Weak Climaxes

[Jewel101]

My book is pretty strong in the beginning but it doesn't really climax well. It kind of fades off then something happens and then it goes down. When that something happens, i realized it wasn't really climaxing to it and it's kind of weak. And for the life of me, I can't think of how to fix it. Anyone experience climaxes that don't climax? What have to done about them?

[Pencilone]

The climax and the resolution are very important. I believe you really need to dig out a good one. Sometimes it's easier if you think of the climax and resolution first and then build up the developement to it (kind of backtracing steps). It needs to be foreshadowed, so that it's believable, but not predictable and easy to guess. The reader needs to be seriously "wowed" in the end, so he would remember your name and want to read another book by you.

You need to seriously brainstorm your ending. Use lists, or a discussion with a close friend (or with your characters). Argue with them, use free writing when you go to sleep and early morning when you wake up.:) Keep on doing it for a few days and the muse will show up.

[Tippy]

Climaxes are so important. Otherwise, the reader/viewer feels let down. But it doesn't have to send rockets into space or leave co-eds with severed heads. Climaxes can be emotional, too.

Sometimes the climax seems lessened by the ending. A good ending can strengthen the effect for the reader. One of my pet peeves (but, I'm a nobody, so keep that in mind) are endings that writers simply drop. You know the kind - where the characters were colorful, creative and intelligent all the way through the story - until the last 30 pages when they suddenly became moronic. The genius female attorney carefully hunts down every single lead - but at the end - she becomes the wimpering little girl - waiting for knight in shining armor. It makes the reader question the character's authenticity. Tie up that ending really tight.

Keep your characters 'in character' and make things really tough for them. As story-tellers, our jobs are NOT to make the reader comfortable - but to make him squirm. Don't rescue your characters as soon as you can - make them suffer. Make everything go wrong that could go wrong - and then some. Resist riding in on the white horse until you have to - and then shoot it right before it gets there. In real life we want things to go smoothly - in our books we want them to do just the opposite.

Go back to your story - read the climax. What's the worst possible thing that could happen to your protagonist? Make it happen.

Or not. I'm sure your book is tons better than mine. Just my two cents.

[zornhau]

Twist. Serve it with a twist. Give your what they need, rather than what they want. Or provide the material resolution, but change its meaning to the characters. Have the hero stand over the bleeding corpse of the bad guy and realise that he didn't really want to avenge his family; he was just putting off the grief.

[storygirl]

Oh man, I thought we were talking about something else...ok, switch mind tracks...books, books. Got it now (though I feel seriously mislead :))

The climax usually happens when your character faces his/her ultimate challenge and of course, conquers this happening. A lot of this has to do with your character's personal, internal conflict as well as the external conflict. This is when your character's every strenght and weakness is raw and exposed and tested to the max and then he/she rises above it. Conflict doesn't have to mean a battle, or war, or a fight, it's just an occurence, a defining choice that will challange all the character knows, believes, holds close to his/her heart, it must keep the reader flipping pages going, "What will he/she do now?" because it's a scenario that will define them, who they've become...and they must show strength and courage, be worthy of their staring role in your book, and to satisfy the reader.

I have the exact opposite problem. My stories climax wonderfully, I am just a tad slow in the beginning...which means I've got a lot of rewriting to do...though I'm like you and sometimes honestly don't know how to fix it without completely messing up part of the story. For me, it may honestly take days or months, but I just have to play around with it, change it, and change it again and then see how it turns out. Has anyone read your book? What have their opinions on the climax been? If others too feel it is too flat, rewrite, and have them read the ending again. You'll know when you've got the right ending for your story, you just have to keep at it and not accept less than a stellar ending from yourself.

I wish you the best of luck!

[FredCQ]

I agree with the rest of the commets here. The climax is one of the most important parts of the story. Unless you are writing something really abstract and different, your reader will be left cold by the end of the book.

[azbikergirl]

Does the climax link to the beginning? If your beginning is strong, is it because the protag's main objective is bold and clear? Is the climax weak because hero has achieved his goal too easily? What stood in his way all this time? Can that thing/event/person make one last-ditch effort to stop him?

[TeddyG]

Oh man, I thought we were talking about something else...ok, switch mind tracks...books, books. Got it now (though I feel seriously mislead :))

I have the exact opposite problem. My stories climax wonderfully, I am just a tad slow in the beginning...

Was gonna say the EXACT same thing when I read Weak Climax. But why switch tracks?!!

Am not sure a short story (I assume that is what we are talking about) has to start off real fast. Depends on the amount of words I would think. A short story of 2000 words is not the same beast as one with 10,000 words.

The climax often, I think should be surprising to the reader. That does not mean it is a good thing to suddenly pull something out of the hat which you decided not to tell the reader from the beginning. I think though the short story especially, should keep the reader guessing. Make the reader want to figure it out..where it is going...

I have seen another thread here on "show verses tell", and was not really in agreement with all that I saw. Sometimes a short story does much better in the "telling" aspect, sometimes in the "show" aspect. I think there again, it depends on the tension of the story.

I always try to remember and often fail (I admit) that the climax of a short story is alot like the real climax of the other subject. Sometimes it is starts off slow and builds up to the point where the reader just has to know...other times it is swift, intense and gives a great kick.

All depends on the story....
O'Herry in the Gift of the Magi has an incredible "climax" and if you read some of his other stories they really are slow and easy even at the end. And O'Henry was THE MASTER of the short story genre.

Think it all depends on the story, the message and the length...

my two cents on the matter...

Teddy

[maestrowork]

During the course of the story, you should have the climax in mind -- the readers might not know what the climax is, but the author should, and everything should build toward it. I know we all have dirty minds here... ;) but really, it's pretty much like sex... you build up the tension, tease the readers, build it up some more, more foreplay... until you reach that point of powerful climax... then you must calm down and let the readers breathe and slowly trail off to a denouement. In a short story, you probably won't have a lot of time for the ending so sometimes you end with the climax. But in a novel, you do have to allow the "cigarette" moment. ;)

A strong beginning convinces readers to buy your book. A strong ending convinces the readers to buy your next books.

It really is not much different than sex.

[Bufty]

Jewel, if the climax of the book is weak - and I'm assuming that you mean weak in the sense of tame or unsatisfying - what was it that drove you onward as you were writing?

[AdamH]

I took a writing class once where the professor told us that "if you are having trouble with conflict, have one of the characters pull out a gun." Reason I bring this up is that if the conflict is heightened (it doesn't have to be a gun), it'll heighten the climax, and provide a more satisfying resolution.
Now, I found that this doesn't work with every story. It all depends what your story is and what you want to accomplish with it. I've read stories that were as level as train ride. Then there were others closer to a rocket. All of them are satisfying in their own right.

[Jamesaritchie]

For me, the opening and the climax are essentially the same thing. I believe good fiction almost always follows the structure of a circle. The end connects to the beginning, like a snake swallowing its own tail.

For me, the opening of any good story, short or novel, either asks a question, poses a problem, or both. The climax then answers the question, and/or solves the problem.

But the journey from the opening to the climax is an uphill struggle. It's the long, uphill climb of a roller coaster. A struggle. A hard pull. Complications get in the way of solving the problem, tension builds, you aren't sure the hero is going to reach the top.

Then comes the big drop, the hundred foot fall straight down. That's the climax. And what it really does is answer the question or solve the problem you created way back in chapter one, and does so in an exciting or satisfying manner.

[Jamesaritchie]

During the course of the story, you should have the climax in mind -- the readers might not know what the climax is, but the author should, .

Well, I'd say the writer can have it in mind, not should. Some writers want the climax in mind, want to know how the thing ends long before they get there. Many writers do not. If I knew how a story was going to end before I reached the ending, I wouldn't write it.

[maestrowork]

Well, I'd say the writer can have it in mind, not should. Some writers want the climax in mind, want to know how the thing ends long before they get there. Many writers do not. If I knew how a story was going to end before I reached the ending, I wouldn't write it.

Then how are you going to build your tension toward that 100-foot drop if you don't have that 100-foot drop in mind? I am not saying you should KNOW exactly how your ending/climax is going to be (I don't -- I like to be surprised, too), but you should at least have the possibilities in mind and move toward it. I am talking about directions, not precise destinations. A motorist should know that he's heading west, ending up somewhere in the west coast and move toward it. Whether it's San Jose or Seattle is irrelevant (at least in the draft stage) but he must keep that general direction in mind or he will not reach that "climax" -- or in this case, a "weak," unsatisfying climax.

[azbikergirl]

Well, I'd say the writer can have it in mind, not should. Some writers want the climax in mind, want to know how the thing ends long before they get there. Many writers do not. If I knew how a story was going to end before I reached the ending, I wouldn't write it.
How does a story come full circle if you don't have the ending in mind at the beginning?

[Jamesaritchie]

How does a story come full circle if you don't have the ending in mind at the beginning?

Because the nature of the circle makes it happen. The beginning doesn't dictate the how, it dictates the where. I never want to know how a story ends, but I always know where it will end. If you have the where, you don't need the how. This is what situational writing is all about.

The trouble with knowing how a story is going to end is that it means you're pulling the story toward an ending of your choice, rather than letting the story and characters pull you toward an ending of its choice.

Good stories, and good characters, take unexpected twists and turns, and not because the writer decides to put them in. Living, breathing characters who are in a good story often want to go off their own directions.

Many beginning writers get lost trying to let the story go where it will because they don't understand the structure of fiction. They don't realize that the opening is what gives the story direction. They start the story wrong, too soon or too late, or with an opening that doesn't ask a question or pose a problem, that doesn't give the novel a place to end.

Even most selling writers who don't know fiction is generally circular still write it as if they did know. They write a chapter one that sets up the entire rest of the novel, that gives it an inevitable place to finish, but not the how.

My question would be, if you know from the start how a story is going to end, then how to you let the story twist and turn and go off in directions that lead away from the ending you have in mind?

[maestrowork]

James, I think we're just mixing semantics here. How, and where... they're related. Basically an author must know where his story ends. If it's a circular story, then you know the ending has to do with the beginning. How is not the issue, especially if the writer writes "organically." I have no idea "how" my story is going to climax and end, but I know where it is going and I'm darn sure to build it up to that end.

[Jewel101]

Was gonna say the EXACT same thing when I read Weak Climax. But why switch tracks?!!

Am not sure a short story (I assume that is what we are talking about) has to start off real fast. Depends on the amount of words I would think. A short story of 2000 words is not the same beast as one with 10,000 words.

The climax often, I think should be surprising to the reader. That does not mean it is a good thing to suddenly pull something out of the hat which you decided not to tell the reader from the beginning. I think though the short story especially, should keep the reader guessing. Make the reader want to figure it out..where it is going...

I have seen another thread here on "show verses tell", and was not really in agreement with all that I saw. Sometimes a short story does much better in the "telling" aspect, sometimes in the "show" aspect. I think there again, it depends on the tension of the story.

I always try to remember and often fail (I admit) that the climax of a short story is alot like the real climax of the other subject. Sometimes it is starts off slow and builds up to the point where the reader just has to know...other times it is swift, intense and gives a great kick.

All depends on the story....
O'Herry in the Gift of the Magi has an incredible "climax" and if you read some of his other stories they really are slow and easy even at the end. And O'Henry was THE MASTER of the short story genre.

Think it all depends on the story, the message and the length...

my two cents on the matter...

Teddy

I'm sure that if it were a short story, you help would be very, very helpful. But this is a novel I'm talking about. I did post this in 'Writing Novels' right? :idea:ah yes i did.
(excuse me if i'm a bit snappy, early morning, little sleep) :crazy:

[azbikergirl]

James, I think we're just mixing semantics here. How, and where... they're related. Basically an author must know where his story ends. If it's a circular story, then you know the ending has to do with the beginning. How is not the issue, especially if the writer writes "organically." I have no idea "how" my story is going to climax and end, but I know where it is going and I'm darn sure to build it up to that end.
I agree 100%, and I'm an outliner. When I start a story, I don't know precisely how the characters get from point A to point Z, but I do know that they get there. When I say I know how the story ends, it's because I know where the characters end up and what they have to do to resolve the initial story question/problem. To me that = "knowing how the story ends." :)

[TeddyG]

I'm sure that if it were a short story, you help would be very, very helpful. But this is a novel I'm talking about. I did post this in 'Writing Novels' right? :idea:ah yes i did.
(excuse me if i'm a bit snappy, early morning, little sleep) :crazy:

You are totally right, and my apologies..
I am in a different time zone...and I was suffering the "not seeing straight" syndrome when I read the thread...

My apologies

[fallenangelwriter]

Maestro- i think there is a difference between how and where. if i understand james correctly, he knows the general situation that will exist at the end- what the answer ot the question, whether the character makes peace with his inner demons, etc. what he doesn't know is exactly what events lead to that place. in other words, what he knows ahead of time isn't the climax, but the denouement.

personally, i plot mine in advance most of the time, but it can work both ways.


.

My question would be, if you know from the start how a story is going to end, then how to you let the story twist and turn and go off in directions that lead away from the ending you have in mind?

first of all, although i have an outline, i'm not wedded to it, and so i can let it evolve organically, with a sense of direction. I know what the climax will be from the start, but as i write i adjust the eventual ending to better fit the developing characters.

beside,s surprisingly few twists lead away form the ending. i don't hav ehte middle of the book planned ahaead, so it can twist and turn however it likes until i gather the threads up into an ending.

[Tiaga]

James, I think we're just mixing semantics here. How, and where... they're related.

So you are saying that Jamesaritchie is anti-semantic...http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Jamesaritchie]

James, I think we're just mixing semantics here. How, and where... they're related. Basically an author must know where his story ends. If it's a circular story, then you know the ending has to do with the beginning. How is not the issue, especially if the writer writes "organically." I have no idea "how" my story is going to climax and end, but I know where it is going and I'm darn sure to build it up to that end.

It does sound like it's mostly a matter of semantics, but let me put it this way.

For me, a good opening problem is one the character cannot ignore. Let's say he's accused of murder, and is on the run, to use a tired old problem.

I don't need or want to know how he goes about proving his innocence, and I don't need or want to know who the real killer is. I want him to find out who the killer is by doing this or that. When he does this or that, the results will determine what it is he does next. How that works out will determine what he does after that. Unexpected complications along the way will also play a big part in what he does next. I don't lead the character through the process of solving the murder, I follow him through the process.

It's the same way a homicide detective works. He doesn't know who the killer is, doesn't know whether or not he'll even find him, or whether or not someone will try to kill him in the process of looking. He simply takes one step at a time, follows the leads wherever they take him.

When I'm writing one page, I have no clue what will happen on the next. I only know that the character will lead me right back to the beginning, if I let him.

Openings can come in all sorts of forms, with all sorts of questions and problems, and sub-questions and sub-problems. They can be physical problems, psychological problems, family problems, etc. Questions can be person (Will his girlfriend return, does he have cancer), or earth shaking, but they must be important enough that the character must answer or solve them before he can get on with his life. They can't be ignored in hopes they'll just go away.

I have no clue what is going to happen next at any point in the story. Each thing the character does, and each thing that happens to him when he does it, determines what happens next. As E.L. Doctorow puts it:

"Writing a novel is like driving a car at night. You can see only as far as your headlights, but you can make the whole trip that way."

You certainly can, if you know where you're going.

[Celia Cyanide]

Hello, Jewel, I feel your pain. I have had problems like this in writing before, and I will let you know what to keep in mind that has always helped me.

First of all, I agree that it's important to know how your story will end when you start writing. I've heard that Ray Bradbury claims he has no idea where his stories are going when he starts them. Now, even if I did believe that, it doesn't change the fact that most people are not as lucky as he is. I feel that it is possible to write a good story without having it planned out beforehand. However, I believe that when I don't like how my story ends, it usually means I should have planned better. So what's wrong with planning? It doesn't hurt.

Your climax should have everything you want your reader to know after reading your book. What is the last image you want people to see? What do you want them to take away from reading your story? What kind of story are you trying to tell? What is really the point? If you don't know, read through the rest of it and figure it out. If you know the ending, it can strengthen the rest of the book.

Have you had a friend, or fellow writer read your book? Do other people think the climax is weak? Or is this just a concern you have about it yourself? It's possible that your climax does exactly what it's supposed to do, only you don't realize it, because you're too busy worrying, "Is this exciting and surprising enough?" when that type of thing is not really what you need. It's possible that you have an ending that is perfect and satisfying for your reader. You just don't realize it yet.

I had the same situation with a beginning I wrote last week. I'm working on a novel about a woman who gave up her dream of being a novelist, and I'm sitting around worrying that I don't have a hook like the beginning of an Elmore Leonard novel! When I shared it with my class, everyone agreed that it had them wondering what was happening next, and that it was completely appropriate to the type of story I was trying to tell.

[Danger Jane]

Is your conflict strong? That could be the problem.


You might be building up to something big in the beginning, which you say is strong, but then petering off because you aren't yet sure what that big event is. There doesn't need to be a single cataclysmic event or anything--there can be many of them--but make sure there's some kind of turning point. You might've lost yourself in the midst of all the compelling build-up, and now you can't figure out what it is that you're building up to.

It also could be that you're too close and critical with regards to the action.


And obviously take it with like a couple grains of salt, because I'm unpublished, and probably will remain so for like another million years.

[Jamesaritchie]

First of all, I agree that it's important to know how your story will end when you start writing. I've heard that Ray Bradbury claims he has no idea where his stories are going when he starts them. Now, even if I did believe that, it doesn't change the fact that most people are not as lucky as he is. I feel that it is possible to write a good story without having it planned out beforehand. .

It's not only Ray Bradbury, it's a whole host of writers. It's the way a great many of us write as a matter of course. It's a method of writing, and a method used by thousands of very good writers.

It doesn't have anything to do with luck, it's simply the way an awful lot of us write. If I know where a story is going when I start it, that's a sure sign that I need to discard that story and write another one.

[ecouteuse]

The trouble with knowing how a story is going to end is that it means you're pulling the story toward an ending of your choice, rather than letting the story and characters pull you toward an ending of its choice.

My perception of this point is that you're making an a prior assumption that a writer isn't capable of doing both simulatneously. (You may not be; that's just my impression.) Some are able to do so. That isn't a function of talent, though, just a function of how their mind works.

When I conceived of my current main character, inherent within her character and drive were some of the choices she was going to make because of the duality of who she is and the particular problems she faced. I could see her clearly, though she still surprises me in wonderful ways.

I would also make the point that if the climax isn't very satisfying, it isn't a function of whether or not things were made to be difficult enough for the character to overcome, though I have gotten that advice, too, from many a writing professor. I would argue, instead, that the climax isn't as relevant to the main character as it needs to be. A climax can be a very small moment in someone's life when the revelation is so personal, so strong, that the main character's world view shifts, or their goals are achieved or not achieved in some spectacularly personal way that it matters to the bone. It matters so much to them, they feel it richly, and therefore, the climax will feel satisfying for having reached that emotional pinnacle.

[Jamesaritchie]

My perception of this point is that you're making an a prior assumption that a writer isn't capable of doing both simulatneously. (You may not be; that's just my impression.) Some are able to do so. That isn't a function of talent, though, just a function of how their mind works.

When I conceived of my current main character, inherent within her character and drive were some of the choices she was going to make because of the duality of who she is and the particular problems she faced. I could see her clearly, though she still surprises me in wonderful ways.

I would also make the point that if the climax isn't very satisfying, it isn't a function of whether or not things were made to be difficult enough for the character to overcome, though I have gotten that advice, too, from many a writing professor. I would argue, instead, that the climax isn't as relevant to the main character as it needs to be. A climax can be a very small moment in someone's life when the revelation is so personal, so strong, that the main character's world view shifts, or their goals are achieved or not achieved in some spectacularly personal way that it matters to the bone. It matters so much to them, they feel it richly, and therefore, the climax will feel satisfying for having reached that emotional pinnacle.

I'm not convinced a writer is able to both pull and be pulled, guide and be guided. I may be wrong, but very darned few of the writers I like do anything other than let the story and characters do the pulling.

As for climaxes, yes, in some novels a climax may be only an intensely personal revelation. I don't think this makes any difference, but it had better be a difficult trip getting there or no one will care. Easy trips and easy solutions just do not make readers want to keep reading. A climax isn't any good at all, if a reader stops reading before he gets there.

When things come easy for the main character, they get extremely difficult for the reader. In this, I agree fully with your writing professors. The climax, whatever it is, does mean far more if the character had a very difficult time getting there.

But relevancy is everything, and I believe the best way to make a climax relevant to the character is to let the character and the story dictate the climax, rather than having the writer do so.

We each have to write our own way, and what works, works. But for me, there is a difference. When I find a writer I really enjoy reading, it's almost inevitable that he writes the way I describe. Which really only means that I write the kind of novels I most enjoy reading, and I write them in the same way the writers I enjoy reading most write them.

Your milage will certainly vary.

[azbikergirl]

This might be better off in another thread, but...
I'm not convinced a writer is able to both pull and be pulled, guide and be guided. I may be wrong, but very darned few of the writers I like do anything other than let the story and characters do the pulling.
James, do you tend to have only one POV character? I'm gonna try this "headlight" writing for NaNoWriMo and see what happens. :)

[James D. Macdonald]

I always know where a story is going before I start it.

Once, I think, the story even went there.

[Fishmonkey]

Weak climax: one solution could be upping the stakes, if deepening of the conflict is not an option. That is, the same events may take place, but their meaning for the characters would change. For example, if a guy is looking for his keys and then finds them, that's pretty weak. If he's looking for the keys because they open the locked door of a car that is sinking into the ocean trapping his favorite wife inside, that's another matter.

Hope this is helpful.

[ecouteuse]

As for climaxes, yes, in some novels a climax may be only an intensely personal revelation. I don't think this makes any difference, but it had better be a difficult trip getting there or no one will care. Easy trips and easy solutions just do not make readers want to keep reading. A climax isn't any good at all, if a reader stops reading before he gets there.

Agreed. My point was not that "making it hard for the character" is bad advice - it's not. It's good advice. However, piling on really bad stuff without it mattering to the character can end up with just as "eh" a climax as doing nothing. The key is always going to be in "how will this matter to the character, why do they care?" Which is something upon which I think we agree.

But relevancy is everything, and I believe the best way to make a climax relevant to the character is to let the character and the story dictate the climax, rather than having the writer do so.

I crack up a bit at this, but because I tend to believe the characters are completely real and when they have their reasons, they dictate the story... but I tried to explain that to my (former screenwriting) agent once. She kept asking me about something in the story that she didn't understand (turns out, everyone else reading it "got" it.) Anyway, she'd ask something, and I'd say, "Well, you see, Frank said such and such, and therefore blah blah blah." And then she'd ask another question, and I'd say, "But on page X, Frank (whatever the action was which explained her question.)" And she'd ask another one. About ten minutes into this, with my every answer being from the character's point of view, she smacked her desk a few times and leaned forward and said, "Toni! You DO know that Frank isn't REAL, don't you? He's a CHARACTER! You MADE HIM UP."

I remember blinking for a moment, trying to absorb the notion that Frank was fictional instead of someone who was flesh and blood, whose motivations were born from his own tragedy. It was really weird to remember he wasn't real.

So yes, the character and story are dictating the climax, but they're coming from the writer. So the writer is "doing so." However else you want to slice it is semantics.

We each have to write our own way, and what works, works. But for me, there is a difference. When I find a writer I really enjoy reading, it's almost inevitable that he writes the way I describe. Which really only means that I write the kind of novels I most enjoy reading, and I write them in the same way the writers I enjoy reading most write them.


Well, yes, YMMV, and I'd be willing to be that while you can pick out the writers who definitely don't write with the characters' actions being organic (a pasted in cardboard character into an action plot, for example), I really don't think you can ever know for sure that the reverse is true. Some writers know the end they're going for and the characters spring to live whole, inhabiting that story, and it feels organic. Others start purely with character and let them run just to see where the story will take them. I don't think there's a way to look at the finished books and know for sure which method they used.

(I like debating detail / semantics, but I mean no harm. It's nice to come across well-thought-out discussions.)

[Celia Cyanide]

It's not only Ray Bradbury, it's a whole host of writers. It's the way a great many of us write as a matter of course. It's a method of writing, and a method used by thousands of very good writers.

It doesn't have anything to do with luck, it's simply the way an awful lot of us write. If I know where a story is going when I start it, that's a sure sign that I need to discard that story and write another one.

I think it has something to do with luck. Many people can't write stories they like that start out that way.

If that works for you, that's fine. However, if someone has already written something, and doesn't think the climax works, the thing to do is go back and work it out.