Cliff Hangers

[dante-x]

I have been enountering the view on these forums that Cliff Hangers at the end of a novel are really a bad thing; that all novels or volumes should be complete works with no loose ends. I am pondering in my current WIP removing the cliff hanger that I originally set up. I envision it as being one of a series.

In the WIP I am dealing with a rather large scaled theme, and the cliff hanger that I am working towards is pivotal to the MCs, but not so much to the grand scheme of the realm.

What are your thoughts on this? How can cliffhangers work?

[glutton]

Well, I don't hate cliffhangers in fiction I read, for example some of the books in R.A. Salvatore's series end in cliffhangers and I still enjoy them very much. And while I do try to resolve the main plots in some fashion in my own works, I do leave some open threads- not so much immediate cliffhangers, but potential for a continuing story (eg. a surviving villian or unsolved problematic situation). For example, I leave my heroine's husband in a bad way at the end of the second book, which is dealt with in the third. However, both the battle against the villains of the book and the current conflict between the spouses does end.

For me, the problem's not so much having a cliffhanger, but going on and on so that the story never comes to a conclusion, ala those famous epic fantasy series (you know which I mean) which go on for multiple 700 page volumn without wrapping up the central conflict. Salvatore, for example, has definite story arcs within his series, which is a good thing. I have nothing against new stories with the same characters if I like them enough- I love Conan with all his scores of novels, and am already on my seventh book starring my favorite MC. But for god's sake, keep the end in sight and move on to a new story before we get bored!

To conclude, I wouldn't strongly advise against a cliffhanger if you think it would suit your story. It's just a good idea to remember that there's such a thing as endings, not that the end of a story arc is necessarily the end of that world. *Is beginning to plan the third story arc for his lovely heroine*

[Anya Smith]

I agree with James that each story within series should have a resolution.


However, before I even finished my first sci-fi story, I had ideas for another one. I wish a publisher asked me to write it, but I had none at the time. I still don't, but I'm writing book two, set in the same universe.
Anya

[Jewel101]

Originally Posted by glutton

Well, I don't hate cliffhangers in fiction I read, for example some of the books in R.A. Salvatore's series end in cliffhangers and I still enjoy them very much. And while I do try to resolve the main plots in some fashion in my own works, I do leave some open threads- not so much immediate cliffhangers, but potential for a continuing story (eg. a surviving villian or unsolved problematic situation). For example, I leave my heroine's husband in a bad way at the end of the second book, which is dealt with in the third. However, both the battle against the villains of the book and the current conflict between the spouses does end.

For me, the problem's not so much having a cliffhanger, but going on and on so that the story never comes to a conclusion, ala those famous epic fantasy series (you know which I mean) which go on for multiple 700 page volumn without wrapping up the central conflict. Salvatore, for example, has definite story arcs within his series, which is a good thing. I have nothing against new stories with the same characters if I like them enough- I love Conan with all his scores of novels, and am already on my seventh book starring my favorite MC. But for god's sake, keep the end in sight and move on to a new story before we get bored!

To conclude, I wouldn't strongly advise against a cliffhanger if you think it would suit your story. It's just a good idea to remember that there's such a thing as endings, not that the end of a story arc is necessarily the end of that world. *Is beginning to plan the third story arc for his lovely heroine*

perfect example = David Eddings and his Belgariad series (plus those that follow)

[Simon Woodhouse]

Originally Posted by glutton

And while I do try to resolve the main plots in some fashion in my own works, I do leave some open threads- not so much immediate cliffhangers, but potential for a continuing story (eg. a surviving villian or unsolved problematic situation

I think this is a better idea than a cliffhanger. Cliffhangers are ok, but if I'd just waded my way through a 700+ page book, and the main plot point still hadn't been resolved, I don't think I'd be tempted to read anymore of the series. I would feel like I was being duped, promised something and then not given it. And what's to say the same thing wouldn't happen in the next book, and the one after that, and so on.

But the publisher who has taken on one of my novels, sent me a note the other day explaining how books that are part of a series always sell more than stand-alone novels. I prefer writing stand-alone stories, but not with 'and they all lived happily ever after' endings. There are always a couple of small loose ends that could quite easily lead onto another book. I'd be wary of using all the same characters though, because I think I'd just write the same book again. I like the idea of moving the main characters from the first book to one side, and bringing forward a minor character to take their place.

[Birol]

As a reader, I dislike not having the main problem of the novel I'm reading wrapped up at the end of the book, but I dislike even more the feeling that the world I've been reading about has ended with the end of the book. I like the feeling that the characters continue on with their lives after the last page. This is not the same thing as a cliffhanger.

[dragonjax]

I can't begin to tell you how ticked off at Robert Jordan I was for years, all because after about the third book in his Wheel of Time epic, he stopped bothering to finish books before he ended them. No resolution, huge build up of plot that goes nowhere...introducing new plot elements two pages before the end of the book...grrr. Then again, he's Robert Jordan. Sheesh.

[sunandshadow]

A cliffhanger ending can make for a structurally weak beginning to the next book, because the first thing you have to do is resolve the cliffhanger, which creates a drop in dramatic tension, not the grabber first chapter you want. Personally I think the ideal ending for a book which is intended to be followed by a sequel is the revealing of some surprise or beginning of some new phase in life which suddenly opens up lots of possibilities about how the future may be different. Then to start the second book, recap this revelation and launch strongly into exploring these exciting possibilities.

[glutton]

Originally Posted by Simon Woodhouse

I'd be wary of using all the same characters though, because I think I'd just write the same book again.

I've never seen this as a problem, as long as you keep moving forward in the characters' lives. For example, say in the first book the characters seek lost knowledge and fall in love along the way... in the next they get married, have kids and try to preserve their family and lives during a major war... in the next a close friend dies and the relationship almost disintegrates while they fight a dark god... in the next they go to another country, meet a destined hero who doesn't live up to the hype and get wrapped up in the kingdom's problems like they'd never expect... and then they fight a guy trying to kill their children while another unrelated evil tries to ruin their country... and then wind up in a civil war against that guy... and eventually the kids grow up and there are more adventures there... and of course there's tons more that I haven't written yet...

And yes, I know it seems crazy that they would have such endless problems. Well, "No rest for weary warriors, huh?" Never!

I agree with sunandshadow about the "new phase in life" point. Though my stories are so packed with events, there may be multiple new phases in one novel, even though the novel only covers a year or less (see above paragraph lol)

[DaveKuzminski]

Just putting in an opinion here. I'm tired of books and TV programs and movies that always feature the same hero in a series. They're fun to a degree, but in some the writers end up trying to reach for ever more extreme plots in order to keep the audience only to end up making it so ridiculous that it's no longer enjoyable.

My own solution to that has been to introduce new characters in some stories who then become major characters in sequels. Because the new characters face different problems, the plot can essentially be nearly the same without reaching the point of absurdity. Of course, this hinges into the realm of cliffhangers because some of the character introductions feature hints of their problems without offering any resolution since they're not the main characters yet. This means the same old characters aren't the focus of the action and it becomes more realistic because the same hero isn't always responsible for resolving the conflicts.

[dragonjax]

When I wrote HELL'S BELLES, I made sure it was a complete story, but I also left it open for the possibility of another book. My agent asked for a series overview, so I came up with a five-book story arc, with each book being complete unto itself yet tied into the overall series story progression, as well as three "one shot" stories focusing on secondary characters. Kensington bought HELL'S BELLES and the next two books in the series.

So I would recommend avoiding the cliffhanger approach for a first novel. Make it complete...but leave the readers wanting to read more.

[dragonjax]

Originally Posted by Jamesaritchie

Coming up with new, good, interesting plots is what good writers do. The same old character are the ones the vast majority of readers love, and are the single biggest reason they keep coming back to the series.

Completely, totally agree.

[dante-x]

Well, thank you all for the great advice. It has definitely had an impact on me. I mean really, why would I expect, myself, as an untested author in the big leagues to be able to sell a triology or series? With the market forces involved it would probably be both arrogant and unrealistic of me. I am now working on some alternate versions of the overall plot to see if one can tie it up neatly and and coherently while still making sense. It might involve a rewrite of the last half of the book; perhaps even the whole bloody thing.

It's not a total loss if I have to, I guess. I can confidently say that I learned a lot this time around.

[dante-x]

Originally Posted by Simon Woodhouse

I'd be wary of using all the same characters though, because I think I'd just write the same book again. I like the idea of moving the main characters from the first book to one side, and bringing forward a minor character to take their place.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with this. I mean, I look at my own life and the lives of even not so interesting people that I have met and when I think on the different major happenings of my own and their lives I don't always think, "Damned same old story again." I don't think that plots should always be always trying to up the anti of the last, but rather could take a different spin on things and be stimulating. What I find annoying in some series novels is that their is no sense of character development over a decade or two of testing experiences. I mean, for example, as much as I was into Salvatore for his sword play, and at one time a novel character undergoing transformation in his Forgotten Realms series, the characters remained pretty much the same.

[dante-x]

Originally Posted by Jamesaritchie

You may be able to sell a trilogy, but as a first time writer, get all three written before you start submitting. It'll make the waters smoother because you can instanly send the other two novels to show you've done it all correctly.

Would you say that it is several orders of magnitude more difficult to sell a triology than to sell a single stand alone as a first timer?

[Maprilynne]

IMO there is nothing wrong with leaving the reader wanting more at the end, as long as they are wanting dessert, not the whole main course. For example, in mine, the main conflict is resolved but the book cannot stand alone, it needs a sequel. But so far my readers have not felt cheated at the end, because the biggest conflict was resolved and the book came to a very natural close in terms of time and setting. If your book ends and the reader flips to the next page and is genuinely surprised that nothing is there, you have probably left too much of a cliff hanger.
JMO.
Maprilynne

[glutton]

Originally Posted by DaveKuzminski

Just putting in an opinion here. I'm tired of books and TV programs and movies that always feature the same hero in a series. They're fun to a degree, but in some the writers end up trying to reach for ever more extreme plots in order to keep the audience only to end up making it so ridiculous that it's no longer enjoyable. My own solution to that has been to introduce new characters in some stories who then become major characters in sequels. Because the new characters face different problems, the plot can essentially be nearly the same without reaching the point of absurdity. Of course, this hinges into the realm of cliffhangers because some of the character introductions feature hints of their problems without offering any resolution since they're not the main characters yet.
This means the same old characters aren't the focus of the action and it becomes more realistic because the same hero isn't always responsible for resolving the conflicts.

Yes, but this is pretty much exactly what I try to avoid. I mean, I'd rather write the continuing story of a character who goes from a young, single, guilt-ridden, scar-covered female warrior who tries to find lost ancient knowledge while kicking the tar out of dark gods and demon lords, to an older, married, guilt-ridden, even more scar-covered female warrior who is struggling with motherhood and worrying about her body deteriorating (from having taken dozens of near-fatal wounds) while kicking the tar out of dark gods and demon lords... than eighty stories about different young men who all come of age and realize their destiny to defeat their respective dark lords (not necessarily actual dark lords...)

Also, plots don't necessarily have be bigger in later books, just different. Especially in terms of emotional and social conflicts that occur as characters continue to grow and mature. Heck, you can't really get that much bigger in the usual sense when in the first book, the heroine is already the greatest warrior in the world who saves her kingdom twice (in the same book, and once from her own mistake) AND also brings back magic to a world bereft of it for nearly a thousand years.

Also, what constitutes a "ridiculous" plot hinges on the flavor of the story. Some stories are *meant* to be larger than life and over-the-top, in a fun way. When one of the big inspirations for your combat scenes is Beowulf vs. Grendel, well...

[DaveKuzminski]

By "nearly the same" plot, I was referring to the fact that there are supposedly only a limited number of plots that can be used. I've heard seven, thirteen, and a few other low numbers. When you come down to it, there's a lot of truth to the claim that there are only so many plots. What actually changes is how each plot is filled out and embellished.

What I also like about the method I'm using for one series is that the main character in book one doesn't have to cause the downfall of the evil empire. Instead, the main character can simply be the Paul Revere of the world in question making it known that there's an evil coming to do battle. Then other heroes can be encountered and followed in this new world of adventure and each can have different personalities, virtues, advantages, and disadvantages.

In fact, one of my favorite characters is one who was thrown into a situation where he didn't have a choice but to accept the position he was given even though the people who placed him in that position didn't want him to do anything but help them make money, not defend their port. However, he felt a kinship with others who voyaged the seas and when one ship was attacked outside his harbor, he ventured out even though he and his crew hadn't been trained to fight. They were going to do the honorable thing even if it killed them. Of course, they survived because providence stepped in and the sounds of their drum echoed against the cliffs to make it sound like there were four ships coming to the rescue which drove off the attack before they could even be seen.

So, throughout the series, it's like watching how battles in different places bring about the destruction of the enemy in a realistic manner with lots of heroes instead of just one character responsible. It also permits more realistic character development because some people learn and change while others never do.

[glutton]

Originally Posted by DaveKuzminski

So, throughout the series, it's like watching how battles in different places bring about the destruction of the enemy in a realistic manner with lots of heroes instead of just one character responsible. It also permits more realistic character development because some people learn and change while others never do.

I actually kind of like this idea, but it's not for every story. Some sagas are the tale of a people or society, but others are the story of one (or a few) legend who really know how to kick that rear, and tons of it.

Also, even if you have only a couple of central central characters, they can still show varying degrees of character development- and so can supporting characters who change (or don't) over the course of a story.

[DaveKuzminski]

Well, I did cheat in a way by introducing three sets of characters in the first book. That lets me concentrate on some of them while introducing others.

[victoria.goddard]

What actually constitutes a series, in your opinion(s)? Does it have to have the same main character or characters following one or a series of plot arcs--for example, the Harry Potter books or the David Edding ones--or can a series simply be a sequence of books, more or less chronological (but not necessary), set all within one narrative world? Just to use another well-read series, are the Valdemar books by Mercedes Lackey one series, or many? Obviously there are smaller sequences within the larger one, some of which are more stand-alone than others, but they all fit together.

My WIP describes one intense week of major character development in the life of my MC, who's actions are highly influential around the rest of the narrative world (which in fact is made up of nine). The conclusion will draw this story to a close, quite neatly I think, but will also open up room for other stories I intend to write in the future. But the next work is going to be set within the same world, a bit later on, but with a set of characters who are only mentioned obliquely in the WIP. Those ones I could see becoming a series; but I'm not sure if the whole thing is a series, or a set of books with characters that hear about each other and whose lives interact.

More Diana Wynne Jones' Chrestomanci, I imagine, than Mercedes Lackey.

[Birol]

I think both situations you describe fit the definition of a series.

[Pthom]

Isaac Asimov's Foundation series spans centuries. A single protagonist (or any other character) in all of the books (not even in a single one, since each volume spans several lifetimes) is obviously impossible and had Asimov done that, the story would have failed. Yet it is one of the most popular science fiction stories of all time.