Advice on ending stories

[crookedletter]

One thing I have done with some stories is to expand that world into other stories reusing the characters. I've found it kind of fun to a little word building that way, and I can revisit some favorite characters and places without having to really expand on their original story in a series or a dedicated sequel. The story I'm working on right now is a part of my Phun with Pharaceuticals universe. I just added a reference to the sports bar from Halftime. No telling where that is going to go, yet.

I enjoy when writers do that. Emily St. John Mandel does it, I think David Mitchell does too. Just dropping in little easter eggs almost, offhand references to characters from other works that just teases the idea that it's all part of one big world, or in the case of Mandel sometimes almost like a parallel universe.

 

[HordHolm]

I feel the thing that helps me the most with this is the realization that no matter how much of the story you tell, you are still only telling part of the story.

^ This ^

 

[NuclearFairy]

Lots of people are saying you need to know where you're going to end it and write towards that ending all along, but I think that is a little reductive. Many serialized stories (TV shows, comic books, genre novels with a series hero, etc.) are started with no concrete ending in mind, and then when they want to wrap it up the writer or writers have to find an ending.

This is why I don't read paid serial works anymore. They start off with an engine, an idea that can carry them forward but no clear end goal in mind. And then when they feel like they are no longer getting enough readers to make it worth it they wrap it up real quick, tying up maybe two of their many dangling plot threads leaving us with a non-ending while they move onto their next story. This could've been mitigated at least slightly by having an ending in mind before they got to that point.

 

[Erozetta]

I actually just brought this up recently in a post elsewhere:

Endings. I'm really fucking bad at them.

I like ambiguous endings. A sense of finality that leaves room for more. But sometimes I feel like my endings are a bit of a tease to readers of a more that I have no intention of delivering.

My current WIP is a little over 26k words and I've come to a point where I don't know how to continue. It's technically at an end point for me, but I know readers will be frustrated by what is essentially a cut off instead of a proper wind down.

The end in question (unedited currently):

Grace slipped beneath the water, her eyes open as her hair flowed up and around her. It had always fascinated her. She felt like a mermaid as a girl, always watching the way her hair flowed and twisted with the current of whatever water she was in.

This was no different.

She pushed herself from the water and wiped her face with her hands. The weight of her actions was still heavy on her mind.

Still, she felt lighter for it. It–unlike destroying herself for her husband's comfort–was a bearable weight. She lay back in the tub and smiled. It was the first time she could recall smiling for herself. Then she laughed, and the weight that remained lifted from her conscience.

We both deserve to feel loved.

She knew it was the right choice, even if she hated it.

----

I don't know how to continue the story to a proper end. My brain is satisfied with that ending, but I know readers won't be.

How do you force yourself to continue to a "proper" end point?


***

I've since added a bit more to the end of this story and I fucking hate it. It feels tacked on because it is. I'm going to cut it and use it for something else, but this story organically ends with few questions answered outright, but certainly implied within that one italicized thought.

And I have a dedication in one of my novellas pointing to this weakness of mine:

To the friends who've painstakingly tried to help me give this story an ending only for me to decide it simply needed to end.

I like my ambiguous stopping points within a story. I can always pick it back up later and continue, but I don't have to because the next steps can typically be inferred. I just don't feel the need to finalize things to that degree, and if I do, you can bet that someone's gonna die.

 

[ShamBaLa]

Often, the ending is the first thing to come in a story. But sometimes, the ending is a question... e.g. "Tell me what you want." - sometimes the most effective ending is to leave it at a crossroads.

Readers can ask for a part 2, but you're under no obligation to squeeze a part 2 out. Sometimes the best bit is what the reader imagines happens next.

Agree. I have encouragement for more stories like The Loaner Husband. But it feels done. I've tried to construct a sequal or similar theme story and just too lame or nothing. My writing imagination goes elsewhere.

 

[TheArsonist]

I would worry that far too many series end up petering out because the writers don't know when to end/are presented with valid reasons ($$$$$) to continue past the point where the story should end. Viz. your example of Frasier - the last couple of seasons were forgettable, Friends - even worse

Sure, but that's a different, unrelated problem, which you get whether or not the writers have an ending in mind. (In fact, the writers wanted to end Friends several seasons earlier, and did have endings planned at those points, until they were instructed to stall.) It also doesn't really apply to the question at hand, where there is no strong incentive to keep a story running after it has run out of steam. (On the other hand, I am sure some writers with Patreons do milk stories for more installments than is optimal from a storytelling POV.)

And they almost always fuck it up.

LOST. Sopranos. Game of the Thrones. St. Elsewhere. Quantum Leap.

The list goes on and on. The series that get cancelled or don't have a finale designed from the beginning end up with the writers trying to find an ending, and almost always fucking it up and leaving fans dissatisfied.

I don't buy that argument. Some of those endings (Sopranos, St. Elsewhere, Quantum Leap) are iconic, while a big problem for Game of Thrones was that the ending was largely set, but not the path to get there.

And that's a challenge for many shows that have a set end-point but not a pre-defined length. How I Met Your Mother filmed parts of its ending early in the show's run, but the characters developed in ways that made the ending not work for many fans. Shit happens, and you need to have the flexibility to adapt.

It goes for books too: Hercule Poirot is just one of several series heroes that had an ending written before the later entries in the series, creating major continuity problems.

On the other hand, many of the most well-regarded TV series finales were not planned far in advance. Breaking Bad famously made up most of the story as it went along (with seasons featuring flash-forwards the writers didn't yet have an explanation for). Friday Night Lights, M*A*S*H, Justified (all based on books and movies that ended at a much earlier point than the shows did), The Wire, Cheers, Twin Peaks, 30 Rock, The West Wing… Some of these shows went on for too long, but they were redeemed by satisfying endings that have become classic. (Maybe "tantalizing" is a better descriptor than "satisfying" in the case of TP.)

In contrast, it is difficult to find examples of multi-season shows with finales that are considered great, where the creator claims to have known the ending all along. Alan Ball always having "had an instinct" that Six Feet Under would end with Nate's death (in fact that happens three episodes earlier, and the bit of the finale everyone remembers came out of a brainstorm when the writers were breaking the fifth season) and Shawn Ryan saying he always had a "vague notion" of how Vince Mackey would end up in The Shield are perhaps the closest.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Lots of people are saying you need to know where you're going to end it and write towards that ending all along, but I think that is a little reductive. Many serialized stories (TV shows, comic books, genre novels with a series hero, etc.) are started with no concrete ending in mind, and then when they want to wrap it up the writer or writers have to find an ending.

That's a terrible way to write a story. The chances that you will come up with something engaging and entertaining are very low. I would suggest that it's rather foolish to compare meandering TV series plot arcs to story plots, especially American TV series that are poorly plotted and are cramming as much volume into their scripts as possible because they have to fill 24 episodes per year. 95% of the time TV series end when the ratings drop, not when the writers intend a proper wrap-up.

Most series on lit are written simply because the writer is living on the positive feedback to believe that he is a 'good writer' and these series meander like bad TV shows and fizzle out to an ending (or non-ending) when the feedback dries up just like a TV show that gets cancelled. Using such shows as a template for writing and stretching out a set of characters with no real aim is simply an excuse to do so, to justify this poor plotting as good writing. It;s not good writing.

If you want to write a TV modeled serial, plot the whole thing out, have a series arc with an interesting and/or satisfying ending, and fill in each episode's plot. Then write all the episodes out and start posting them serially once the last one is finished. Then the chances that you have something really worth following will greatly improve, and you can publish with respect for your readers that you are not just using them for ego fuel to keep it going, that you actually have something proper to offer, that you are not leading them to oblivion.

 

[crookedletter]

I plot stories by writing them. It works well enough for me. It just takes some revisions then to make it seem like the ending was always the plan.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

LOST.

Lost was the biggest scam ever. I had a group of friends who religiously watched it. As a writer myself it became quite plain to see that the whole premise of the show was, "Let's make a show where we totally make up the script as we go and all the bullshit loose ends will be sold off to the viewers as hints or clues to some strange big picture that doesn't exist." The show was nothing but red herring after red herring, a whodunit with no killer and no body. And all of you fans of that completely useless show, fell for it. All trying to piece together a puzzle that wasn't there. And in the end, everyone was disappointed with the lame ending that left all of its fans going, "huh??"

How did all these beautiful people end up on a wild jungle island, never have to shave or take a bath or launder their perfectly clean clothes? We don't know because the writers didn't know themselves. They didn't care. The whole thing was a stupid April Fool's prank. Probably the worst show in the history of TV.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

It;s not good writing.

"It's..."

 

[pink_silk_glove]

"It's..."

I'm a bad typer. Sue me.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I'm a bad typer. Sue me.

Just picking a little. Me, too.

My theory is that I'm just so smart my fingers can't keep up with my mind.

 

[Dearelliot]

I suppose my stories end where the relationship is just getting started, an erotic episode in my character's life. I could make it the final fuck of his life, but instead I leave it open...I've gotten a few comments, please continue the story; sometimes I have, but I usually move on to something new.

 

[TheArsonist]

That's a terrible way to write a story. The chances that you will come up with something engaging and entertaining are very low.

It is how many, if not most, of the most popular stories for entertainment are written.

I would suggest that it's rather foolish to compare meandering TV series plot arcs to story plots, especially American TV series that are poorly plotted and are cramming as much volume into their scripts as possible because they have to fill 24 episodes per year. 95% of the time TV series end when the ratings drop, not when the writers intend a proper wrap-up.

And I would suggest that it is foolish to dismiss open ended serialized storytelling as a valid form, and that to disparage American TV series en masse demonstrates a lack of critical discernment, a failure to recognize quality and separate it from the dross.

Of course, whether it is a good template depends on the story. But there is no reason why someone shouldn't write e.g. an erotic soap opera, or the episodic erotic adventures of some character (like Barbarella), without a particular conclusion in mind when they start.

 

[ShamBaLa]

Lost was the biggest scam ever. I had a group of friends who religiously watched it. As a writer myself it became quite plain to see that the whole premise of the show was, "Let's make a show where we totally make up the script as we go and all the bullshit loose ends will be sold off to the viewers as hints or clues to some strange big picture that doesn't exist." The show was nothing but red herring after red herring, a whodunit with no killer and no body. And all of you fans of that completely useless show, fell for it. All trying to piece together a puzzle that wasn't there. And in the end, everyone was disappointed with the lame ending that left all of its fans going, "huh??"

How did all these beautiful people end up on a wild jungle island, never have to shave or take a bath or launder their perfectly clean clothes? We don't know because the writers didn't know themselves. They didn't care. The whole thing was a stupid April Fool's prank. Probably the worst show in the history of TV.

I love this observation. On Gilligan's Island, I know old person reference, look it up, the only people without a change of clothing are the guys who live on the boat.

 

[ShamBaLa]

Just picking a little. Me, too.

My theory is that I'm just so smart my fingers can't keep up with my mind.

LOL. Tried writing with speech to text to avoid that. Spend more time fixing spelling and mangled sentence structure. Sigh.

 

[MelissaBaby]

There is a famous quote from Hemingway: "All stories, if continued far enough, end in death, and he is no true-story teller who would keep that from you."

That is generally interpreted as meaning that at their core, all stories are a reflection on mortality, or something similar.

I see it in a different light. All stories if taken far enough do, of course, end in the deaths of the characters (and I've done that!) But most stories aren't taken that far. Nonetheless, I think there is an important lesson all authors can take from the quote.

And that lesson is, that a "true story teller" should recognize that we never tell the whole story. If our characters are to come alive to the reader, there has to be more to them that what we put explicitly into words.

I said something similar in another recent thread. I know things about the characters that the reader never will. What I tell is never the whole story. This informs how the written story ends. A successful ending should leave the reader with closure, but also with the sense that they have only been allowed to see a slice of the characters lives. If you can achieve that, you've written a successful ending. Unless, of course, you have in fact, killed everyone off.

Edit: Damn, I missed that Shelby already said pretty much the same thing.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I actually just brought this up recently in a post elsewhere:

Endings. I'm really fucking bad at them.

I like ambiguous endings. A sense of finality that leaves room for more. But sometimes I feel like my endings are a bit of a tease to readers of a more that I have no intention of delivering.

My current WIP is a little over 26k words and I've come to a point where I don't know how to continue. It's technically at an end point for me, but I know readers will be frustrated by what is essentially a cut off instead of a proper wind down.

The end in question (unedited currently):

Grace slipped beneath the water, her eyes open as her hair flowed up and around her. It had always fascinated her. She felt like a mermaid as a girl, always watching the way her hair flowed and twisted with the current of whatever water she was in.

This was no different.

She pushed herself from the water and wiped her face with her hands. The weight of her actions was still heavy on her mind.

Still, she felt lighter for it. It–unlike destroying herself for her husband's comfort–was a bearable weight. She lay back in the tub and smiled. It was the first time she could recall smiling for herself. Then she laughed, and the weight that remained lifted from her conscience.

We both deserve to feel loved.

She knew it was the right choice, even if she hated it.

----

I don't know how to continue the story to a proper end. My brain is satisfied with that ending, but I know readers won't be.

How do you force yourself to continue to a "proper" end point?


***

I've since added a bit more to the end of this story and I fucking hate it. It feels tacked on because it is. I'm going to cut it and use it for something else, but this story organically ends with few questions answered outright, but certainly implied within that one italicized thought.

And I have a dedication in one of my novellas pointing to this weakness of mine:

To the friends who've painstakingly tried to help me give this story an ending only for me to decide it simply needed to end.

I like my ambiguous stopping points within a story. I can always pick it back up later and continue, but I don't have to because the next steps can typically be inferred. I just don't feel the need to finalize things to that degree, and if I do, you can bet that someone's gonna die.

I'd end it your first way, the ending you believe in. That reads fine to me.

Don't worry about what readers might think - it's your story, not theirs.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

There is a famous quote from Hemingway: "All stories, if continued far enough, end in death, and he is no true-story teller who would keep that from you."

That is generally interpreted as meaning that at their core, all stories are a reflection on mortality, or something similar.

I see it in a different light. All stories if taken far enough do, of course, end in the deaths of the characters (and I've done that!) But most stories aren't taken that far. Nonetheless, I think there is an important lesson all authors can take from the quote.

And that lesson is, that a "true story teller" should recognize that we never tell the whole story. If our characters are to come alive to the reader, there has to be more to them that what we put explicitly into words.

I said something similar in another recent thread. I know things about the characters that the reader never will. What I tell is never the whole story. This informs how the written story ends. A successful ending should leave the reader with closure, but also with the sense that they have only been allowed to see a slice of the characters lives. If you can achieve that, you've written a successful ending. Unless, of course, you have in fact, killed everyone off.

Edit: Damn, I missed that Shelby already said pretty much the same thing.

Great minds…

 

[Erozetta]

I'd end it your first way, the ending you believe in. That reads fine to me.

Don't worry about what readers might think - it's your story, not theirs.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what I'm gonna do. Everything else just feels wrong.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

It is how many, if not most, of the most popular stories for entertainment are written.

Popular doesn't equal good. It is also how all bad TV series are written.

And I would suggest that it is foolish to dismiss open ended serialized storytelling as a valid form, and that to disparage American TV series en masse demonstrates a lack of critical discernment, a failure to recognize quality and separate it from the dross.

I didn't dismiss. All that I said was that the chances of it being any good goes down very quickly. 24 episodes a year is just too difficult a task to get right. Very few shows manage it. When you look at English TV where the series is 6 or 8 episodes, or American cable where the series is 8 or 10 episodes, it is much easier for the writers to maintain control and quality and continuity and plot arc. American TV broadcast TV is driven almost exclusively by money. English TV still leaves a little room for art. These are just facts.

Of course, whether it is a good template depends on the story. But there is no reason why someone shouldn't write e.g. an erotic soap opera, or the episodic erotic adventures of some character (like Barbarella), without a particular conclusion in mind when they start.

If they have all of the arc and ending in mind it's chances of being good are not assured, but they do skyrocket.

 

[Areala-chan]

I don't think it's necessary to have a specific ending in mind when you start your story, but at the very least you need an idea of what will resolve the main plotline of the story you are telling, because until your main plotline is resolved, you don't really have an 'ending'.

For instance, if you're writing a romantic plot where your protagonist is looking for love, you have a number of options for how you can resolve this plot line: they can date different people until they find "the one", which gives you several different choices for how the story will resolve; they can date several people and not find "the one", in which case they decide to give up, either temporarily or permanently; or they can date several people, not find "the one", but resolve to continue trying anyway as the closing credits roll. It just depends on what kind of story you wind up telling.

You don't need to know which of those choices you're going to make while writing, but at the very least, you have to resolve the main plotline around which you've built your story in order to successfully end it. I've still yet to forgive Stephen King for how he chose to (not) end Cell.

 

[TheArsonist]

Popular doesn't equal good. It is also how all bad TV series are written.

No, popular doesn't equal good, but it does usually mean "engaging and entertaining," which is what you claimed stories without intended endings had low chances of achieving.

And it very obviously is not how all bad TV series are written. Plenty of TV series with planned endings are bad too. Also, just because TV is the most prominent example of open-ended serial storytelling in recent decades, let's not make the mistake of thinking it is inherently tied to that medium. (Comics, whether in ongoing comic books or newspaper or web serials, are another example that should be familiar.)

I didn't dismiss. All that I said was that the chances of it being any good goes down very quickly. 24 episodes a year is just too difficult a task to get right. Very few shows manage it. When you look at English TV where the series is 6 or 8 episodes, or American cable where the series is 8 or 10 episodes, it is much easier for the writers to maintain control and quality and continuity and plot arc. American TV broadcast TV is driven almost exclusively by money. English TV still leaves a little room for art. These are just facts.

So, you're conflating three separate things here:

1. Writing towards a planned ending
2. Number of episodes per year
3. Commercialism

 

[pink_silk_glove]

So, you're conflating three separate things here:

1. Writing towards a planned ending
2. Number of episodes per year
3. Commercialism

Yes, because they all go hand-in-hand. It's how the industry works.

And it very obviously is not how all bad TV series are written. Plenty of TV series with planned endings are bad too.

Pretty much yes, quite obviously, that's how it's written. And no very few broadcast American TV shows with planned endings are bad because there are so few of those with planned endings. Even the long time successful ones have great difficulty capping off when the network pulls the plug. Even Seinfeld that planned to end with Jerry's pilot show dropped into the ocean (which was an amazing ending) couldn't end because the network wouldn't let it end. Instead we got that weird flop ending years later. Perhaps the best written sitcom ever tried to end well but the industry wouldn't let it.

 

[HordHolm]

But there is no reason why someone shouldn't write e.g. an erotic soap opera, or the episodic erotic adventures of some character (like Barbarella), without a particular conclusion in mind when they start.

Of course, this is true. People can write what they want. But... by their nature, in episodic adventures, each episode will have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Whether another episode follows does not alter the fact that the current episode ends, is resolved in some way. There may be a teaser for something to follow, but it isn't necessary to jump to the next episode to resolve the engine that drove the story in this episode.

Soap opera's, OTOH, do demand that the reader/viewer transitions to the next episode to find (or very often, not find) the resolution to some issue raised in the current episode. This is what drives them. And this is what makes them open ended - the fact that they do not have an ending. Now, far be it from me to stop anyone writing such a series, but I'm not going to read it. I want an ending: for me, personally, endings are implicit in story-telling, for it to have any real dramatic value.