Warning: Post includes spoilers. Text spoiled: Le Mur (The Wall) by Sartre.
So, lately I've been reading some criticism of Le Mur by Sartre -- trust me, the reason why is not interesting -- and I have now read about five times , "Well, since the narrator is telling the story, he obviously didn't die."
Okay, maybe it's just me, but I DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING. True, I didn't spend a ton of time thinking of what the end of the story would be, but even if I had, I doubt my thoughts would have included the words, "Oh, well, he's narrating, so he's obviously got to live through this." My mind just doesn't work this way.
On the other hand, I can't fault the logic there either. After all, someone had to be telling the story.
So, my question is, and I'm very interested in the varieties of answers you guys come up with, can there be posthumous narration?
Showing posts with label endings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label endings. Show all posts
Monday, December 14, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Most Important Thing
Have you ever seen the movie Secret Window with Johnny Depp? I admit, I'm a huge fan of Mr. Depp, and I think he'd very good in this. And, he gets one of my favorite lines in the movie. (No, slash that, I think he has all of my favorite lines of the movie.)
See, Johnny Depp plays Mort Rainey, an author. I'm going to skip over all the parts related to plot so as not to spoil anything, but at one point Mort explains his views on endings: "You know, the only thing that matters is the ending. It's the most important part of the story, the ending. And this one... is very good. This one's perfect." (If you want to hear Mr. Depp deliver the lines -- and I think everyone should, click here to watch the last scene. If you wish to avoid references to things that occur in the movie, watch only that which occurs in the time slow 1:25 - 1:45.)
I concur with Mr. Mort Rainey. The end, in my mind, is the most important part.
Now, I'm not going to claim that beginnings are not important. (That would be silly. That's when you establish everything and hook your reader.) And I am not about to claim that middles are allowed to be rubbish or that no one cares about them. (That would foolish. Middles are were everyone spends most of their time. They are arguably the largest portion of the book. They have to be good. If they weren't worth reading, then no one would get to the ending.) But I do think that what you really need is, what you absolutely cannot get by without is a very good ending.
Do you know why?
Because in the beginning, they can put the book down. They don't have to get started at all, if they don't want to. And while that might be unfortunate for you, as a writer, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and not everyone was going to like you anyway.
In the middle, they can not like you. They can put the book down, take breaks, or simply give it up. None of those things are particularly good for you, the author, but they are not the worst things. After all, even if the middle, one is not necessarily committed. Promises have not always been made.
But the ending. If they've made the ending, they deserve to having something good. You owe it to the reader. You promised them that you weren't going to blow it. And if you do, they'll upset, and deservedly so.
See, I view reading as a partnership. The writer, by presenting this book to you, has made assurances of its worth and general goodness. The reader, by reading, has made assurances of interest and openness to the events of the story. If you give them a bad ending, you're not holding up your end. You gave them a good most of the story (good work, you), and they got invested, just the way you'd always hoped. Now if the ending is bad, they're going to want to throw the book against the wall. And, even worse for you, they might never read anything you write ever again. And, even worse, they might convince others not to read your work either.
Why?
Because you reneged on the deal. Bad. The reader expected a satisfying ending, and they deserve it. And you should give it to them.
Now, I'm not saying that it has to be a happy ending, though we know I love those. I am, however, saying that it should wrap things up, at least most things. If it leaves all sorts of things hanging out there, that's not finishing, that's stopping. That's not the same.
Someone should make it out alive. (Yes, we've heard me say this before.) Why do I say that? Because if every single person the reader has been following throughout the book dies, then you're gonna have to take a few pages to explain to the reader why anything you just wrote matters. And, trust me, if no one is alive to be impacted, that's a hard things to do.
The ending should be foreseeable and physically possible. I do not mean that you have to make it obvious -- that would be much less fun. However, the reader should have a snowball's shot in hell of understanding how it all happened. For example, if it's a murder mystery, don't make the doer some person the reader's never heard of and the weapon and motive should have been something the reader could recognize. Otherwise, why'd you bother bringing them along for the ride?
The ending is what I read books for. While I care about how they get there (in the stories I read, that is often the part that changes), I expect a good resolution. Otherwise, I might just throw your book against the wall.
Tell me, how do you feel about endings? What do you find to be the most important part? Do you share my fandom of Johnny Depp?
See, Johnny Depp plays Mort Rainey, an author. I'm going to skip over all the parts related to plot so as not to spoil anything, but at one point Mort explains his views on endings: "You know, the only thing that matters is the ending. It's the most important part of the story, the ending. And this one... is very good. This one's perfect." (If you want to hear Mr. Depp deliver the lines -- and I think everyone should, click here to watch the last scene. If you wish to avoid references to things that occur in the movie, watch only that which occurs in the time slow 1:25 - 1:45.)
I concur with Mr. Mort Rainey. The end, in my mind, is the most important part.
Now, I'm not going to claim that beginnings are not important. (That would be silly. That's when you establish everything and hook your reader.) And I am not about to claim that middles are allowed to be rubbish or that no one cares about them. (That would foolish. Middles are were everyone spends most of their time. They are arguably the largest portion of the book. They have to be good. If they weren't worth reading, then no one would get to the ending.) But I do think that what you really need is, what you absolutely cannot get by without is a very good ending.
Do you know why?
Because in the beginning, they can put the book down. They don't have to get started at all, if they don't want to. And while that might be unfortunate for you, as a writer, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and not everyone was going to like you anyway.
In the middle, they can not like you. They can put the book down, take breaks, or simply give it up. None of those things are particularly good for you, the author, but they are not the worst things. After all, even if the middle, one is not necessarily committed. Promises have not always been made.
But the ending. If they've made the ending, they deserve to having something good. You owe it to the reader. You promised them that you weren't going to blow it. And if you do, they'll upset, and deservedly so.
See, I view reading as a partnership. The writer, by presenting this book to you, has made assurances of its worth and general goodness. The reader, by reading, has made assurances of interest and openness to the events of the story. If you give them a bad ending, you're not holding up your end. You gave them a good most of the story (good work, you), and they got invested, just the way you'd always hoped. Now if the ending is bad, they're going to want to throw the book against the wall. And, even worse for you, they might never read anything you write ever again. And, even worse, they might convince others not to read your work either.
Why?
Because you reneged on the deal. Bad. The reader expected a satisfying ending, and they deserve it. And you should give it to them.
Now, I'm not saying that it has to be a happy ending, though we know I love those. I am, however, saying that it should wrap things up, at least most things. If it leaves all sorts of things hanging out there, that's not finishing, that's stopping. That's not the same.
Someone should make it out alive. (Yes, we've heard me say this before.) Why do I say that? Because if every single person the reader has been following throughout the book dies, then you're gonna have to take a few pages to explain to the reader why anything you just wrote matters. And, trust me, if no one is alive to be impacted, that's a hard things to do.
The ending should be foreseeable and physically possible. I do not mean that you have to make it obvious -- that would be much less fun. However, the reader should have a snowball's shot in hell of understanding how it all happened. For example, if it's a murder mystery, don't make the doer some person the reader's never heard of and the weapon and motive should have been something the reader could recognize. Otherwise, why'd you bother bringing them along for the ride?
The ending is what I read books for. While I care about how they get there (in the stories I read, that is often the part that changes), I expect a good resolution. Otherwise, I might just throw your book against the wall.
Tell me, how do you feel about endings? What do you find to be the most important part? Do you share my fandom of Johnny Depp?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Is That The Only Ending?
Today, I was listening to The Mystery of Edwin Drood and enjoying the alternate endings. That got me thinking about how I'd once heard the movies used to come with alternate endings so you never knew what to expect (the movie Clue actually has 3 endings), and about other musicals with alternate endings (Clue: The Musical, 216 possible endings. Now isn't that a lot of options). And I got to wondering, why don't books come with alternate endings.
Wouldn't it be fun if, say, a murder mystery came with alternate endings depending on who you really wanted to be the killer? Or maybe they just say Options A,B,and C. I, personally, would enjoy having a chance to read the book three different ways.
Me, I've never thought of alternate endings to my stories. I always knew before I got down to the business how the story was going to end. (Somewhat easier for me than for others, maybe, since I tend towards happy endings.) But, if I had two endings I liked equally, I might write both and see how it goes.
How do you feel about the idea of alternate endings in books? Would you ever write extra endings to one of your works? Are there books with alternate endings?
Wouldn't it be fun if, say, a murder mystery came with alternate endings depending on who you really wanted to be the killer? Or maybe they just say Options A,B,and C. I, personally, would enjoy having a chance to read the book three different ways.
Me, I've never thought of alternate endings to my stories. I always knew before I got down to the business how the story was going to end. (Somewhat easier for me than for others, maybe, since I tend towards happy endings.) But, if I had two endings I liked equally, I might write both and see how it goes.
How do you feel about the idea of alternate endings in books? Would you ever write extra endings to one of your works? Are there books with alternate endings?
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Okay, That's Not An Ending
I can readily admit that the chances that someone has read Anne of Green Gables are dramatically increased by being Canadian and, you know, female. However, I'm going to reference it anyway.
About midway through the book (and, I promise this is in no way pivotal to the plot, so it's not a spoiler), Anne and her friends form a writing club. Anne is very good, and her friends do okay, though they all have their faults. Each girl's writing had a unique 'flaw.' The one that I best remember was that of Diana Berry, Anne's best friend. Diana was forever having new characters appear in her stories, and she never knew what to do with them after a while, so she just killed them all off.
I remember this now, because it seems to me that some people cannot resist writing the ending where they kill off every character. I've seen it at the end of more than a few critically acclaimed movies (I won't name names, because that would be unfair spoiling) and everyone left the movie feeling a bit unsatisfied.
Why do I take issue with this? It is not an ending.
True, at that point, the story has come to an end. However, just because the writer stopped writing -- and yes, if you've offed your entire cast of characters, you will have to stop writing -- that doesn't mean that anything has actually been ended. Nothing got accomplished.
If the books ends with all of the characters dead and none of the plot resolved, it never "finished" as things were. It just stopped. And that's just annoying. Think about it from the perspective of the reader. The reader doesn't know what came of the plot arcs the character was involved in at the point of their demise. The reader has no sense that the events of the plot mattered since there's no one alive to be impacted by what occurred. Why should they have cared about any of this? You'll leave the reader with the feeling that they've wasted their time.
The reader should never feel like they've wasted their time. If you leave the reader feeling as if you've stolen 15+ hours of his or her life, then they won't recommend your books to anyone else -- except to maybe, you know, people they hate -- and they won't pick up any of your other writing. That's bad.
So, I guess the moral of the story is, find something to do with the characters other than bumping them off. After all, just because you've got them off the stage, doesn't mean the audience has forgotten about them or what they were doing before their tragic and untimely demise.
All characters deserve a chance at a full and realistic life. Sure, some characters must die. And, if they must die, by all means, kill them. I'm not advocating peace and long life for all characters here. I'm just saying, they don't all have to die. Not during the book, at any rate.
Does this sort of ending bug you, or is that just me? Do you sometimes off characters when you don't know what to do with them anymore? What do you do with characters who like to hang around when you're done with them?
About midway through the book (and, I promise this is in no way pivotal to the plot, so it's not a spoiler), Anne and her friends form a writing club. Anne is very good, and her friends do okay, though they all have their faults. Each girl's writing had a unique 'flaw.' The one that I best remember was that of Diana Berry, Anne's best friend. Diana was forever having new characters appear in her stories, and she never knew what to do with them after a while, so she just killed them all off.
I remember this now, because it seems to me that some people cannot resist writing the ending where they kill off every character. I've seen it at the end of more than a few critically acclaimed movies (I won't name names, because that would be unfair spoiling) and everyone left the movie feeling a bit unsatisfied.
Why do I take issue with this? It is not an ending.
True, at that point, the story has come to an end. However, just because the writer stopped writing -- and yes, if you've offed your entire cast of characters, you will have to stop writing -- that doesn't mean that anything has actually been ended. Nothing got accomplished.
If the books ends with all of the characters dead and none of the plot resolved, it never "finished" as things were. It just stopped. And that's just annoying. Think about it from the perspective of the reader. The reader doesn't know what came of the plot arcs the character was involved in at the point of their demise. The reader has no sense that the events of the plot mattered since there's no one alive to be impacted by what occurred. Why should they have cared about any of this? You'll leave the reader with the feeling that they've wasted their time.
The reader should never feel like they've wasted their time. If you leave the reader feeling as if you've stolen 15+ hours of his or her life, then they won't recommend your books to anyone else -- except to maybe, you know, people they hate -- and they won't pick up any of your other writing. That's bad.
So, I guess the moral of the story is, find something to do with the characters other than bumping them off. After all, just because you've got them off the stage, doesn't mean the audience has forgotten about them or what they were doing before their tragic and untimely demise.
All characters deserve a chance at a full and realistic life. Sure, some characters must die. And, if they must die, by all means, kill them. I'm not advocating peace and long life for all characters here. I'm just saying, they don't all have to die. Not during the book, at any rate.
Does this sort of ending bug you, or is that just me? Do you sometimes off characters when you don't know what to do with them anymore? What do you do with characters who like to hang around when you're done with them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
