Cliffhanger Endings

I am in the process of writing a novel series. I am really focusing on the first book right now, because that is what will be the ticket at getting me published, it will make my first impression on readers, and it will be the deciding factor on whether or not people buy the next book. So, I thought I would plan a series of cliffhanger endings, some so gut-wrenching, people would be crazy NOT to buy the next one. Do you think this is a good idea? Or will people hate the cliffhangers TOO much?

I think that it will make readers a little upset, but in a good way, and give them a feeling of "God, I can't wait to read the next one." All of this assuming the book appeals to them of course.

Thoughts? Ideas? Any are appreciated!

E.G. Gammon

No. Personally I hate cliffhangers. It grates me. Each book should be a complete story. You can have unresolved threads (like in the Harry Potter series), but each book must end satisfactorily.

And if your first book doesn't sell, all is moot. A first book with a cliffhanger would make it a hard sell to publishers, I think.

Ok, well, whoever answers the first question, answer this one as well. "Would you consider a character death a cliffhanger?"

E.G.

No. Again, the "story" should be complete, per se. If Hermione died in the first HP book, then she died. There shouldn't be a cliffhanger hanging around like "did she? Did she not? Find out in the next episode of ...."

I see what you're thinking, though. Watch Empire Strikes Back and you will find cliffhangers like: "What happens to Han Solo now?" But remember, Empire was made AFTER Star Wars became such a phenomenon, and they know they would have 30 Star Wars movies if George Lucas would allow it. Almost every new episodes of the new Star Wars trilogy has a cliffhanger or two.

But watch New Hope again, and you'd realize there really wasn't any cliffhangers. Obi-Wan died, but that's it. It's not a cliffhanger. If New Hope were the end of the Star Wars saga, it would stand on its own. Did it stop it from being a series? No. Why? Because it has such vivid characters and storyline that people are compelled to want more.

One problem I find with cliffhangers is that it sets people up for huge expectations. For example, the expections on Return of the Jedis were so huge that it became ultimately a let-down.

p.s. The LotR series were actually written as one book, not a trilogy. The Hobbit came before that, but it was a "complete" book on its own terms.

As a first time author, don't expect to sell a series right off the bat. Multi-book contracts happen, especially in genre fiction, but you'd be wise not to count on it. Let the agent/publisher know that you've followups planned (it's good to show you're not a one-shot writer), but your first book should be as standalone as possible so that if the publisher wants only the one novel, it can reasonably buy it. A cliffhanger ending would tend to discourage that.

Also, many readers hate cliffhangers. One of the things that fantasy fans bitch about is series books that end on a "who shot J.R." moment. Also, bear in mind that if a (real) publisher does buy more than one book from you, there'll be an interval of about a year between Books 1 and 2. That's a long time to wait for resolution of a cliffhanger.

To make readers want to buy the next book, all you have to do is make the first book the best damn book you can.

- Victoria

So, I thought I would plan a series of cliffhanger endings, some so gut-wrenching, people would be crazy NOT to buy the next one.

Plan a set of endings so solid and satisfying that people will be eager to buy the next one.

I read "The Bourne Supremecy" and the preceding books in the catalog and loved its cliffhanger. You know at the end of the book that the series will continue because Bourne, presumed dead the CIA hasn't died. In fact, though Treadstone has been aborted, Bourne will still be persued because he knows far too much to live. Thus, the chase will never end until Bourne is dead. The readers never want Bourne to die, thus, they almost have to leave us hanging.

Disagree?

I'm in a similar position with my story. In fact, I'm doing some re-writes, somewhat because I'm trying to make sure that the first book will be what the industry is looking for.

Here's how I see it. What you need are multiple threads in a series, not one. But you need to focus upon, and tie up one big thread in each book. Luke Skywalker saves a planet (Outcome), but leave one loose thread hinting there's so much more. Darth Vadar escapes (Set up for sequel).

I think my story was good as is. But the more i'm learning, the more I'm reworking the story. Why? I don't have the luxury that King or Clancey has. If there is a formula that works, I have to get it right. And if that means changes, well, I guess I had better make them.

If down the road I have a number of successfull books, then I can say, "Hey, trust me, I think people will buy it..." Until then, I guess we got to play by the rules.

The sad thing about the changes I'm making is that it is eating up my time, and forcing me to delay the eventual submission for publication. The good thing it is forcing me to dig deeper and to make the story more exciting, faster paced. I hope it is worth it.

A character death is not a cliffhanger, since the character is no longer hanging from the proverbial cliff.

I love cliffhangers between chapters, but not books. If you want people to buy your next one, write a really satisfying ending.

cliffhanger

I think cliffhanger endings are more reserved for television shows than novels. For one thing, we only have to wait a week to find out what happens next, rather than a year or two. A week's worth of suspense usually marks up to be fun, and a bit exciting, rather than aggravating. I also think these kind of cliffhangers is what inspires authors to want to use them in their novels as well.

I'm an avid watcher of ABC's Alias. The creator, J.J. Abrams has mastered cliffhangers. He uses them weekly, mid-episode and... mid-season. However, his "cliffhangers" don't have his characters on the brink of death (ok, there was the one time...) or in the midst of mortal peril or anything like that. Instead, he creates an entirely different kind of suspense by revealing a new idea, plot twist, etc., that sets up the new season while at the same time saying goodbye to the old one.

In novels, that same idea can work. What won't work is leaving your protag's fiance facing down the barrel of the gun ("will she live?!") because that suspense is ended within the first few pages of the new book, and you have to build the story up all over again.

I think what works is not creating suspense to leave the readers wondering, how do they get out of trouble, but rather what's going to get them in trouble next.

Re: cliffhanger

Season cliffhangers are also common in TV shows... but TV seasons are short. A viewer only has to wait 8 weeks to find out if Joey and Rachel are going to be a couple... and will Ross find out... blah blah. And usually the cliffhanger is resolved REALLY quickly in the season premiere and things move along after that immediately. They're done for ratings, and only for popular shows.

Books are so different. Can you imagine JK Rowling gives us a whopper of a cliffhanger (not "loose ends," mind you), then we have to wait 2 years for the next Harry Potter book? That would be horrible.

"Loose ends" like Darth Vader having escaped is different from a cliffhanger (Han Solo's fate at the end of Empire Strikes Back and the rebels' defeat).

cliffs

Stephen King left the end of the Dark Tower Book V Wolves of Calla with a cliffhanger. I love the series and followed it faithfully, and would continue to follow faithfully, even without the goddamned cliffhangers that made me very angry. And that was Stephen King! I only let him get away with it because by then I invested years into that damned series.

Also, there's no guarentee that you'll get a contract for the next book, and then the people who did read the first book will never have satisfaction. Look what happened to Joss Whedon--Angel ended on a cliff-hanger that well...will never, ever be resolved and the viewers are left to think the worst but still have the hope of "maybe..." and that's an awful place to be. True Angel isn't a book, but I think the principle remains.

Re: cliffs

Ok, I guess I need to clarify the things I am planning. The whole series revolves around 2 main stories, that we learn more about throughout the novels. But there are also subplots in them all, involving a large group of people. Now, the first book, contains an above-the-average number of characters because it ends with a lot of them dying, each separate deaths with consequences, and the deaths set up the events of the rest of the books. Now, I need to know if you consider DEATHS, CLIFFHANGERS. It's not like they are on the edge of a building and you don't know whether or not they are gonna fall. It's more like BOOM, they are dead. So, I guess it's not really a cliffhanger, but it's more like a shocking end, that leaves room for more novels. What about this?

[No message]

Why'd you edit your response? I can take some criticism. That's why I'm here.

Re: cliffs

There's a difference between leaving a few story threads trailing, as bait for a sequel, and ending on a cliffhanger, which by definition is a climactic event left unresolved. Character deaths aren't necessarily cliffhangers, if they wrap up the plot arc you're following in that book.

Again, though, for the sake of your readers as well as your possibilities of publication, this novel should stand on its own, so that if a person read only that one book, they'd still feel they'd had a complete reading experience. You want your readers to say, "Wow, I want to read the next installment!", not "Damn, now I'll have to wait for Book 2 to find out what happened."

- Victoria

Re: cliffs

So, I guess it's not really a cliffhanger, but it's more like a shocking end, that leaves room for more novels. What about this?

Click to expand...

Genius trumps all, so if it works, do it.

Having said that, I think it is important for a story to have a satisfying ending. It doesn't need to be happy. But if you kill off an established character, I would suggest you provide enough denouement for the reader to absorb the event. A grieving period, if you like. Otherwise you risk revealing that the characters are merely tools for manipulating the reader's emotions.

Jen

Re: cliffs

Hi guys,

I have a question relating to this topic. For my currently planned ending, I have the hero (a fighter pilot) returning to a planet that he was forced to abandon earlier (the good guys were getting civilians off in order to avoid the bad guys invading). His girlfriend and one of his best friends is still stuck on the planet (their decision, they decided to give up their seats so that others could take them, since the good guys didn't have enough ships to get everyone off, so many have to be left behind).

Anyway, the hero promised that he would return for them, and then shortly after their departure the hero and the good guys are forced in a major battle, one in which the hero does something extraordinary in order to win (thanks to a hint/clue/message his g/f gave him prior to leaving her. And yes, in my book I explain everything, so it that it makes sense. I slowly figured out coherent reasons for the many events I thought up).

Anyway, the hero volunteers to be on the expeditionary fleet that's going back to liberate the planet from the bad guys, and the book ends there (well, it really ends with the g/f and his other friend looking at the night sky and her saying she's waiting for him, to show that they're still safe and that the bad guys won't be able to hurt any of the good guys still on the planet).

From what I just said so far, would this be an okay ending? I have many more things planned, but it would take another book to fill it all out (and a 3rd book to conclude everything, yes I've already planned out most of it). While there is still a few unresolved issues, I tried to show that they are going to be resolved shortly as well (the hero isn't with his g/f at the end, but I try to give the readers reassurances that they will get back together).

Sorry for going slightly OT here, but I was wondering if my ending would be okay for people. I'm trying to make it stand on its own, but with the other books, it will feel more like a complete story.

Re: cliffs

No. Not satisfactory. The reader's report comes back saying "Book falls apart at the end."

Cliffhanger endings have what pollsters call "high negatives." It's not just that very few readers like them; it's that the other readers loathe them.

An ideal ending gives the book an undeniable sense of closure and completeness, but leaves you with an underlying feeling that interesting things are going to go on happening here, and you'd like to be around to see those too.

Re: cliffs

I don't like cliffhanger endings in books, nor do I like them films. I especially hate cliffhanger endings in those da*n addictive TV shows that make you sit and wait another week to see what happened. It's especially painful when it's the season finale and they make it so shattering that your heart doesn't beat right for days after -- then you only have to wait a mere six months or so to catch up :\

Oops, I'm sorry, is most of this irrevelant? Let me switch to decaf...forgot again.

Re: cliffs

" No. Not satisfactory. The reader's report comes back saying "Book falls apart at the end."

Cliffhanger endings have what pollsters call "high negatives." It's not just that very few readers like them; it's that the other readers dislike them passionately.

An ideal ending gives the book an undeniable sense of closure and completeness, but leaves you with an underlying feeling that interesting things are going to go on happening here, and you'd like to be around to see those too. "



Not entirely sure if this reply was directed towards me (I'm guessing it was though, since it's right under my question), but if it was, I was thinking about an alternate ending too. How would you guys rate this ending if you read the book?

The hero's g/f still stays behind, but she tells him that she'll escape on his friend's ship instead (his friend owns a ship capable of interstellar travel. Don't wanna get hard sci-fi into this, so lets just say it's kinda like the Milennium Falcon hehe).

At the end, the g/f and his friends reunite on their homeworld after the big battle (and yes, their love will play a more important role later on, she's not just tacked on for the sake of the hero having a love interest). The hero still decides to volunteer to liberate the planet that's been taken over and joins the fleet that's prepping to head out there. Of course this is just foreshadowing the second book, as they don't leave right away and the hero enjoys some well earned R&R.

I'll have to work on this ending somewhat, but would you be more satisfied with it, or would you prefer the first ending (the plot overall will still be the same, but I have to make a few minor adjustments since many important things will happen in the 2nd story). I don't want to leave readers hanging on too much, but the way I have the storyline set up, it will mean much more if she gets left behind, and I'm promising to make up for it in the next story (well, we all had to wait 3 years between each Star Wars episode, and then 16 years for the sub-par sequels hehe).

Any suggestions on this would be appreciated. I know that it's still ultimately up to me to decide (before I send it off to agents and editors), but I want to have the first book stand pretty well. I don't mind making too many changes, so long as the overall plot is still the same (there are some things that absolutely must stay in for the story to work and not look like a cliched ripoff from someone else's work. Luckily some parts of particular ending is not one of those critical elements, however, the battle has to stay in, since a massive enemy ship that killed the hero's sister, as well as bombed planets is involved in this fight, and he must destroy it. This will also be the good guys' first major victory, and the loss for the enemy forces them to set back some plans for a while).

Re: cliffs

Ivonia, from what I can tell, I think your ending may be all right as stands. It seems like the major conflict for that one book has ended (dealing with the baddies), but now they have to move on to liberating the home planet, which I would assume is the preliminary conflict on the next novel.

Now, as a forewarning, we've had some threads previously which talk about querying series to publishers. If I have the time later, I'll try to dig up the threads, but I suggest you look for them as well. They should still be hanging around on previous Novels pages. The main problem some people see is that pubs/editors are reluctant to take on series, because if the first book doesn't sell, the second is a no-go anyway.

EGG, "do you consider a character death a cliffhanger?" It kind of depends on the kind of death you're talking about. Have you been reading the Harry Potter series? If so, I'm going to use an example from the 4th novel. Toward the end, there is one sentence: "He was dead." Now, imagine, if Rowling had decided to stop writing then and there. I'd be pretty ticked off, but there's a cliffhanger for you. Both her 4th and 5th novels "end" with character deaths. The one in the 5th book, while not a cliffhanger, leaves lots of questions surrounding the death, while the 4th novel's death had nothing questionable about it. Of course, while using Rowling as an example, we'd have to acknowledge her devoted fan base. Her following books will sell no matter what cliffhangers she uses now. Do you think anything would have changed if she'd use these methods in the 1st novel? Hard to say.

Anyway, I'm always sorry to bring up Rowling as an example. I feel it's a commonly used example, even though not everyone reads them. I hope you have, so you know what I'm referencing.

As for me, when reading a series, I tend to get nervous toward the end of the book. I hope all of my questions will be answered by the end, which is what Uncle Jim mentioned earlier in the thread. As long as the bigger plot is taken covered, I can handle it if the author leaves some smaller plotlines to follow later -- especially if the author hints it will be resolved later (ie: "I'll tell you when you're older").

I hope this helped you, at least a little!

Re: cliffs

Here's my opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it--

In the series I write (Outlanders), the publisher has occasionally asked for trilogies and "duologies". In those self-contained books, I employed cliffhanger conclusions in the first two novels of the trilogies and the first one of the two-parters.

No readers complained about the cliffhangers that I was aware of (except for one guy on the B&N site who didn't seem to understand he was reading the first part of a two-parter), but then again four OL books are published every year so the readers didn't have to wait an excessively long time for story resolution.

Throughout the run of the series (edging up on eight years now), I employed sub-plots and ongoing story arcs even in the self-contained entries, just to maintain reader interest...it seems to have worked, judging by the series longevity.

As for a publisher's reluctance to take on new series because of the risk...well, I tacitly agree and disagree with that assessment.

Granted, it's sizeable commitment of money and resources to take on something like that, but by the same token if the series is even moderately successful, it becomes a reliable cash cow.

Publishers usually invest in three books of a proposed series if they believe the project has potential.

At the moment, my agent is shopping around a new military s.f. series proposal of mine and finding a publisher willing to make the commitment to an ongoing series is proving to be tough, even though I have a proven track record in creating and maintaining a profitable series.

However, I have faith in it.

Re: cliffs

So, in essence, a cliffhangers leave us guessing using our logic and/or experiential knowledge whereby the ending is left unresolved. So it is with "Butch and the Sundance Kid." Logic tells us they're dead, because there seems to be no way out.

Butch and Sundance, holed up in a small building entrance in a village and both with multiple gunshot wounds, prepare to go out blasting with both guns with the Bolivian army waiting for them...the film ends with a famous freeze frame shot just as they come out into the open with their guns, leaving their fate up to the viewer.

Logically, it is impossible for two men (w/ 2 guns) to survive the ammunition of an army.

Cliffhanger, no?

Re: cliffs

<Logic tells us they're dead, because there seems to be no way out.>

Well, actually history tells us they're dead...although there's been some debate if Butch died in the shoot-out.

But regardless, it doesn't qualify as a cliffhanger ending because there's not a "Butch and Sundance II: Etta Place Strikes Back".

We know the outlaw careers, if not the lives of Butch and Sundance ended that day in Bolivia. Their stories came to a conclusion.

A traditional cliffhanger ending is one where it is obvious only that particular segment of the story is over, but there are more in the offing, with many plot threads yet to be resolved.

Off the top of my head, the season 7 finale of Stargate SG-1 would qualify as a traditional cliffhanger.