Cliffhangers

I'd be pissed off reading an ending like that. Unless it's part of a series or something and I know there's another book afterwards, but to hang the reader on the verdict? That's cruel in my opinion. BUT that's only my opinion. Others might think differently. Just go with your gut. If you think it will make the book stronger that way, go for it.

Oh hell to the no. Will hunt you down and smack you.

Ok, wouldn't. Would go to great trouble to leave absolutely scathing reviews everyplace I could find the thing, and believe me, I'd look hard.

It depends how you handle the topic of your novel. If you have 300 pages of "is he guilty or is he harmless" and don't tell me the ending, then I'll be much annoyed. But if your novel is about a brave lawyer who skillfully defends his client regardless if they are guilty or harmless, then I won't really care about the verdict. Also worth mentioning is that omitting the ending (in your case - not telling us the verdict) does not automatically create a "cliffhanger".

There are a few factors to consider. I feel if the story is a one shot deal and not a series, I would rather in this instance that the loop just be closed on it. As a reader it's unsatisfying.

On the other hand, if there are plans for a follow-up story, then by all means give me a reason to keep going! Perhaps have the reader piece together whether or not the jury ruled one way or the other. Hope that helps!

In this example, it could be interesting to leave it at that, and let your readers be the "jury", so to speak. Let them argue the case the way the jury would.

But I'm evil, so feel free to ignore me.

The few times I've seen an unresolved ending work (and I can't think of an example from a novel that isn't from a series), a main character faced a life-altering choice. Which fate did the princess choose for her lover in the short story "The Lady or the Tiger?"? Which way does the car go at the end of the movie "Unfaithful"? In both cases, there's a meaty ethical question to be chewed over and argued about by the audience.

I'm not sure a jury verdict hits that button, since there are so many ways a jury can be swayed. So I'm not convinced the mere withholding of the verdict would be a satisfying ending.

Honestly, I absolutely cannot stand a story without any real conclusion.

It has nothing to do with story structure, "the right way", etc etc.

An unsatisfactory ending will absolutely kill an entire story for me. For instance, the movie Manchester by the Sea won a bunch of awards, was nominated for a bunch more... and the ending was absolutely terrible.

Now, that doesn't mean I have to agree with the ending. I may not agree with the judgment of the jury. I don't have to. You just have to present a compelling reason for why the jury came to the conclusion it did.

A satisfying ending isn't one that has to end on a positive or agreeable note. For me, it has to come to a logical conclusion of the story- good or bad. That is satisfying to me.

I don't really like cliffhangers in general, but if your story is compelling enough up to then I probably wouldn't mind not knowing the jury verdict. I'd probably have made up my own mind by then anyway.

I would be annoyed by it, even if it's part of a series. I want the story in that book to be finished. If I have to buy another book to find out what happens, I'll be really angry and probably never buy another book by you again.

If it's sold as 2 or more books that make up one story, so I know from the start it's only half (or one third or whatever) of the story, then that's different, although I'd probably have to have someone very strongly recommend it before I'd buy the first book (seeing as it's 2 or 3 times the investment to get the whole story). Or if the first installment's free I might read it to see if I want to buy the rest of it. BUT only when it's very clear from the start that that's what the deal is.

That's not to say every single loose end needs to be tied up, especially when it's a series, and I like it when there's a story arc to the whole series. But the main plot of each book does need to come to a satisfactory conclusion by the end of each book in the series, i.e. each book is a standalone story in its own right.

tooloo said:

For a more specific example – Say the novel alternates between the suspect’s narration of events and the court trial. Some side concerns about police corruption, crazy but harmless character physiological state, and lots of circumstantial evidence. There are very convincing arguments that the suspect is the murderer, and a side that it is just as convincing that they could have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. The novel ends with the judge asking the jury for their verdict.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I write psych thrillers, and I've dealt with three cliffhangers. The ideal situation for me is a network of plots: a few that are offered closure in the 1st novel, then others that bounce and twist through book one into book two and offered closure there.

At the moment it feels as though you're not offering any closure for the reader, no matter how small here, and the reader could feel cheated. You need that delicate psych-play with the readers that shows you can satisfy them on a micro and a macro level, and keep them wanting to read. E.g., it could be the verdict is given (closure), but a member of the jury receives something that throws all of his verdict out of the water, and the reader is faced with if the member of the jury loathes the guilty enough to not say anything and bury the evidence. But for that to be an overall arc for the series, I'd have to have more foreshadowing on jury members, the psych-play they're involved/being put through, just who would be chosen (and why) when it comes to a cliffhanger like that, and of course, clues towards who might be messing with their heads like that.

tooloo said:

I’ve partly been inspired by some of the bigger crime cases that receive national attention. Regardless of the verdict of a jury, people always have opinions on whether they think someone is guilty or not. Ultimately, does a verdict really matter?

Click to expand...

If an Agatha Cristie novel finished with Poirot gathering the suspects and telling us that they all had a motive, but then the book ends without us learning who was guilty and who was harmless, then that would be annoying. So, yes, depending on how the book is written, the verdict can really matter.

Gone With the Wind ends with everything utterly unresolved, but a new confidence and maturity starting to appear inside the central protagonist. Absolutely the same case with Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities, and many others. If the emphasis of a story is character growth, everything else is a prop working for that purpose.

...If the emphasis of the story is the plot, then it needs resolution, with a satisfying climax, and preferably a bit of an afterglow beyond that.

Okay, Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion by Dan Simmons are one of my favourite science fiction stories ever.

No, that wasn't bad grammar. They are one story. Not two separate books, but one story split up. And when I got to the end of that first book and nothing in that wonderful narrative had wrapped itself up? I was frothing. And I did leave a scathing review, even though I got the next book and read it too.

I do love those books as one complete story, but it did piss me off to discover I'd bought a book that wasn't complete. It's okay if there's something left unfinished, but there'd better be some kind of resolution or I haven't gotten what I paid for.

To me, the whole point of a cliffhanger is to make the reader want to know what happens next and turn the page, so generally there's nothing at all wrong with cliffhangers, but at the end of a book (or a film) I hate them.

JCornelius said:

Gone With the Wind ends with everything utterly unresolved,

Click to expand...

The main plot did got resolved - MC starts with chasing a man who doesn't return her affection, her actions throughout the book are guided by this and at the end she gives up the chase. The main plot is not "MC's life", so it doesn't have to include everything that happens to the MC. The ending was not a cliffhanger, it just showed there's room for more things to happen.

The only cliffhanger ending I might enjoy would be something like Inception where you weren't sure exactly if the mc ever left the reality in his mind.

Testome said:

The only cliffhanger ending I might enjoy would be something like Inception where you weren't sure exactly if the mc ever left the reality in his mind.

Click to expand...

A cliffhanger well done. I think it's because it was a satisfying ending either way. Perhaps that's the secret to a successful cliffhanger...

Somewhere back in time... I heard someone say that the best written novels are the ones where after turning the last page, you wonder what the characters were doing on their next day. I try to keep that in mind when I write.

As far as tooloo's example - I wouldn't do that because I think it would really tick off my readers, and make them much less likely to read any of my work again.

tooloo said:

Just wanted to get some thoughts about ending a novel with a cliffhanger, specifically, a cliffhanger in a physiological thriller?

I’ve always enjoyed open ended ideas that are left up to the reader’s interpretation, but I also know that cliffhangers can be annoying and a huge turnoff. How do you feel about cliffhangers? What makes a cliffhanger good or bad?

For a more specific example – Say the novel alternates between the suspect’s narration of events and the court trial. Some side concerns about police corruption, crazy but harmless character physiological state, and lots of circumstantial evidence. There are very convincing arguments that the suspect is the murderer, and a side that it is just as convincing that they could have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. The novel ends with the judge asking the jury for their verdict.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

tooloo said:

If I went in this direction, that would be my intent. I’ve partly been inspired by some of the bigger crime cases that receive national attention. Regardless of the verdict of a jury, people always have opinions on whether they think someone is guilty or not. Ultimately, does a verdict really matter? Guilty people can get away with their crimes and innocent people can be convicted.

I definitely can understand how that would cause some frustration to not give some closure though.

Click to expand...

It would piss me off and I'd feel like I wasted my time reading the story. I'd be ok with an ending that left it vague as to whether the character had actually committed the crime or not.

A verdict does matter, even if you think it's the wrong verdict - it tells you how the character's going to be spending their life, and if you care at all about the character (and I wouldn't read the book if I didn't) then you care about what happens to them.

I still wouldn't like it, but I guess I'd be more ok if the story was focused on character growth and we saw all this growth and the character was at the end stating that no matter the verdict they knew they could make it, they'd be ok, there was a greater plan for them, they'd make a difference in life one way or another, in prison or not, they're rising above their circumstances...

CJ

tooloo said:

The novel ends with the judge asking the jury for their verdict.

Click to expand...

As long as the cliffhanger is not meant to sell the next book in a series, it boils down to personal choice.

-cb

A cliffhanger as described by tooloo would be incredibly frustrating. It feels like a copout on behalf of the author - "Hey, I'm not going to go to the trouble of resolving this issue. I'm going to leave it up to you, the reader, who I cleverly lured along under the pretense that this was an actual story with a conclusion."

"Does a verdict really matter?" Did the George Zimmerman verdict matter? Did the O.J. verdict matter? Of course they did. Ask anyone who's ever been on trial, or anyone who saw their abuser on trial. It's not the whole story, but it's definitely a part of it.

Just asking, but what would be the point of not resolving the plot for the reader? Just my personal viewpoint, but I wouldn't like it. In fact, that's the reason I never bothered to see the movie Clue. I figured that if the writer couldn't be bothered to resolve the plot, why should I?

MAS said:

I figured that if the writer couldn't be bothered to resolve the plot, why should I?

Click to expand...

That would be more an argument about the artistic value of the work as a whole. It may present a "slice of life" and as such it focuses on the things like characters, insights, morals etc rather than "what happened in the end". In the case of OP's example, it very much depends how the story is handled. It can be very true to life type of story with great psychological insights on human nature. Then we won't really need to know the ending. Ambiguity can be a theme.