 is already on the shelf for them to grab.

So, if you want to be published and read, pay attention to the writer-reader contract.

Some of the greatest novels in literature have "unresolved" endings, my favorite being The Count of Monte Cristo.

caw

blacbird said:

Some of the greatest novels in literature have "unresolved" endings, my favorite being The Count of Monte Cristo.

caw

Click to expand...

But is that ending satisfying? That's the real question.

maestrowork said:

But is that ending satisfying? That's the real question.

Click to expand...

It most certainly is.

caw

blacbird said:

It most certainly is.

caw

Click to expand...

As well as Monte Cristo sandwiches.

It's possible to do both. You should resolve the main conflicts within the story but you can leave some minor conflicts, running jokes, attractions, or other situations unresolved to leave the door open for a sequel.

I did that with the book I have coming out in August. It's a mystery and the mystery is solved, the killer caught. But there is a new romantic interest for the protag that is progressing but still tantalizingly unfulfilled, and a running joke that goes through the book (actually, two of them, one of them being the MC's real name) that are never fully revealed. The book could easily work as a stand-alone but it sold as part of a series with a three-book contract.

Beth

IMHO, the best ending is one in which all the internal and thematic issues are resolved and it is clear what will happen, at least emotionally, to the characters once the story is over. I don't know if that helps.

Charlie Horse said:

As well as Monte Cristo sandwiches.

Click to expand...

And Gerard Depardieu as the Count, mmmm.

I may have a similar problem. I've got a fantasy story that resolves around my MC becoming bitter, twisted and a menace. I can't do that in any believable way without three stages.

1st stage is some bad things have to happen to a likeable character
2nd is justifiable acts of revenge
3rd is the anger taking over and him not caring who he hurts to get to the people who've wronged him, and extending his anger to anyone who tries to defend them.

Far too many words for one book, and a story that falls into three parts rather than two. So I figure each stage is one book. It means I have to end my first book with there still being people around who haven't faced justice, and I need to leave my MC in the company of a character who the reader knows is a bad influence, but who is acting to help my MC.

To do this I needed more characters. Some to face justice as a resolution, some to survive. The characters who provide the immediate danger and conflict in the book have to have resolved storylines at the end....even though I like them and wanted them to stick around.

I've decided that part one ends when the characters reach safety after a lot of threat. it doesn't end their development but it ends the threat and conflict of part one. The safety has to be reached by dealing with the immediate threat though, not just hiding from it.

By the end of the book my MC should still be likeable but he'll have done some bad things and be under the influence of a bad person. hopefully the reader will forgive him as he's done bad things to people i'm painting as bad, even if they're really a shade of gray.

If I'm lucky enough to be sell it and the only three people to buy it then no-one should miss part two but they will wonder a little about the fate of the bad influence. I can't resolve his story in part one without blowing parts 2 and 3 out of the water. I think I can justify that by using the principle that " the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if he's an utter ####" deal....so at the end he's an ally who has secrets.

I also took things out of part one I wanted in. I'm keeping a couple of factions who will clash apart as I don't want that unresolved in part one and I can't resolve it until part 3, so it got cut.

I suppose my rambling point is that to end a story, I think your character has to be good enough for your reader to forgive them any bad behaviour, or there needs to be some kind of justice for the bad things they've done, otherwise the loose ends might be too loose.


Craig

ChristaCarol13 said:

Should I just not worry about it and write the damn ending my way?

Click to expand...

Sure you can always do that. The question is, will it sell? For that, you have to satisfy the reader. I think the reader always must identify with the MC. That doesn't mean the MC can't be bad, it just means he must have very strong justification for the bad things he does. If your MC turns bad in the end, then it needs to feel almost inevitable; you need to plant his gradual decline in moral standard throughout the story, or weave an increasing inner conflict that eventually explodes and forces him to turn bad. Nothing wrong with doing that as long as his reasons for going down that road are sufficiently compelling. As for the ambiguous ending, absolutely you can do that, however, all plot points should be tied up. People will hate you for not telling them whatever happened to so'n'so and where was the stolen jewelry after all, but you can leave them with ambiguity about the character's final destiny. He turned bad, but there is a note of hope of future redemption.... that sort of thing. Is that what you mean?

I once had this truly evil evil horrible idea of ending my story on a cliffehanger where a bomb had just exploded and it ended right after it so the reader didn't know who had survived and who hadn't.
But i decided agaisnt that idea coz the story moved in a different direction, hehe

A cliff hanger is only a good idea if you're the one going over the cliff.

You need to resolve the major conflict and also touch on those minor issues that are unresolved so the reader knows you haven't forgotten them. You can pick them up in the next book.