I've been writing and rewriting bits of the ending of my novel and wondering about this - and it came up in the Women's Fiction group, too: how much should you tie up all the ends? My instinct is to tie up nice and neatly most of the strands of the main plot, most of the things which are going on for the main characters, but to leave hanging and to-be-guessed-at a few bits and pieces as regard sub-plots, etc. Othersiw there is so much end-tying taht the final 'big' events get lost, lose their impact...

On the other hand, I am sometimes visited by a strange desire to get every single minor character back on stage for a final bow... just in case readers think I've forgotten about them!

What do others think?

Rosy

Oh, it's so hard to judge, isn't it: ending 'properly' is the raison d'etre of storytelling, after all, and that includes all the minor characters. And yet, and yet... I tossed a coin to see which of the two of TMOL's strands would get the happy ending.

My solution, inasmuch as I have one, is similar to yours: to tie up the main plot reasonably well (i.e. whatever was the central conflict/mainspring/journey of the plot is resolved) but not provide what Cassandra in I Capture the Castle calls 'a brick-wall happy ending', where you can't imagine the characters living on after the last page. If they end by getting engaged, for example, I try to seed that it's not necessarily going to be plain sailing. I don't know if I'd ever write a sequel to anything, but I think a sense that there's a sequel to be written is no bad thing.

And I agree that if everything's tied up, as my editor put it, 'with ribbons and bows' then a) everything gets too busy in the last few chapters, and b) the powerful sense of satisfaction in the main plot's resolution is watered down. I think some characters do just have to fade out, if the main ones are to have full impact. You can always do as Michel Faber did, and write a set of short stories about those minor characters...

Emma

Spot on, Emma.

In fact, with all the characters, I think it’s good to end with a sense of continuation. Yes, the bulk of the story should be wrapped up, but you don’t want readers to think your characters cease to exist once they get to the last page.

Dee

Speaking as a reader, I think it's very much a taste thing. Some novels end neatly, with everything tied up, usually a happy ending but sometimes not - but very neat.

Some end leaving you wondering what happened next, but that can be very effective if handled well by the writer, since it can make you think about the novel for days. If not handled well by the writer it can be irritating and unsatisfying.

I tend to prefer novels which don't tie things up neatly, because real life doesn't - how could all plot and subplot resolve at the same time in real life? No-one's life is ever neatly finalised anyway. However, the main point of the story needs to have reached a conclusion of sorts, but you can be allowed to imagine what might or might not happen next.

For instance, I recently read Helen Dunmore's Talking With The Dead, which won an award (can't remember which), and I thought it was wonderful. The main storyline resolved in that what we worried would happen did happen, but what was left for the reader to think about was why exactly it happened, what it meant, and what would happen now. I genuinely thought about that novel for days after I finished reading it, because there was so much there - so many clues. But it hadn't all been spelled out.

So presumably, as a writer, you need to think about your genre and what your readers will expect and want from an ending? It could be very different things. For instance, I don't think that Helen Dunmore ending would have satisfied a Mills & Boon readership at all.

I'm just rambling really, but this is an interesting question...

Deb

I think you're very right with your 'it depends' answer, Deb.

So is it even as simple as that commercial fiction and a commercial market demands tidier endings, whereas literary novels can end in a more open-textured and enigmatic way?

Rosy

My impression is that there's a sliding scale of subtlety in the general style of the novel, and also wrt endings, as you move from the most commercial to the literary.

(Let's leave experimental out of it, cos surely the point is that it doesn't conform to any norms...?)

So the most commercial would be the most unsubtle all the way through, and with the least subtle ending - so, everything spelled out and neat. As you move along the scale towards literary I would think that typically everything becomes more and more subtle, including the ending. But if you're doing something literary, you might choose not to be subtle, because it might suit your purpose not to be. But as a general rule I'd say probably a sliding scale.

However, this is just my impression. I am very interested in how we define literary, crossover, commercial etc, but haven't yet fully found my answer. Emma and others know far more about this than I do!!

Deb

I think a book can be totally ruined by the ending. It is really important. I think the ones that risk the most are those books that choose an ending that turns everything on it's head - the twist ending. If the reader goes for it it can be very powerful, but so often I have felt shortchanged by endings like that because the danger can be that the rest of the book seems to say less and seems like just an elaborate ploy to get you to the ending.

Not sure I agree about the genre/literary thing, although perhaps it is just in the definition of the word subtle. Once you have a sophisticated and avid readership of a genre, the work can play with the format and rules and say as much through how it uses them or references them or injokes with them, as it would freed from them altogether. Obviously not all genre works do this, but the potential is there.

Personally speaking - what kind of endings do I like? Hmm. I like endings with oomph and that know why they are there and seem to have some purpose, that fit closely with the rest of the book and seem to illuminate or punctuate the themes and ideas in a resonant way, that have the BIGGEST CLIMAX (in comedy) or a big set-piece or scene that draws together all the elements and we understand why, suddenly, they are all there and that isn't totally predictable - that is important to me. I think there is a difference between level of predictability and tied upness. I think I do like a level of tied-upness but I don't like moral certainty necessarily or simplistic solutions (again depending on genre I suppose.) . I like to be taken somewhere and feel that the writer has a reason for taking me there. But I don't like predictability. If I know a hundred percent where I am going before I set out I'm not that interested. Obviously with some genres you do know, to some extent, where you are going to end up - but there can be a twist or an angle or an unpredictable part of it that makes it satisfying. Or sometimes it does not matter that the main plot takes you somewhere familiar and the twist is provided by the marginalia round the edges.

So - for me - I like mainly tied up but not in a totally predictable way and in a way that makes me think about the themes - but I don't tend to go for the total twisters. So an element of resolution and an element of twist in a balance. oo err..

Am I talking nonsense now?

What I don't like

<Added>

Umm, I seem to have stopped midflow there. I was thinking about what I don't like. I don't like it when an ending feels tacked on or seems to totally undermine what has gone before. Which is maybe why the total twist is risky. If it works it illumines everything. If it doesn't it undermines and seems like a gimmick. And yes a sense of going on is nice.

<Added>

I was thinking it would be interesting to list the books we think have got very good or satisfying endings. I would say Borderliners by Peter Hoeg, one of my favourite books ever, has a very good ending - memorable, vivid, emotionally engaging, powerful and yet sort of illuminating both the past and the future of the book at one go. A very different book and genre - the ending of Hitchhikers was brilliant. For a start it is also a beginning, and for another it is totally unexpected and leaves you hankering. And it is an ending that once you've come across it, really couldn't seem to be any other way, although beforehand seems like a crazy notion. Oh yes, and because it's a crazy notion. That works with the rest of the book too. Taking a huge blockbuster - I would say the way Shogun resolves is very interesting and fitting and yet not what you would imagine/expect from the way it is set up and that is very pleasing and presents a view of the world that has order but not as we thought and not according to our rules, maybe.

Three different genres, three good, thought-through, purposeful and emotionally satisfying endings as far as I was concerned.

I think one of my favourite openings and endings is in Clive Barker's Weaveworld.

The story opens with:

Nothing ever begins. There is no first moment; no single word or place from which this or any other story springs. The threads can always be traced back to some earlier tale, and to the tales that preceded that; though as the narrator's voice recedes the connections will seem to grow more tenuous, for each age will want the tale told as if it were of its own making.

And the beautifully mirrored endin, 700 odd pages later:

And this story, having no beginning, will have no end.

I love that.


I always go for some telling moment of resolve, or a lead in to the next story. In short stories, I favour bite. Nothing like a killer last line, though I suppose we all struggle to find them.

In Unrequited, the ending is simply:

I think I'm falling in love.

In the Antichrist one:

Arymedez shielded his eyes, and regarded Dante with astonishment.
“My child,” the prophet asked, “do you know nothing of God?”

JB

Snowy, in a rush but just wanted to say quickly...

I'm not sure genre novels are necessarily non-literary. I agree they are normally considered to be commercial, but I was specifically talking about commercial style v literary style, and I think some genre novels are written in a more literary style (I'm not saying they'd be classed actually as literary, but are further along the style spectrum than many genre novels).

Oh, and as a general rule I hate twist endings, but there are exceptions. The film The Others used it cleverly, as did one or two other psychological horror films.

Deb

Yes, I see what you are saying although when you look at something like Hitchhikers it is neither literary style nor literary content and yet very very clever and with an ending that is neither closed, nor predictable, nor neat, nor any of the things you describe. Which is great.

<Added>

Interested that JB's all seemed to reference their beginningness or endingness. I am falling in love (a beginning at the end) the two he quotes and the God one (beginning of a very huge subject perhaps? :))

Snowy

You're very astute. Unrequited begins with the prologue 'The End' and the epilogue is titled 'the Beginning'. It's an inverted love story.

The next book in the Antichrist trilogy will indeed be tackling some pretty big themes, yeah. Bitten off more than I can chew? Moi?

In other fiction, I like endings that suit the tone and have a satisfactory ring. It doesn't have to be a massive twist (though I love a good twist) but just end on a note that seems to suit the tone of the narrative. I quite liked the ending to Life of Pi, for example.

JB

My new novel is all about storytelling, and the four parts are titled Beginning, Middle, Middle, and End. I hope people will get what I mean, and won't think it looks daft.

Emma

Snowy, if you mean HGTTG then I can't really comment since it's really not my cup of tea and I've always avoided reading it. But I've been exposed to it and know something of its style, and I'd say that the genre it inhabits (not necessarily a bookseller's genre) is one where you expect to be surprised by quirky cleverness. Mills & Boon it certainly isn't.

But is it subtle? I never said commercial books couldn't be clever. I don't think subtle and clever are necessarily the same thing.

There will always be exceptions to any trend, though. So even if I was right (not saying I am - I was just speculating) that doesn't mean every novel will conform to the trend.

Deb

Rosy, coming back to you...

How subtle would you say the rest of your book is?

Deb

Well Debac sounds like you are talking about just one form of "literary fiction". In fact, I would probably argue you are talking about style rather than genre. But, of course, is the category "literary fiction" more style than genre? Might well be true.

Anyway, you neatly sidestepped my argument which was the the ending of HHGTTG was not neat or tied up such as you were arguing was the case in genre fiction. So touche, my friend!

But as you haven't read it, let's not argue about it. All grist to the mill, as they say. Also, is HHGTOG genre fiction? It maybe started one. But was it one at the time?

This is why I don't like this literary/genre debate that much. Along with the fact there is no category "fiction" for all the weirds and wonderfuls and not weirds and not wonderfuls that don't fit into anything else.

Let me draw a line in the sand here, though. As I just can't summon the enthusiasm for the genre/literary debate anymore I'm afraid. It's been done to death on WW. (Not saying I don't enjoy your thoughts there, Deb, just that if we start going down the either/or too far I find it a bit fruitless, that's all.)

But if you want to look at another genre - what about crime and detective fiction? Plenty of generic books, but lots of subtle ones too. And the fact that it is such a known form means the form can be played with. I was discussing this on my blog - but for example - the whodunnits at some point were overtaken by the whydunnits and then the sort of disturbing nastypeoplejustexistandtheydoitbutwecan'texplainwhys - very dark. All of these exist in various degrees of subtley and tied-upness and neatness, wouldn't you say?