Cliffhanger Endings

[EGGammon]

I am in the process of writing a novel series. I am really focusing on the first book right now, because that is what will be the ticket at getting me published, it will make my first impression on readers, and it will be the deciding factor on whether or not people buy the next book. So, I thought I would plan a series of cliffhanger endings, some so gut-wrenching, people would be crazy NOT to buy the next one. Do you think this is a good idea? Or will people hate the cliffhangers TOO much?

I think that it will make readers a little upset, but in a good way, and give them a feeling of "God, I can't wait to read the next one." All of this assuming the book appeals to them of course.

Thoughts? Ideas? Any are appreciated!

E.G. Gammon

[maestrowork]

No. Personally I hate cliffhangers. It grates me. Each book should be a complete story. You can have unresolved threads (like in the Harry Potter series), but each book must end satisfactorily.

And if your first book doesn't sell, all is moot. A first book with a cliffhanger would make it a hard sell to publishers, I think.

[EGGammon]

Ok, well, whoever answers the first question, answer this one as well. "Would you consider a character death a cliffhanger?"

E.G.

[maestrowork]

No. Again, the "story" should be complete, per se. If Hermione died in the first HP book, then she died. There shouldn't be a cliffhanger hanging around like "did she? Did she not? Find out in the next episode of ...."

I see what you're thinking, though. Watch Empire Strikes Back and you will find cliffhangers like: "What happens to Han Solo now?" But remember, Empire was made AFTER Star Wars became such a phenomenon, and they know they would have 30 Star Wars movies if George Lucas would allow it. Almost every new episodes of the new Star Wars trilogy has a cliffhanger or two.

But watch New Hope again, and you'd realize there really wasn't any cliffhangers. Obi-Wan died, but that's it. It's not a cliffhanger. If New Hope were the end of the Star Wars saga, it would stand on its own. Did it stop it from being a series? No. Why? Because it has such vivid characters and storyline that people are compelled to want more.

One problem I find with cliffhangers is that it sets people up for huge expectations. For example, the expections on Return of the Jedis were so huge that it became ultimately a let-down.

p.s. The LotR series were actually written as one book, not a trilogy. The Hobbit came before that, but it was a "complete" book on its own terms.

[vstrauss]

As a first time author, don't expect to sell a series right off the bat. Multi-book contracts happen, especially in genre fiction, but you'd be wise not to count on it. Let the agent/publisher know that you've followups planned (it's good to show you're not a one-shot writer), but your first book should be as standalone as possible so that if the publisher wants only the one novel, it can reasonably buy it. A cliffhanger ending would tend to discourage that.

Also, many readers hate cliffhangers. One of the things that fantasy fans bitch about is series books that end on a "who shot J.R." moment. Also, bear in mind that if a (real) publisher does buy more than one book from you, there'll be an interval of about a year between Books 1 and 2. That's a long time to wait for resolution of a cliffhanger.

To make readers want to buy the next book, all you have to do is make the first book the best damn book you can.

- Victoria

[James D Macdonald]

So, I thought I would plan a series of cliffhanger endings, some so gut-wrenching, people would be crazy NOT to buy the next one.

Plan a set of endings so solid and satisfying that people will be eager to buy the next one.

[STORMTURNER]

I read "The Bourne Supremecy" and the preceding books in the catalog and loved its cliffhanger. You know at the end of the book that the series will continue because Bourne, presumed dead the CIA hasn't died. In fact, though Treadstone has been aborted, Bourne will still be persued because he knows far too much to live. Thus, the chase will never end until Bourne is dead. The readers never want Bourne to die, thus, they almost have to leave us hanging.

Disagree?

[Nateskate]

I'm in a similar position with my story. In fact, I'm doing some re-writes, somewhat because I'm trying to make sure that the first book will be what the industry is looking for.

Here's how I see it. What you need are multiple threads in a series, not one. But you need to focus upon, and tie up one big thread in each book. Luke Skywalker saves a planet (Outcome), but leave one loose thread hinting there's so much more. Darth Vadar escapes (Set up for sequel).

I think my story was good as is. But the more i'm learning, the more I'm reworking the story. Why? I don't have the luxury that King or Clancey has. If there is a formula that works, I have to get it right. And if that means changes, well, I guess I had better make them.

If down the road I have a number of successfull books, then I can say, "Hey, trust me, I think people will buy it..." Until then, I guess we got to play by the rules.

The sad thing about the changes I'm making is that it is eating up my time, and forcing me to delay the eventual submission for publication. The good thing it is forcing me to dig deeper and to make the story more exciting, faster paced. I hope it is worth it.

[HConn]

A character death is not a cliffhanger, since the character is no longer hanging from the proverbial cliff.

I love cliffhangers between chapters, but not books. If you want people to buy your next one, write a really satisfying ending.

[macalicious731]

I think cliffhanger endings are more reserved for television shows than novels. For one thing, we only have to wait a week to find out what happens next, rather than a year or two. A week's worth of suspense usually marks up to be fun, and a bit exciting, rather than aggravating. I also think these kind of cliffhangers is what inspires authors to want to use them in their novels as well.

I'm an avid watcher of ABC's Alias. The creator, J.J. Abrams has mastered cliffhangers. He uses them weekly, mid-episode and... mid-season. However, his "cliffhangers" don't have his characters on the brink of death (ok, there was the one time...) or in the midst of mortal peril or anything like that. Instead, he creates an entirely different kind of suspense by revealing a new idea, plot twist, etc., that sets up the new season while at the same time saying goodbye to the old one.

In novels, that same idea can work. What won't work is leaving your protag's fiance facing down the barrel of the gun ("will she live?!") because that suspense is ended within the first few pages of the new book, and you have to build the story up all over again.

I think what works is not creating suspense to leave the readers wondering, how do they get out of trouble, but rather what's going to get them in trouble next.

[maestrowork]

Season cliffhangers are also common in TV shows... but TV seasons are short. A viewer only has to wait 8 weeks to find out if Joey and Rachel are going to be a couple... and will Ross find out... blah blah. And usually the cliffhanger is resolved REALLY quickly in the season premiere and things move along after that immediately. They're done for ratings, and only for popular shows.

Books are so different. Can you imagine JK Rowling gives us a whopper of a cliffhanger (not "loose ends," mind you), then we have to wait 2 years for the next Harry Potter book? That would be horrible.

"Loose ends" like Darth Vader having escaped is different from a cliffhanger (Han Solo's fate at the end of Empire Strikes Back and the rebels' defeat).

[pepperlandgirl]

Stephen King left the end of the Dark Tower Book V Wolves of Calla with a cliffhanger. I love the series and followed it faithfully, and would continue to follow faithfully, even without the goddamned cliffhangers that made me very angry. And that was Stephen King! I only let him get away with it because by then I invested years into that damned series.

Also, there's no guarentee that you'll get a contract for the next book, and then the people who did read the first book will never have satisfaction. Look what happened to Joss Whedon--Angel ended on a cliff-hanger that well...will never, ever be resolved and the viewers are left to think the worst but still have the hope of "maybe..." and that's an awful place to be. True Angel isn't a book, but I think the principle remains.

[EGGammon]

Ok, I guess I need to clarify the things I am planning. The whole series revolves around 2 main stories, that we learn more about throughout the novels. But there are also subplots in them all, involving a large group of people. Now, the first book, contains an above-the-average number of characters because it ends with a lot of them dying, each separate deaths with consequences, and the deaths set up the events of the rest of the books. Now, I need to know if you consider DEATHS, CLIFFHANGERS. It's not like they are on the edge of a building and you don't know whether or not they are gonna fall. It's more like BOOM, they are dead. So, I guess it's not really a cliffhanger, but it's more like a shocking end, that leaves room for more novels. What about this?

[anatole ghio]

[EGGammon]

Why'd you edit your response? I can take some criticism. That's why I'm here.

[vstrauss]

There's a difference between leaving a few story threads trailing, as bait for a sequel, and ending on a cliffhanger, which by definition is a climactic event left unresolved. Character deaths aren't necessarily cliffhangers, if they wrap up the plot arc you're following in that book.

Again, though, for the sake of your readers as well as your possibilities of publication, this novel should stand on its own, so that if a person read only that one book, they'd still feel they'd had a complete reading experience. You want your readers to say, "Wow, I want to read the next installment!", not "Damn, now I'll have to wait for Book 2 to find out what happened."

- Victoria

[detante]

So, I guess it's not really a cliffhanger, but it's more like a shocking end, that leaves room for more novels. What about this?

Genius trumps all, so if it works, do it.

Having said that, I think it is important for a story to have a satisfying ending. It doesn't need to be happy. But if you kill off an established character, I would suggest you provide enough denouement for the reader to absorb the event. A grieving period, if you like. Otherwise you risk revealing that the characters are merely tools for manipulating the reader's emotions.

Jen

[Ivonia]

Hi guys,

I have a question relating to this topic. For my currently planned ending, I have the hero (a fighter pilot) returning to a planet that he was forced to abandon earlier (the good guys were getting civilians off in order to avoid the bad guys invading). His girlfriend and one of his best friends is still stuck on the planet (their decision, they decided to give up their seats so that others could take them, since the good guys didn't have enough ships to get everyone off, so many have to be left behind).

Anyway, the hero promised that he would return for them, and then shortly after their departure the hero and the good guys are forced in a major battle, one in which the hero does something extraordinary in order to win (thanks to a hint/clue/message his g/f gave him prior to leaving her. And yes, in my book I explain everything, so it that it makes sense. I slowly figured out coherent reasons for the many events I thought up).

Anyway, the hero volunteers to be on the expeditionary fleet that's going back to liberate the planet from the bad guys, and the book ends there (well, it really ends with the g/f and his other friend looking at the night sky and her saying she's waiting for him, to show that they're still safe and that the bad guys won't be able to hurt any of the good guys still on the planet).

From what I just said so far, would this be an okay ending? I have many more things planned, but it would take another book to fill it all out (and a 3rd book to conclude everything, yes I've already planned out most of it). While there is still a few unresolved issues, I tried to show that they are going to be resolved shortly as well (the hero isn't with his g/f at the end, but I try to give the readers reassurances that they will get back together).

Sorry for going slightly OT here, but I was wondering if my ending would be okay for people. I'm trying to make it stand on its own, but with the other books, it will feel more like a complete story.

[HapiSofi]

No. Not satisfactory. The reader's report comes back saying "Book falls apart at the end."

Cliffhanger endings have what pollsters call "high negatives." It's not just that very few readers like them; it's that the other readers loathe them.

An ideal ending gives the book an undeniable sense of closure and completeness, but leaves you with an underlying feeling that interesting things are going to go on happening here, and you'd like to be around to see those too.

[DarkHaven80]

I don't like cliffhanger endings in books, nor do I like them films. I especially hate cliffhanger endings in those da*n addictive TV shows that make you sit and wait another week to see what happened. It's especially painful when it's the season finale and they make it so shattering that your heart doesn't beat right for days after -- then you only have to wait a mere six months or so to catch up :\

Oops, I'm sorry, is most of this irrevelant? Let me switch to decaf...forgot again.

[Ivonia]

" No. Not satisfactory. The reader's report comes back saying "Book falls apart at the end."

Cliffhanger endings have what pollsters call "high negatives." It's not just that very few readers like them; it's that the other readers dislike them passionately.

An ideal ending gives the book an undeniable sense of closure and completeness, but leaves you with an underlying feeling that interesting things are going to go on happening here, and you'd like to be around to see those too. "



Not entirely sure if this reply was directed towards me (I'm guessing it was though, since it's right under my question), but if it was, I was thinking about an alternate ending too. How would you guys rate this ending if you read the book?

The hero's g/f still stays behind, but she tells him that she'll escape on his friend's ship instead (his friend owns a ship capable of interstellar travel. Don't wanna get hard sci-fi into this, so lets just say it's kinda like the Milennium Falcon hehe).

At the end, the g/f and his friends reunite on their homeworld after the big battle (and yes, their love will play a more important role later on, she's not just tacked on for the sake of the hero having a love interest). The hero still decides to volunteer to liberate the planet that's been taken over and joins the fleet that's prepping to head out there. Of course this is just foreshadowing the second book, as they don't leave right away and the hero enjoys some well earned R&R.

I'll have to work on this ending somewhat, but would you be more satisfied with it, or would you prefer the first ending (the plot overall will still be the same, but I have to make a few minor adjustments since many important things will happen in the 2nd story). I don't want to leave readers hanging on too much, but the way I have the storyline set up, it will mean much more if she gets left behind, and I'm promising to make up for it in the next story (well, we all had to wait 3 years between each Star Wars episode, and then 16 years for the sub-par sequels hehe).

Any suggestions on this would be appreciated. I know that it's still ultimately up to me to decide (before I send it off to agents and editors), but I want to have the first book stand pretty well. I don't mind making too many changes, so long as the overall plot is still the same (there are some things that absolutely must stay in for the story to work and not look like a cliched ripoff from someone else's work. Luckily some parts of particular ending is not one of those critical elements, however, the battle has to stay in, since a massive enemy ship that killed the hero's sister, as well as bombed planets is involved in this fight, and he must destroy it. This will also be the good guys' first major victory, and the loss for the enemy forces them to set back some plans for a while).

[macalicious731]

Ivonia, from what I can tell, I think your ending may be all right as stands. It seems like the major conflict for that one book has ended (dealing with the baddies), but now they have to move on to liberating the home planet, which I would assume is the preliminary conflict on the next novel.

Now, as a forewarning, we've had some threads previously which talk about querying series to publishers. If I have the time later, I'll try to dig up the threads, but I suggest you look for them as well. They should still be hanging around on previous Novels pages. The main problem some people see is that pubs/editors are reluctant to take on series, because if the first book doesn't sell, the second is a no-go anyway.

EGG, "do you consider a character death a cliffhanger?" It kind of depends on the kind of death you're talking about. Have you been reading the Harry Potter series? If so, I'm going to use an example from the 4th novel. Toward the end, there is one sentence: "He was dead." Now, imagine, if Rowling had decided to stop writing then and there. I'd be pretty ticked off, but there's a cliffhanger for you. Both her 4th and 5th novels "end" with character deaths. The one in the 5th book, while not a cliffhanger, leaves lots of questions surrounding the death, while the 4th novel's death had nothing questionable about it. Of course, while using Rowling as an example, we'd have to acknowledge her devoted fan base. Her following books will sell no matter what cliffhangers she uses now. Do you think anything would have changed if she'd use these methods in the 1st novel? Hard to say.

Anyway, I'm always sorry to bring up Rowling as an example. I feel it's a commonly used example, even though not everyone reads them. I hope you have, so you know what I'm referencing.

As for me, when reading a series, I tend to get nervous toward the end of the book. I hope all of my questions will be answered by the end, which is what Uncle Jim mentioned earlier in the thread. As long as the bigger plot is taken covered, I can handle it if the author leaves some smaller plotlines to follow later -- especially if the author hints it will be resolved later (ie: "I'll tell you when you're older").

I hope this helped you, at least a little!

[Jaxler]

Here's my opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it--

In the series I write (Outlanders), the publisher has occasionally asked for trilogies and "duologies". In those self-contained books, I employed cliffhanger conclusions in the first two novels of the trilogies and the first one of the two-parters.

No readers complained about the cliffhangers that I was aware of (except for one guy on the B&N site who didn't seem to understand he was reading the first part of a two-parter), but then again four OL books are published every year so the readers didn't have to wait an excessively long time for story resolution.

Throughout the run of the series (edging up on eight years now), I employed sub-plots and ongoing story arcs even in the self-contained entries, just to maintain reader interest...it seems to have worked, judging by the series longevity.

As for a publisher's reluctance to take on new series because of the risk...well, I tacitly agree and disagree with that assessment.

Granted, it's sizeable commitment of money and resources to take on something like that, but by the same token if the series is even moderately successful, it becomes a reliable cash cow.

Publishers usually invest in three books of a proposed series if they believe the project has potential.

At the moment, my agent is shopping around a new military s.f. series proposal of mine and finding a publisher willing to make the commitment to an ongoing series is proving to be tough, even though I have a proven track record in creating and maintaining a profitable series.

However, I have faith in it.

[STORMTURNER]

So, in essence, a cliffhangers leave us guessing using our logic and/or experiential knowledge whereby the ending is left unresolved. So it is with "Butch and the Sundance Kid." Logic tells us they're dead, because there seems to be no way out.

Butch and Sundance, holed up in a small building entrance in a village and both with multiple gunshot wounds, prepare to go out blasting with both guns with the Bolivian army waiting for them...the film ends with a famous freeze frame shot just as they come out into the open with their guns, leaving their fate up to the viewer.

Logically, it is impossible for two men (w/ 2 guns) to survive the ammunition of an army.

Cliffhanger, no?

[Jaxler]

<Logic tells us they're dead, because there seems to be no way out.>

Well, actually history tells us they're dead...although there's been some debate if Butch died in the shoot-out.

But regardless, it doesn't qualify as a cliffhanger ending because there's not a "Butch and Sundance II: Etta Place Strikes Back".

We know the outlaw careers, if not the lives of Butch and Sundance ended that day in Bolivia. Their stories came to a conclusion.

A traditional cliffhanger ending is one where it is obvious only that particular segment of the story is over, but there are more in the offing, with many plot threads yet to be resolved.

Off the top of my head, the season 7 finale of Stargate SG-1 would qualify as a traditional cliffhanger.

[detante]

Butch and Sundance would be a good example if the filmmakers had been more ambiguous. Granted, they didn't show the bodies riddled with bullets, the slow motion fall to the ground, or the last dying gasp, but I felt the movie made it clear that Butch and Sundance were doomed.

A true cliffhanger intentionally leaves the story unfinished, breaking in the middle of the climax and promising to be continued. "How will our hero escape the evil villain's clutches? Will Miss Goodie make it to the bank in time? Can little Timmy find the courage to admit he broke the window? Tune in next week for another exciting episode!"

Personally, I would be annoyed with a book that ended with a true cliffhanger. Dazzle me with your brilliance and I will buy the next book without the need for cheap tricks.

Jen

[maestrowork]

The ending of Butch Cassidy or Thelma and Louise are not considered cliffhangers. They might be ambiguous (although in Butch's case we actually know what happened, and in Thelma and Louise's case, there's a slim chance they'd survive), but the ending is clear. There's almost no question of "Did they, did they not?"

Suffice to say, there are no sequels to those movies.

A cliffhanger is the ending of "Empire Strikes Back."

[reph]

That freeze-frame at the end of Butch/Sundance represents the deaths of the two characters. It isn't ambiguous. Dead people stop moving.

The same device was used to end another film whose name is locked in an unkeyed part of my memory for the moment.

Edited to add: The memory box came open a few minutes later. That title is Elvira Madigan.

[James D Macdonald]

Cliffhanger, no?

No.

What would it add to the story, to the viewers' enjoyment of the film, to see these two men shot to ribbons?

Recall that over the fading freeze-frame we hear the sounds of command -- "Ready! Aim! fire!" A crash of gunfire. Ready! Aim! Fire!" Another crash of gunfire....

No doubt at all how it ended.

[LadyShaun]

It sounds to me like you're looking for more of a continuum than a cliffhanger. Take a different character, one who holds great importance to the story, and spin off from there. Continue to make subtle references to the main character of the first novel in your sequential novels, then your series will continue to keep memory of your most dynamic character in their minds. They will begin to look for more from you. Looking for the "cliffhanger" will keep you from focusing on your characters. That's how I got hooked on Robert Ludlum at a teenager. Just write.


I am in the process of writing a novel series. I am really focusing on the first book right now, because that is what will be the ticket at getting me published, it will make my first impression on readers, and it will be the deciding factor on whether or not people buy the next book. So, I thought I would plan a series of cliffhanger endings, some so gut-wrenching, people would be crazy NOT to buy the next one. Do you think this is a good idea? Or will people hate the cliffhangers TOO much?

I think that it will make readers a little upset, but in a good way, and give them a feeling of "God, I can't wait to read the next one." All of this assuming the book appeals to them of course.

Thoughts? Ideas? Any are appreciated!

E.G. Gammon

[Stunted]

The trick to cliffhangers, IMHO, is to answer most of the questions, but leave just one thing going. Take The Golden Compass for example. The Gobblers are defeated, Pan and Lyra are still kicking, Iorek is king, Roger is dead, and Coulter and Asriel aren't together. Basically, most of what the book is really about is done. But there's still all this mystery surrounding dust and then, beautifully, this whole new possibility, that Lyra herself could go to other worlds! Ah! (God, the last 15ish pages of that book are amazing.)

[Glenakin]

I am in the process of writing a novel series. I am really focusing on the first book right now, because that is what will be the ticket at getting me published, it will make my first impression on readers, and it will be the deciding factor on whether or not people buy the next book. So, I thought I would plan a series of cliffhanger endings, some so gut-wrenching, people would be crazy NOT to buy the next one. Do you think this is a good idea? Or will people hate the cliffhangers TOO much?

I think that it will make readers a little upset, but in a good way, and give them a feeling of "God, I can't wait to read the next one." All of this assuming the book appeals to them of course.

Thoughts? Ideas? Any are appreciated!

E.G. Gammon

Cliffhangers aren't all that bad, irrespective of what anyone says. As long as your book has a story and 90% of it is told then you should be fine. In my book, after virtually all conflict is resolved, a character begins journeying to her best mate's house. Her best mate, of course, is in trouble unbeknownst to her. The reader knows this, but the character doesn't. The book ends.

I see this more as an introduction to the next book. Now readers have an idea what the plot of the followup book will be.

It's kind of like The Hunger Games. After the games, Kitniss is informed by her mentor that she is in trouble, as well as her family, for defying and disgracing the Capitol. In the final scene she returns back home victorious and it ends with the train doors opening and her stepping off board. Now that is not a cliffhanger in my opinion. The book had a fantastic plot, things were resolved, and new conflicts were brought in at the end. Fantastic.

[loiterer]

LadyShaun, you are sure digging deep into those archives. The original post is from December 2004!

[ideagirl]

I read "The Bourne Supremecy" and the preceding books in the catalog and loved its cliffhanger. You know at the end of the book that the series will continue because Bourne, presumed dead the CIA hasn't died. In fact, though Treadstone has been aborted, Bourne will still be persued because he knows far too much to live. Thus, the chase will never end until Bourne is dead. The readers never want Bourne to die, thus, they almost have to leave us hanging.

Disagree?

Yes, I disagree, because that's not a cliffhanger. Knowing that for X reason the story is sure to continue is very, very different than NOT knowing what happened--which is what "cliffhanger" means. A cliffhanger is like, "Did she live? Did she die? Tune in next time to find out." Cliffhangers are great for chapter endings--that's what makes a book "a page-turner": you keep reading because you want to find out what happens next. But cliffhangers are absolutely terrible for book endings.

[ideagirl]

The trick to cliffhangers, IMHO, is to answer most of the questions, but leave just one thing going. Take The Golden Compass for example. The Gobblers are defeated, Pan and Lyra are still kicking, Iorek is king, Roger is dead, and Coulter and Asriel aren't together. Basically, most of what the book is really about is done. But there's still all this mystery surrounding dust and then, beautifully, this whole new possibility, that Lyra herself could go to other worlds! Ah! (God, the last 15ish pages of that book are amazing.)

Agreed. I love that trilogy oh so much.

[maestrowork]

You characters should always have a life after the story ends (okay, maybe not Butch and the Sun Dance Kid). That's not a cliffhanger, even if it's ripe for a sequel. A cliffhanger is exactly what Idealgirl said.

Also, if you're selling a trilogy/series, then cliffhanger may be okay (think Empire Strikes Back). But if it's a standalone book, then it's a no-no. It's never good to leave your readers hanging, not knowing how it's going to end.

Again, back to the 2004 OP, the endings of BCaTSDK and T&L are not cliffhangers. We know exactly how they ended, even if nothing was shown on screen.

[ideagirl]

So, in essence, a cliffhangers leave us guessing using our logic and/or experiential knowledge whereby the ending is left unresolved. So it is with "Butch and the Sundance Kid." Logic tells us they're dead, because there seems to be no way out.

Butch and Sundance, holed up in a small building entrance in a village and both with multiple gunshot wounds, prepare to go out blasting with both guns with the Bolivian army waiting for them...the film ends with a famous freeze frame shot just as they come out into the open with their guns, leaving their fate up to the viewer.

Logically, it is impossible for two men (w/ 2 guns) to survive the ammunition of an army.

Cliffhanger, no?

No. As you said, "logically, it is impossible for two men (w/ 2 guns) to survive the ammunition of an army." Just as in Thelma and Louise, logically it is impossible to drive a convertible over the edge of the Grand Canyon and survive--the Grand Canyon is a mile deep, for heaven's sake. Both those movies end on the last moment of the heroes' lives, their last moment of glory. We don't need to SEE their deaths to know that the deaths occurred. The reason the stories end where they do is to show us that they went out in glory--they died as they had lived: bravely, crazily, on their own terms. If we actually saw the corpses of the characters, that effect would be lost: our last impression wouldn't be "oh, what glorious people they were" but "oh how horrible--this character I love is full of bullets/smashed to pieces/covered in blood." That's why their actual deaths aren't shown--but the FACT of their deaths remains.

A cliffhanger is where you truly do not know what happened, and you really, really want to know. Thelma & Louise and Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid, in contrast, are stories where you know what happened but you wish it hadn't happened. Because those movies end on the last moment of the characters' lives instead of actually showing their deaths, hardcore fans can choose to believe that somehow the impossible occurred ("Maybe Thelma and Louise both jumped out of the car as it was falling, caught bushes growing out of the side of the canyon and lived! Maybe all the guns the Bolivian guys were using jammed at the same time!"), just as hardcore Elvis fans can choose to believe that Elvis is still alive and in hiding somewhere...! But that doesn't change those movie endings into cliffhangers, any more than Elvis's death was a cliffhanger. We know what happened. We just like the characters so much that we wish they hadn't died.

[Fulk]

The trick to cliffhangers, IMHO, is to answer most of the questions, but leave just one thing going. Take The Golden Compass for example. The Gobblers are defeated, Pan and Lyra are still kicking, Iorek is king, Roger is dead, and Coulter and Asriel aren't together. Basically, most of what the book is really about is done. But there's still all this mystery surrounding dust and then, beautifully, this whole new possibility, that Lyra herself could go to other worlds! Ah! (God, the last 15ish pages of that book are amazing.)

Wowza. When I was reading this thread, I went back and thought about this series and tried to decide if the first book had a cliffhanger. Then I came to the same conclusion you did and was going to post this example. But you beat me to it!

[maestrowork]

Wowza. When I was reading this thread, I went back and thought about this series and tried to decide if the first book had a cliffhanger. Then I came to the same conclusion you did and was going to post this example. But you beat me to it!

I don't consider that a cliffhanger, though. To me, that sounds more like untied loose ends and possibilities for future stories/adventures. But it's not an unresolved ending and if you never read another book of the Golden Compass, it would be okay. They did not leave the readers dangling, and that's the definition of a cliffhanger.

[FennelGiraffe]

Last spring, the Criminal Minds season finale ended with the FBI agents getting into six identical black SUVs. The very last shot showed one of the SUVs exploding.

Viewers had to wait three months to find out who was in the one that exploded. That's a cliffhanger.

[ideagirl]

Last spring, the Criminal Minds season finale ended with the FBI agents getting into six identical black SUVs. The very last shot showed one of the SUVs exploding.

Viewers had to wait three months to find out who was in the one that exploded. That's a cliffhanger.

Precisely.
And note the timeline: three months. Much shorter than readers of a book have to wait for the sequel.

Another thing to note is that MOVIES do not end in cliffhangers; TV shows do. There's a difference between the two forms, and movies are more like novels than TV shows are. TV shows are designed so that they could potentially run forever (hasn't As the World Turns been on for over 40 years?!). The story goes on and on and on and on--it's more like an infinitely expanding short-story collection than like a novel. So you can have cliffhangers at the end of episodes or seasons; everyone knows the show will go on, and the mystery will be solved within a couple of months at most, sometimes less (if the cliffhanger is during the season at the end of one episode, it'll be resolved the next week).

Movies and novels are designed to have a complete story contained within them. TV series (other than miniseries, which are basically extra-long movies) and short story collections are not; the reader of short stories or the watcher of a TV series do not expect to have a complete, all-threads-wrapped-up story, whereas movie-goers and novel-readers do.

A TV show can get away with a cliffhanger, just like a story in the middle of a collection can. But even with those, you can't put a cliffhanger in the last episode of the TV show or the last story in the collection; it has to come before then, so that the story can go on. And you can put cliffhangers at the end of chapters in a novel, or in scenes preceding the last scene in a movie, BUT NOT at the end. They only work where the story is going to continue relatively soon, as in a TV series or short-story collection or at the end of a chapter in the middle of a novel. But a year or two, which is how long it takes to get another book out (minimum), is not "soon." Not soon enough for cliffhangers at the end to work.

[maestrowork]

Good analogy, IG.

A TV show/episode is like a chapter. And each season of the show would be like a book in a series. It's meant to hook the readers/audience enough that they'll come back the next season. And it also runs the risk of pissing of fans if the series is canceled (X-Files, Twin Peaks, anyone?)

[Fulk]

I don't consider that a cliffhanger, though. To me, that sounds more like untied loose ends and possibilities for future stories/adventures. But it's not an unresolved ending and if you never read another book of the Golden Compass, it would be okay. They did not leave the readers dangling, and that's the definition of a cliffhanger.

Right, which is what I think Stunted and I concluded. I thought it was a cliffhanger at first. But then I realized the main arc of the plot--Lyra rescuing Roger from the Gobblers and defeating them--is solved, and the story very well could've ended there, with the mystery of Dust and the research at Bolvangar only a bit of spicy backstory to put the main plot in perspective. It just so happened the story kept going and we learn more about these instances.

[Shweta]

Personally, I hate cliffhanger endings. They feel like cheap manipulation to me, and I resent them.
I tend to think "So, <author> doesn't think I'll read their next book without a gimmick? Good to know how much faith they have in their own writing."
Having said that, I am aware they work on a lot of readers... :Shrug:

(And yes, goodness this is an old thread. But a neat topic! I really didn't think of Northern Lights (aka the (non)golden (non)compass) as ending on a cliffhanger. I wanted to follow it because Lyra was interesting, not because I didn't know what would happen -- that was almost incidental.

[Raynfall]

We have to consider Cliffhangers of The Eragon sort. Bear in mind that it was his first Novel. As a stand-alone, I'm not entirely sure it would have worked. Eragon completes most of his first book goals, but the novel ends with him on the battlefield, with a spirit ravaging his mind, only to be saved by a mysterious figure, and to have him agree to come train with that figure. Eragon could not have worked nearly as well as a stand-alone as it does as the beginning of the Inheritance Cycle.

The key with cliff-hangers, I think, is for them not to leave a thousand questions. Just a few. Leave your characters at a transition point. If they're fleeing from their foe, make sure they escape, to a place where they can at least be temporarily safe. I don't think it has to be a complete stand-alone, but it most be a place where your character has the chance to choose what happens next.

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

.

[FOTSGreg]

To me the comment "lots of character development through the first 3/4 of book one" means lots of navel-gazing snoozing and a book I would be disappointed in having spent good money for. I definitely would not pick up the sequels.

I'm sorry if that sounds offensive, but I'm not a big "Wheel of Time" fan. I think Jordan did his fans a major disservice in writing book after book of navel-gazing character development instead of wrapping the damned thing up in 3 novels instead of 15 or 20. Long about #4 or #5 fans began to get the idea that this wasn't a story anymore, it was a cash cow and they were reading another endless series of Shannara-like novels.

Not to mention the fact that your chances of getting it published are akin to a snowball's chance in Hell, especially with 3/4ths of the book dedicated to "character development".

You have to get the action going and keep it going if you're going to keep a reader's attention and hang onto it for the length of a single novel let alone a series.

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

.

[ChaosTitan]

SoloArtist - What is the main conflict in Book One, and is it resolved by the end? If this conflict is not resolved, then you're going to leave lots of readers angry and dissatisfied.

As a side note, you sound resolved in writing this trilogy, but my advice is don't. Write a standalone novel, polish it up, get an agent, and get it published. It is very, very, very hard for an unknown writer to get a trilogy published. It is much easier to offer a standalone novel with series potential. And it doesn't sound as if this first book stands alone at all.

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

.

[ChaosTitan]

Plot-wise, book 1 is about advancing all of the major characters towards the front-lines of the coming war, and the last 1/3 or 1/4 of it concludes with those characters reaching that conflict and things starting to happen there, including a climactic fight between the two leading characters.

The epic fight does occur, and you aren't left wondering who wins. You know that neither of them win outright. Also, the war does begin by the end of the book, but it doesn't go very far.

What you don't know is the outcome of the war, or what becomes of the two characters who clash in the end, as they end up stranded in another reality with a trickster figure trying to get them to resolve their differences. See my first post above for more specifics.

To FOTS: It ain't Wheel of Time.

This still doesn't tell me the main conflict of your book. When someone asks you what your book is about, just the one book, what do you tell them?

"It's about advancing characters toward war." Boring.

"It's about two princes leading their armies to the brink of war." Better, but still generic. And boring.

"It's about two princes, one of whom is in love with a rival princess, who after years of bitter feuding over cattle grazing lands between their kingdoms, are pushed to the brink of war when...."

[IdiotsRUs]

It's interesting, though, because I'm a bit surprised by what you said. I assume that people read books mainly for the characters.

I do read for the characters. But I like to see them doing something. :D Their actions in the plot should reveal their character. If character one sees a spider and faints, then I know they are afraid of spiders. If they are up against insurmountable odds but shout 'Maybe today is a good day to die' and lay about with their sword, that tells me boatloads about them.

I started reading a trilogy not so long ago where the first book was basically just a prologue to set up book 2. I did not read book 2.

Book one needs a plot and at least partial resolution, or people won't buy book two.

[FOTSGreg]

SoloArtist wrote, To FOTS: It ain't Wheel of Time.

It don't matter (okay, to be grammatically correct, it doesn't matter). It does not have enough action in it, from what you've told us, to be interesting enough to extend for 3 books (or to get me to pay my hard-earned money for even the first).

Look, I'm not trying to piss you off, but you're saying you're trying to piss off your readers. DON'T DO IT! Writing a book that is 3/4ths character development and 1/4 action is an absolutely sure way to get your readers to throw the thing through the nearest window and never, ever, spend their money on anything else you ever publish again.

It's virtually guaranteed to have an agent saying "Are you f-ing kidding?" and plopping the manuscript over onto the reject pile.

Action, friend. Action is what sells in genre literature (well, except for romance). Get your war going up front right away. Do your character development along the way in between action scenes.

[IdiotsRUs]

Action is what sells in genre literature (well, except for romance).

Oh you need action in romance. It's just a different sort of action. *waggles eyebrows suggestively*

[FOTSGreg]

SoloArtist wrote, I'm a bit surprised by what you said. I assume that people read books mainly for the characters.

Okay, here I might be a bit offensive, but it's something you've GOT to hear.

People read for entertainment. They don't read for character, for plot, for escape, or for anything else logical. They read to be entertained.


Some of the items mentioned above, like plot, character, escape, etc., are part and parcel of that entertainment, but they have to be combined in a defined and calculated way by the writer in order to be entertaining to the reader.

No one plops their $10 down at a theater in order to watch a movie that is solely about some particular "character" or trait. People pay money to be entertained and to see what the characters do, not who the character is. The character defines themselves by their actions, not by anything the writer tries to tell the reader about them.

Show the reader who the character is by having them act, not by telling us who we're supposed to think they are.

Characters define themselves by their actions in active situations. We, the reader, get to form our own opinions thereafter.

[FOTSGreg]

IdiotsRUs, Yeah, I was trying to be, ahm, "vague" about the area that the action in romance focused.

:)

[katiemac]

Solo, I have to agree with Chaos here. 3/4 character development is a lot of character development. It sounds like you're starting in the wrong place in your novel and including a lot of unnecessary information/back story.

I recently had this discussion with another board member. Give your readers some credit. If you can write them well enough, we'll know your characters inside and out in just a few scenes. Or at the very least, the character qualities necessary to the climax.

Writing a trilogy is very attractive. But without a good book one, you can't sell book two. And a book one that doesn't have a resolved conflict is not an easy sell.

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

.

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

.

[katiemac]

I'm curious, this is strictly a brainstorming question and whatnot.

What would happen if a reader picked up your series at book two? She did not read book one. She does not know book one exists. She starts reading about two opposing guys who are stuck in an alternate reality together.

Will the reader be confused?

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

.

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

.

[katiemac]

It's interesting because I was on the "Ask the Agent" subforum earlier today and found this thread about "An unpublished author with a trilogy." (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143321) Much, if not most, of the advice to him there was positive.

Notice that the OP said each novel has a standalone storyline, even though it is obvious the story is part of something bigger. That means no cliffhangers.

[katiemac]

Good question, and thanks for asking it.

My first instinct is that it would come down to how I began book two, and that it wouldn't have to be too confusing. If nothing else, the dialogue between them could be very revealing, and an argument between them could start the book. I think that the full richness of the characters would not come across to the reader if they hadn't read book one, but I think I could make them rich enough after a few chapters.

In general do you think you should want the reader to be able to pick up book two or three and read it as a standalone experience?

That's a tough call. There are some series that can work like this and some series that can't. (Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings, although yes, Lord of the Rings was initially pubbed as one book.) If you look at Potter, books 1, 2 and 3 standalone, but once you get to the fourth book it starts getting tricky in terms cliffhangers. Still, each book (perhaps with the exception of the sixth one - which would act like your book two) has a solid contained storyline.

Like you said, it probably has a lot to do with the way you write it. I think you're better off with book 3 not standing alone (relying heavily on books 1 and 2) than you are with each Books 1 and 2 not standing alone. You probably even have some more leeway with Book 2 than you do with Book 1 to have more of a cliffhanger ending. Nonetheless, I don't think a new reader of Book 2 should be confused right off the bat because it suggests you left too much hanging in Book 1. There might be details here and there that might not add up because they missed book 1, but those things shouldn't come in to play right at the beginning. You also don't want to cater to new readers so much that readers of Book 1 are bored.

Now, that being said, I can still see this going both ways. If you say 1) "A new reader to book 2 will understand perfectly," then you could make the argument Book 1 is irrelevant to the overall story. If you say, "No, a new reader would be terribly confused," then you run the risk of losing readers who do not know they've stumbled into a series.

It's a balancing act, for sure.

[James D. Macdonald]

Please don't take The Lord of the Rings as the model of a trilogy. It's actually one very long novel printed in three volumes.

Better models of true trilogies are Mutiny on the Bounty, Men Against the Sea, and Pitcairn's Island by Nordhoff and Hall, or The Three Musketeers, Twenty Years After, and The Vicomte de Bragelonne by Alexandre Dumas.

[Alphabeter]

Precisely.
And note the timeline: three months. Much shorter than readers of a book have to wait for the sequel.

Another thing to note is that MOVIES do not end in cliffhangers; TV shows do.


Back to the Future 2&3; released eight months apart. The first ended with "To be continued" as a hope it would create a clamor and enable funding for more. The second was tagged with "to be concluded" as a deliberate cliffhanger. Many theaters ran the short teaser trailer of the third immediately after--as the producers intended in order to build up interest.

The Matrix 2&3 were released a year apart. Again, like BTTF, they were filmed concurrently and designed to fill out a trilogy originating from a once stand-alone first movie.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy were each released a year apart. They were all filmed together and deliberately edited to create separate cliffhangers apart from those in the books.

Patriot Games was the second "Jack Ryan" book made into a movie. It was the first time Harrison Ford played the character. At the end of the movie, there is a very deliberate cliffhanger regarding one of his children. If one had read other Tom Clancy novels, one knew the answer. The movie-only fans had to wait until the funding, filming and release of Clear & Present Danger.

In such an example, the readers were immediately satisfied and the film goers had to wait. It is a risky proposition for movies to have cliffhangers, unless the entire project is funded to completion, notwithstanding The Perils of Pauline. TPoP weren't traditional cliffhangers as they always showed the resolution--just in case no more were filmed.

TV shows plan for multiple season runs but often things are left hanging when the series is abruptly canceled. Unless there is a guarantee of a new season, most showrunners now don't want the writers to do cliffhangers because it makes the show harder to resell later.


There's a difference between the two forms, and movies are more like novels than TV shows are. TV shows are designed so that they could potentially run forever (hasn't As the World Turns been on for over 40 years?!). The story goes on and on and on and on--it's more like an infinitely expanding short-story collection than like a novel. So you can have cliffhangers at the end of episodes or seasons; everyone knows the show will go on, and the mystery will be solved within a couple of months at most, sometimes less (if the cliffhanger is during the season at the end of one episode, it'll be resolved the next week).
TV shows are NOT designed to run forever, not even soaps. Daytime dramas were initially designed to reflect people's everyday dramas. Everyone's life goes on through all the chaos. Nearly every soap still on-air in the USA today started with a core set of characters and expanded. While some storylines have cliffhangers, they are within the framework of the rest of their universe continuing on...because they show has been renewed. When I read a short story collection, they are rarely set in the same universe, not written by collaborative writers and I can go back and enjoy them again and again in any order I care to read. This is completely impossible with soaps.

Quite a few soaps have departed over the last decade. Their writers wrapped up most of those storylines while leaving a few things open for the fans, and again, to give the sense "this world still goes on". There is a season to soaps, but rarely have cliffhangers between them been written. Once there was a set of companion soaps who shared the same universe. A big cross-over was planned. One soap was abruptly cancelled. It left the other one scrambling for their own storylines.


Movies and novels are designed to have a complete story contained within them.
This statement is incorrect. While many movies are written to be standalone, one-off products, quite often the writer(s) has more to the characters/universe and will happily write a sequel. Others are written as the first of unrealized multiples. Still others start out as standalones and are expanded for financial gains (see BTTF and Matrix examples above). Lastly, many movies are written to see just part of a story concerning just a couple of characters or a location or an item while not explaining everything. The story is deliberately incomplete to concentrate on the focus of whatever the writer deems worthy. There is no guaranteed conclusion.

As for novels, I don't know of a writer yet who has just one book about their characters, story or world. They may write a single book about one character, but it is often part of a larger scope present in their other work. The actual story may carry out well over the single novel.


TV series (other than miniseries, which are basically extra-long movies) and short story collections are not; the reader of short stories or the watcher of a TV series do not expect to have a complete, all-threads-wrapped-up story, whereas movie-goers and novel-readers do.
I have yet to see a movie (tv, theater or otherwise) which is complete story with all threads up. Something is always left open. When I read a short story, I don't expect a complete encapsulation of that world. I hope for a taste of something interesting. And then I hope the good ones wrote more.

"That's it, all of it, right there on the page or screen" is completely unrealistic. I have been disappointed by writers trying to make such hay. The attempts fall flat because they are unrealistic, there is nothing to relate to which makes it uninteresting to follow more.

I expect police procedurals (Law & Order, CSI, etc) to have at least one case being opened, investigated, and concluded during one episode. They generally also have one case or character or situation which carries over between other episodes (sometimes back-to-back, other times something is mentioned in season 2 and finally addressed in season 6). The heavy episodes also carry a third case which is never resolved. This is the formula: 1 main case wrapped up, 1 b case which may affect and/or interact with main case but makes sure everyone has something to do, and occasionally reference the c case which an ongoing puzzler that reveals personal information about the cast and is non-continuous.

If they didn't wrap everything up in one episode, it wouldn't be rewatchable because you would need all the other episodes to refer to in order to understand the story. Whereas I know Briscoe will arrest, McCoy will prosecute and Danny Tanner will have the girls in bed by 8. I rarely expect--or get--that same sense of completion with movies or novels.


A TV show can get away with a cliffhanger, just like a story in the middle of a collection can. But even with those, you can't put a cliffhanger in the last episode of the TV show or the last story in the collection; it has to come before then, so that the story can go on. And you can put cliffhangers at the end of chapters in a novel, or in scenes preceding the last scene in a movie, BUT NOT at the end. They only work where the story is going to continue relatively soon, as in a TV series or short-story collection or at the end of a chapter in the middle of a novel. But a year or two, which is how long it takes to get another book out (minimum), is not "soon." Not soon enough for cliffhangers at the end to work.
If I read a story in a collection which had a cliffhanger, and the rest of it wasn't in the same book, I would stop reading and not bother with that author again. Such a stunt shows extreme disregard for the reader. I would also seriously question reading anything handled by the editor who thought it appropriate. Novels I really like will have me waiting for a sequel (though I tend to wait for a complete set before starting a multiple book series) but for a short story with no guarantee of resolution unless I wait for another collection is just ridiculous.

TV shows are often critized for doing cliffhangers for multiple-part episodes after which everything goes back to status quo. There has to be a reason to care what happens after the story is done hanging. Gimmicks to sell incomplete maybes just turn me off.

"Yes, you will get the rest" is key for me. "Turn the page, wait for the fall, wait for next summer" are all do-able. "Maybe, if this goes right, but we have to figure it out first" is the mark of a child trying to use a trick instead of mastering the fundamentals first.

Books, novels, short stories, screenplays (movies), plays (stage), and teleplays (screen) are each their own beast with their own rules. However, they all fall under writing, which too has rules--that can be applied to every form. And subsequently applied to their separate genres.

Cliffhangers do work, but they have to be used right. People clamored for the above movies I cited, even after their allegedly disappointing middles. But writing them in tv shows or stories where the conclusion does not have a guaranteed airing or printing is dangerous and often backfires. Timing is crucial but so is follow-up.

[seun]

I'm a little hungover from my stag night so I'm feeling a little slow...but did someone really say the end of Butch & Sundance is ambiguous?

[john barnes on toast]

I have formulated the definitive theory on cliffhanger endings.

It will change your perceptions irrevocably and end the debate once and for all.

More to follow.

[James D. Macdonald]

How do you keep a literary writer busy all day?

See next post.

[James D. Macdonald]

How do you keep a literary writer busy all day?

See previous post.

[ChaosTitan]

As for novels, I don't know of a writer yet who has just one book about their characters, story or world.

To Kill A Mockingbird, Harper Lee

[sleepsheep]

Another thing to note is that MOVIES do not end in cliffhangers.

No, not true. I present, "The Italian Job," which ends in a literal cliffhanger. This is in contrast to the list of movies that Alphabeter posted, since it was not intended as a part of a movie franchise, or a kick-off to a set of sequels. It was intended as a movie with a cliffhanger ending. There's the distinction, and it applies to novels too.

I see no problem with a novel that ends in a cliffhanger (ala "The Restraint of Beasts") where the cliffhanger is a literary device, or just a good way to exit out. It can be effective, and clever, and eerie, and fun. However, I do have a problem with books that end with a blunt suggestion that you must purchase another book. A "find out what happens in book 2" ending is a terrible disservice to the audience, and you should not do that (especially not with a first book).

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

.

[sleepsheep]

Entertainment is almost as subjective as beauty. It's silly to make general statements about it, since so much depends on individual tastes. What's entertaining in the romance world does not apply in science fiction. We can, however, focus on basic literary techniques and best practices, and that may be a more productive tangent for the discussion.

[M.R.J. Le Blanc]

Good question, and thanks for asking it.

My first instinct is that it would come down to how I began book two, and that it wouldn't have to be too confusing. If nothing else, the dialogue between them could be very revealing, and an argument between them could start the book. I think that the full richness of the characters would not come across to the reader if they hadn't read book one, but I think I could make them rich enough after a few chapters.

In general do you think you should want the reader to be able to pick up book two or three and read it as a stand-alone experience?

In a way, yes. Absolutely.

A few years ago I read a series called The Dragon Quartet. At the time I found it all they had was Book 2, but I bought it and read it anyway. While it continued the storyline from Book 1, I didn't need Book 1 to get what was going on in Book 2. There was enough reference from Book 1 that enabled me to get what was going on. I still bought Books 3 and 4 and enjoyed them (up until the end of Book 4, the author kind of floundered somehow but that's a whole 'nother nugget :) ) and plan on tracking down Book 1. Though I didn't need it, reading Book 2 made me want to go get Book 1 because I wanted to know the details. It got me curious.

[Raspberry]

I think it also has to do with advertisement. If I buy something which says Book 1 out of 3, then I know what I am up to.

As I am laying out a series right now, I come to understand the differences of series that just happen (by audience demand) and planned series. A trilogy must be planned right away, but many make the impression they were sold to the publisher as a possible stand alone product, while book 2&3 clearly belong together.

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

.

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

I started reading a trilogy not so long ago where the first book was basically just a prologue to set up book 2. I did not read book 2.

Book one needs a plot and at least partial resolution, or people won't buy book two.

Just curious. Was book 1 very good?

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

.

[sleepsheep]

SoloArtist - if you can build up a climax and reach a resolution, the book will work as a standalone. The best advice I can offer is to read other successful books written in a similar genre and style, and see how the authors handled the plot development. Good luck.

[IdiotsRUs]

Just curious. Was book 1 very good?

It was okay. It would have been miles better if the ending hadn't been such a let down, with the sense the whole thing was just a book length prologue / backstory and the real action was going to be in book 2. No resolution of pretty much any plot line except one kinda minor one. Of a character I couldn't stand anyway. The rest was just...left.

If it hadn't been for that, if the author had given a scant thought to a satisfying ending, I might have bought the second. As it was I thought 'well if he ends book one like this, leaving me feeling short-changed, who's to say he won't do the same in book 2?'

Now I'm thinking of having these guys have their adventure in this other plane until they realize that they actually don't want to kill each other, and they actually want their people to get along.

If book 1 ends there, does that feel like a standalone experience? The characters have gone from hating each other, to fighting, to realizing that they actually want to work together to try to end this war. But they haven't gone back to their world to end the war yet.

So the plot arc of these two characters is resolved in that now they don't hate each other and are resolved to go forth and do Good Things? And book two is them doing Good Things against a new Bad Dude?
That could work.

[T. Nielsen Hayden]

Personally, I hate cliffhanger endings. They feel like cheap manipulation to me, and I resent them.
Amen, amen! I loathe cliffhanger endings. I loathe them even though I have a very good memory for text, which means I have a fighting chance of remembering what was happening when (if!) I start the next book. Cliffhangers belong in weekly newspaper serials and TV shows.

Many readers won't remember the exact circumstances of the previous book's ending. What they'll all remember is that instead of giving them a pleasant glow of closure, the last book they read by that author heartlessly cut off the story in mid-action, leaving them bereft and frustrated.

It doesn't take a cliffhanger to leave the readers wondering what happens next.

Having said that, I am aware they work on a lot of readers...
Are you sure? I can't recall the last time I heard someone praise them.

I need some help on a potential cliffhanger problem. I'm unpublished, and writing an epic trilogy that's more in the fantasy genre than anything else. ...

So after doing lots of character development through the first 3/4 of book one,

Don't. Dawdling around with character development and worldbuilding is almost always a mistake. If there's no story going on, no one will care about your characters or your world. (See also Message #35 in Hapi Sofi's not-a-FAQ (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58205).)

we end up with two major climax moments. The last one involves a fight between the two princes of the rivaling kingdoms as they finally reach the front lines of the war. The whole book has led up to this fight as the thing-that-must-be-at-the-end.
Sounds to me like the point where the story should start.

They're fighting to a draw, and then the trickster appears. He transports the men (and two important women) away to another reality and lets them know that he wants to see them start to resolve their differences before he sends them back. They all have a fantastic philosophical conversation at the end of book 1.
You mean that after dragging the reader through all that exposition, and finally getting to some decisive action, you break it off at the climax, and transport your main characters to some completely arbitrary alternate reality that hasn't previously been a part of the story? That's almost impossible to do well. The only way you can hope to make it work is if the existence and nature of that alternate reality reveals something really interesting about the world in which the previous action has taken place. It doesn't sound to me like that's what happens.

Instead, what you reveal is that one of your characters has so much power that all the conflicts and oppositions you've built up in your narrative are meaningless. Why is there a war? Because the Trickster hasn't stopped it yet. He's let the conflict build up to this moment, let the princes fight to a draw, and only then pulled them off the chessboard to give them a little lecture about their need to resolve their differences.

Your supposed trickster is just a garden-variety jerk who's been given enormous power. Real tricksters may be maddening and inconstant, but there's always a point to their tricks.

If it's enough to lecture the princes on their need to resolve their differences, then the war was never real in the first place, your characters were stupid to engage in it, and your story is rendered meaningless.

Meanwhile, back on terra firma, all hell breaks lose as the real war begins after each nation believes that the other has pulled a dirty trick to make the other's prince disappear. Oh, the tragedy.
How is hell supposed to break loose when they're already at war? Do they declare a second war against the same enemy, to be fought concurrently?

So here's what's left hanging. The two princes are in this unusual world, and you know that in book 2 they're going to have some kind of adventures together as they learn to cooperate so that they can get the heck out of alternate universe Dodge (and the women are going to play a huge role also).
No. Your potential readers have already had the rug pulled out from under them at the end of the first book. You've rendered its entire narrative arbitrary and meaningless, and given them a thoroughly unsatisfactory ending. Why should they trust you enough to pick up the second book?

Start your story near the end of your current outline for Book 1. Don't go tripping off to alternate realities. Find some way to stick your warring princes with an inescapable obligation to cooperate with each other. In mundane narratives, an unbreakable set of handcuffs is traditional, but you'll need something better. In your position, I'd have them accidentally share a grossly inappropriate love potion, and let them spend the rest of the book having to fight off those impulses while they work together to stop the war; but you might not find that as humorous as I would.

Also, there's a massive war raging now between their kingdoms, though they don't the details anymore. You don't know which side is winning the war because it basically just started. So that's coming up in book 2 also.
Of course they don't know who's winning. The war has just started. But more to the point: your primary task as the author isn't to decide who wins. It's to make the readers care about it. The plot you describe will not accomplish that.

Does it work? Or is too much left unresolved?
It does not work. The problem is not one of too much or too little resolution.

I tend to think if the philosophical talk is satisfying enough, the reader will sleep well.
Putting the reader to sleep is not the usual goal.

Seriously? Readers who want philosophy will buy books about philosophy. Readers who want sprightly conversation about philosophy will read the Symposion, or possibly just watch House. Readers who buy epic fantasy expect numinous worldbuilding, morally significant conflicts, engaging characters, and lots and lots of action.

But I don't know if it sounds reasonable from the reader's standpoint, or from a publisher's standpoint.
It sounds to me like a plot that stacks the deck against you. Why do that to yourself? Start your action earlier, get your characters engaged in meaningful conflict with each other, and work from there. And leave out the deus ex machina.

And now a reprise:

Plot-wise, book 1 is about advancing all of the major characters towards the front-lines of the coming war, and the last 1/3 or 1/4 of it concludes with those characters reaching that conflict and things starting to happen there, including a climactic fight between the two leading characters.

Things should start to happen within the first two or three pages of the book.

The epic fight does occur, and you aren't left wondering who wins. You know that neither of them win outright. Also, the war does begin by the end of the book, but it doesn't go very far.

What you don't know is the outcome of the war, or what becomes of the two characters who clash in the end, as they end up stranded in another reality with a trickster figure trying to get them to resolve their differences.
Every week, sports teams meet for all-out competitions to see who's best. No one knows the outcome. But if you don't follow that sport or those teams, if you have no reason to feel personally engaged, how much do you care who wins?

Answer: you don't. For all it matters to you, they might as well be flipping a coin. The same principle applies to your books. If you haven't engaged your readers, they won't give a damn what happens to your armies or your characters.

To FOTS: It ain't Wheel of Time. It finishes in three books.
Robert Jordan's readers care a great deal about how that series will end. Can you say the same of your own?

[Duncan J Macdonald]

To anyone willing to consider my previous question (the longer post above, not the one to IdiotsRUs), I will paypal you $1 if you'd be willing to consider this very specific example and let me know if you think it could work as a stand-alone novel. Seriously, I need the feedback :D

First five responses only :)


You mean that after dragging the reader through all that exposition, and finally getting to some decisive action, you break it off at the climax, and transport your main characters to some completely arbitrary alternate reality that hasn't previously been a part of the story?
SoloArtist,
What TNH said. Really. For me, that's a Book-Meets-Wall moment, and I freely admit to being a Robert Jordan fan. (Yes, I know. But the orderlies do let most of the care-packages through these days. They will even loosen the straps if I ask nicely enough.)

So, no, it doesn't work as a stand-alone. Perhaps as the first third (but no more) of a novel. Like TNH, I expect a resolution, and like FOTS I read for entertainment.

[T. Nielsen Hayden]

And believe me, you wouldn't want Duncan throwing your book at the wall. It'd probably go straight through the drywall.

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

.

[IdiotsRUs]

Could work ( depending as always on execution)

But as noted above, the trickster / alternate reality should be foreshadowed throughout book one before it actually occurs so you don't give your reader a WTF!! moment.

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

.

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

.

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

.

[IdiotsRUs]

A plot twist should be a 'I shoulda seen this coming but it was done so cleverly that I was misdirected'

Not 'where in the F*** did that come from?'

Think Sixth Sense or Lucky Number Slevin - it was signposted the whole way through. Even if you didn't get the signposts, it made sense when you got the reveal because you remembered them. It wasn't just 'oh and stuff just turned up'


spiritual can of whoop ass


Stone Cold as God. I would soooo buy that :D

[FOTSGreg]

TNH & DJM, Robert Jordan's readers care a great deal about how that series will end. Can you say the same of your own?

Forgive me. I did not intend to insult Jordan's fans in any fashion. He has, after all, legions of them just as Terry Brooks does. It was just a comment that he (and Brooks) left many fans wondering when the hell he was ever going to wrap the series up (and then dying before it was done - something that was definitely not Jordan's fault).

My point, SoloArtist, is that each and every single book MUST stand on its own. This applies more to a newbie author than it does to a tried and true old timer and someone the publisher knows is a professional and who they can count on to sell books.

They WILL NOT take the same risk with you as they would with Jordan, Brooks, MacDonald, or several dozen others - not unless your book is very, VERY good and still stands alone.

[BriMaresh]

There's a difference between a plot twist and pulling the rug out from underneath the readers' feet. The thing with a twist is that it seems plausible and reasonable after it happens--obvious, even though it comes out of nowhere--retrospectively. We feel like we COULD have seen it coming and didn't, rather than that the author pulled it out of nowhere as an easy answer to a plot problem.

And for the record? If the book just sort of stops and says "continued in book two," rather than having some sort of resolution, I will almost never get the second part.

[AngelaA]

Don't do it!

As tempting as it is, it only works for a few writers and they probably already had agents before they wrote the cliff-hanger.

[NeuroFizz]

The main problem I see with new and developing writers embarking on a trilogy (why is it always a trilogy?) is constructing it so the final book is the grand crown of the series.

Here is how I think a trilogy should be written, and it differs from the above in a rather subtle issue of construction.

The very first book should be written as the most important book in the trilogy, as if there will not be two more. Period.

Once that book is accepted for publication, the second book should be written (or re-written) to be the most important book in the trilogy.

Once the second book is accepted, then and only then should the final book be written (or re-written) to be the most important book in the trilogy.


If you don't get what I'm trying to say, maybe (in my opinion, of course) you have no business writing a trilogy.

[James D. Macdonald]

I think that SoloArtist should finish his book(s). All the way the The End. Revise and rewrite. Edit the fudge out of it. Make it as good as he can.

Then write another book. Then another.

For the rest of his life.

Nothing teaches us how to write a novel so much as does the writing of a novel.

[T. Nielsen Hayden]

FOTSGreg, I'll forgive you if you like, but there was no offense given or taken.

Here's my best explanation for why fantasy series tend to grow in the telling, in three easy steps. First, it's easier to open out and elaborate new plot threads than it is to weave them back in and finish them off in a satisfactory fashion, when it comes time for the story to narrow down to its conclusion. Second, authors who write epic fantasy tend to stretch their abilities to the limit, trying to make it the best work they can possibly create. When they finish the midbook and start in on the conclusion, they often find the work's grown a tad unwieldy -- just a little bit bigger around than they can reach. Third, when authors aren't in complete control of their process, they tend to run long.

Another way to explain it is that they didn't know there was so much story there to tell until they got to telling it.

SoloArtist, you will of course do as you think best, but Jim's advice is very good, and so is NeuroFizz's.

[dragonjax]

They WILL NOT take the same risk with you as they would with Jordan, Brooks, MacDonald, or several dozen others - not unless your book is very, VERY good and still stands alone.

That's another reason to have books in a series stand on their own: you never know when a series will be canceled -- it could happen before the overall series arc is concluded. Sad, but very much a possibility.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

TNH & DJM, Robert Jordan's readers care a great deal about how that series will end. Can you say the same of your own?

Forgive me. I did not intend to insult Jordan's fans in any fashion.
No insult, no worries.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

If this worked wrt having a conflict resolved, it's that the two princes do in fact meet, fight, and then go on to resolve their differences by the end. The reader might assume that if there is a book 2, these two go on to try to help their people resolve their differences with each other.
I might or I might not.
Uncle Jim has mentioned the following before: Go to a bookstore and observe the way the customers choose books. The amount of time that they spend choosing a book is the amount of time your work has to sell itself to them.

I mentioned earlier that I read for entertainment. Based on what you've said later in the thread,
There will be philosophical points made along the way, and there will be religious and historical parallels along the way. If the reader only wants cheap action that doesn't make you think about anything at all, then he won't like this book. But he's not my target audience. My target audience wants to be entertained by a good story, and doesn't mind the parallels to our world which make one think about the tragic stupidity of the human race.
then I am not your target audience. I enjoy my cheap action where I don't have to think.
And with that, I'll bow out.

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

.

[Alphabeter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alphabeter http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3935492#post3935492)
As for novels, I don't know of a writer yet who has just one book about their characters, story or world.

To Kill A Mockingbird, Harper Lee

Harper Lee has been quoted as saying she has written other work but that she is afraid it will never live up to TKAM and it will not be released and/or published in her lifetime. Whether she still writes or not, she initially did not intend TKAM to be her only work.

The statement still stands. Harper Lee has more, she just won't share.

[ClaudiaGray]

Harper Lee has been quoted as saying she has written other work but that she is afraid it will never live up to TKAM and it will not be released and/or published in her lifetime. Whether she still writes or not, she initially did not intend TKAM to be her only work.

The statement still stands. Harper Lee has more, she just won't share.

Whether or not it applies to Harper Lee, the statement doesn't stand. There are tons of authors who create a different world and different characters for every single book; although book series are increasingly common today, that's not all that's out there.