- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 4,826
- Reaction score
- 1,954
- Location
- The Sticks
- Website
- growingupwolf.blogspot.com
It would piss me off whether there was a series. King did the Mist very well, but it still pissed me off.
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?
Just wanted to get some thoughts about ending a novel with a cliffhanger, specifically, a cliffhanger in a physiological thriller?
I don't believe open-ended ideas and cliffhangers equate. You can have a story without a cliffhanger ending and have questions left at the end that the reader has to fill in for themselves. A cliffhanger is entirely different, in my mind. It leaves the reader unsatisfied and wanting the next bit of information that is just not there. The only time I am alright with a cliffhanger is if it is a book in a series and I have the second book in my hands to pick up the story again. If I have to wait any length of time for the next book, that author gets a black mark on my tally sheet that may never go away. I have stopped reading an author's work over this issue. And, on rare occasion because the writing was so good, I have waited until the entire series was finished to buy and read the books without interruption. The good news for me was the next book was written. And the series eventually finished.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?
[bolding mine]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?
Let me ask this, take it in a little different direction.
Let's say you've got the first book of a planned series that ends without resolving a lot of plot points in the meta-narrative (A LOT more questions given than answered). But with that said, the micro-narrative of that one book is resolved. The story of Book 1 has a beginning, middle, and end, and doesn't feel like a cliffhanger persay, as there's a conclusion to the story in that book, but the bigger picture that spans throughout the series isn't answered in any way.
I hope that makes sense.
Let me put it an easier way, because I feel that's confusing.
Guy sends kids to another planet. They have to survive seven planets to get back home (obviously this is incredibly general). First book tells the story of them surviving planet one, but doesn't give any resolution to the bigger story. Is that a cliffhanger that would frustrate you or since there is resolution of surviving planet one, would it be okay?
JI’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?
I agree. There may be a better term for it, but I would call that a story question.What you describe is not a cliffhanger. Bladerunner - Is Decker a replicant? Maybe, maybe not, but not a cliffhanger.
I agree with you here, too. A novel should have a satisfying resolution even if it's in a series. Book #1 in a series should layout the overarching series conflict but focus on a related sub-conflict all its own. It should wrap up that sub-conflict in a satisfactory manner while possibly setting up conflict for the next novel to resolve. Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone sets up the Harry Potter series' overarching conflict (good magic folk v. evil Voldemort and his posse) but it's mainly concerned with the mystery surrounding the Sorcerer's Stone and resolves with [SPOILER ALERT] Harry having obtained the stone thereby temporarily thwarting Voldemort. The conflict with Voldemort then carries into the second book in the series, and so on.By the way, when a book ends on a true cliffhanger, a story that is meant to be resolved in the next novel, I give that book a poor rating on every site I can find and warn people that it's a scam to get them to buy the second book.
The fundamental difference seems to be "ending with a cliffhanger" v. "ending without resolving the plot." If a writer resolves the plot issue that was the main focus on the book, but ends with a cliffhanger on a new issue that arises in the 11th hour, that's entirely different from cliffhanging the plot at the end.Then of course there's Game of Thrones...
Pretty much every modern day TV series ends the season with a cliff hanger. I'm uncertain where there is a !:! correlation between television and novels. If anything I would think movies in the cinema are a closer match to novels. Look at the Star Wars series of movies, only one (that I can think of) really left things hanging.
Let me ask this, take it in a little different direction.
Let's say you've got the first book of a planned series that ends without resolving a lot of plot points in the meta-narrative (A LOT more questions given than answered). But with that said, the micro-narrative of that one book is resolved. The story of Book 1 has a beginning, middle, and end, and doesn't feel like a cliffhanger persay, as there's a conclusion to the story in that book, but the bigger picture that spans throughout the series isn't answered in any way.
I hope that makes sense.
Let me put it an easier way, because I feel that's confusing.
Guy sends kids to another planet. They have to survive seven planets to get back home (obviously this is incredibly general). First book tells the story of them surviving planet one, but doesn't give any resolution to the bigger story. Is that a cliffhanger that would frustrate you or since there is resolution of surviving planet one, would it be okay?