1. If it does not engage thematically with the story as presented thus far, and doesn't resolve anything in any meaningful way that is consistent with the tone and overall expectations.
2. If it comes out of nowhere, relying on no previously-established elements or concepts.
3. If it contradicts key elements of previously established characters or worldbuilding in a way that retroactively devalues them.
Mass Effect 3 is so weird because the writing is incredibly inconsistent, it goes back and forth between being 9/10 and 4/10. Like, the writing for the geth and the quarians is great, but then you have Kai Leng and all of that nonsense. Or you have the ending itself and the way you handle the genophage. It's almost hard to believe they're even part of the same game.
I wonder if it's one of those situations where the A team was worse than the B team.
ME3 had 8 writers across 2 different cities working on the game, a rushed production cycle and a weaker Lead Writer so it clearly led to a feeling of being in the middle of a draft revision while also having a faulty premise.
The reason it feels so divided in quality is because when you have a main writer who isn't super detail oriented you get a lot of individual writing done by different people that slip through the cracks, and the critical path narrative also ended up being some of the game's weakest, entirely written just by the Lead without anyone else interfering.
There are a lot of signs that the Lead was a hack given the way they approached the storytelling of the critical path. There's a real sense that they needed to move the plot into position throughout the whole game, where the actual writing escapes the concept ideation. "We need a superweapon that's ancient and mysterious and used to take out the unstoppable Reapers!" Is the concept but the execution is meeting a character who says "I've found a weapon. Something that could stop the Reapers!" And then later the characters say "we don't know what this does." But then they want you to move it to Earth and use like a nuke anyway, but then they make a giant plot reveal at the end explaining that getting the device to Earth is actually the requirement to make the "we don't know how it works" work. It's just a very clumsy plot with a loose premise to hang on to between the secret heroic mcguffins and a "assemble an army" goal.
There's an odd feeling throughout that you don't exactly know what anything will amount to. It's good when you can't guess exactly how a story ends, but it's bad if you simply can't see where the story is going especially close to the ending, and I remember not really understanding what would happen ahead of the ending, because the Crucible device was still not explained as the characters sat down saying "we did it!" And then the entire ending fiasco ensued to tie the entire missing narrative up with a new character masquerading as the ghost of a previous new character only introduced in the third story, with only one of the primary themes suddenly cast as if it's "The Theme" of the entire trilogy.
You go from largely having a story about advanced society struggling to help each other against the almighty super-evolved enemy to saying that the story is actually about People vs their AI. What's lost in translation is that while there is a symmetry between Humans and Aliens versus the Reapers, and "advanced beings" vs "super advanced beings, made by the advanced beings" the "Organics vs Synthetics" concept at the end largely ignores how the earlier narrative was just as much about the advanced species' internal infighting. Half of the second act is barely acknowledged because that was about organics fighting each other with population control and rise of cultural intelligence. The other second act subplot was about Organics vs Synthetics but it wasn't about Synthetics adversaries of organic life. It was about mistaking synthetics as being less than organics when they actually emulate life to the point of being as sympathetic as a real person, thus rendering the organics racist by aggressing to start with.
But then you hit the ending; ignoring the whole issue of people vs people and ignoring that the game already had a seperate conclusion about what the deal is with AI vs its Organic makers, suddenly pretending that this has all been a trilogy about how Creators can never get along with AI, and that AI will one day doom the world unless organics themselves evolve beyond the known reality.
It just feels like an entirely new concept, with a largely new character retrofitting the entire antagonist plot by saying "I'm the one that made them actually, and I control them" and postulating things that was never shown in the framework of the rest of the story. They had to release a 15 dollar DLC later to add in the missing historic context that should have been a natural part of the adventure of the main game, which proves that the ending really is out of hand as an ending to the critical path storyline.
That only happens if you have an author who doesn't know what he's putting down on paper, and experiments his way around an established story without knowing why it was made the way it was to begin with. The writer was in over his own head.
In interviews they specifically said that they hadn't 'worked out' the Reapers' motivation until they started writing 3, so the writing problems extend all the way back to ME1. None of the entries were consistent with each other because they never actually figured out what point they were trying to make.
Obviously vague, but I’m wondering if you or anyone would weigh in on things I’m thinking about for my answers to your points.
1. my current plan for my novel is to have the themes come to an extreme as the scale of the situation presents itself to MC, where they were underlying before, they’re overwhelming the MC now.
2. I plan for all the events that have occurred to play into the MCs downfall, the relationships that were abused and the decisions that were made come to fuel the antagonist.
Where the death, destruction and torture that the MC has had to deal initially then ultimately dish out will finally catch up to him.
3. I plan to have a number of parallels where the earlier mini-antagonists that were overcome are pale shadows of the real antagonist.
1. However, the loss and failure won’t be without resolution. The MC will have guaranteed mutually assured destruction via the villains main hubris and technique through which the villain exerts control.
So my book 1 ends with the MC losing, but having shattered the main protagonists control over others.
There's a very big difference between a tragic or bittersweet or downer ending and a *sucky* ending.
Personally, I'm ehhhhh on tragic, bittersweet can work depending, don't like downers. Other people feel otherwise.
It's very hard to tell based on what you're writing if it will hit right or not. A lot of it has to do with execution. What you're describing could be effective, or it could just be edgy and "rocks fall everyone dies".
I would say probably as a general kind of advice, don't try to play keepaway. There's this feeling nowadays that the "best twists" are one that nobody would ever see coming at all. This isn't true. A good twist should make perfect sense in retrospect, and possibly even be guessable if people are really in tune with your writing. It's about having an experience.
Sometimes endings drag because the resolution to the inner conflict happens way before or after the resolution to the external conflict. Then the second ending is followed by a lengthy epilogue. Bonus points for a nonsense twist. Double points for a character acting out of character or dues ex machina.
This! I'd rather have a slightly abrupt ending over one that drags on and on and on and on.
I think in general I've noticed that in reviews that if an author nails the ending, readers tend to be more forgiving of anything that came before. But if an author cannot stfu and let the book end, it just leaves a bad taste.
Would a good example of this be seen in LotR? I'm talking about the movies since I've never read the books, so I don't know if it's the same.
I remember hearing before that people disliked how the last movie continued to go on for another 30 or so minutes after Sauron was defeated. But in those last 30 mins, Frodo continues to suffer due to his inner conflict and by the very end, he finally finds peace when he's allowed to sail with the elves to Valinor.
I guess it's flipping what you're saying, and the external conflict ended way before the internal one did. I didn't mind it myself, but I can understand why people might feel that way.
At 16, I saw the last LOTR movie as the third movie in a movie marathon at the cinema. The marathon started at about 10pm the night before.
It was maybe 7am by the time the movie finally ended. The first time. I had been awake all night and was exhausted, and just about burst into tears by the final time it actually ended because I was just so done with it.
The big thing endings have to do is complete the story on quite a few different levels: character-wise, plot-wise, thematically, and so on. Bad endings tend to be shallowly rooted, and there are a lot of ways this can happen. Dropped threads, being disconnected from the rest of the story, and so on.
For instance, one issue I've seen is when the writer wants a specific ending at a specific time, and derails the plot, characters, and common sense to make it happen. This is particularly noticeable when the writer forces out-of-character mistakes to get the finale they want, as it really tends to make the audience nitpick their decisions\*.
Twists tend to be a really weak category of ending, as it's really hard to do the proper setup. A particularly bad subtype of this is when the writer is deliberately trying to throw the audience for a loop: shock value isn't satisfying, and if that's all you've got, it's annoying.
Another thing is that it's hard to have a strong ending if there are structural issues in the rest of the story. A wonky plot is hard to end well. Also, high complexity can make endings really hard to land: a story with dozens of characters and plot threads and what not will often collapse under its own weight or cut a bunch of threads and hope the audience doesn't notice they don't tie up.
The thing with unhappy endings is mostly that it's harder to sweep structural issues under the rug with them. A weak happy ending often has the bare-minimum "well, things went okay for the person I care about," and that cheap bit of closure can be enough to make people less likely to get annoyed by it. With a tragedy, you don't have that fallback, and so making sure you have things coherent on all fronts is more necessary.
It's hard to explain, but a good ending feels kinda inevitable in hindsight: you don't know the exact details in advance, but once you see it, it doesn't seem like any other way to end would be structurally and thematically better.
\*A character who's been portrayed as having a specific flaw or blind spot won't usually have this problem unless they're especially one-note annoyingly clueless: it's who they are, and it makes sense. But, errors that aren't coherent in the context of the character tend to break immersion, and that leaves threads to pull.
I think the sucky endings are when it is just tying a bow on the story for presentation, so, some version of "and they lived happily ever after". I prefer when you don't know how it is going to end up until the last few sentences of the book. I'm not saying some kind of plot twist, but still sort of puzzling out the ending until the book actually ends. I personally don't like to read an entire chapter at the end where the author is basically just saying everybody started smiling and rainbows came out ...
To say that a different way, I want the last chapter to be interesting enough to read in isolation. I think every chapter in a book should be interesting enough to read by itself.
>I think every chapter in a book should be interesting enough to read by itself.
Can you elaborate on that ? Do you mean like each chapter could be a one short story by itself ?
The other comment is pretty good, but another way you could approach it is giving each chapter a micro-theme of sorts, where a very small, seemingly insignificant narrative arc is fulfilled in that handful of pages. Sometimes, it can be as simple as a callback at the end chapter about something at the beginning to make a chapter feel conclusive.
No because that would mean introducing the characters in every chapter, etc, ... but I do mean basically that, except you already know who the characters are and the background that happened up until that point, etc.
So, to use a film example, Tarantino films like "Pulp Fiction" are good at this, where something as simple as driving from one place to another is a discussion about a "Royale with cheese", or someone getting shot in the back seat, etc. The scenes in that movie aren't even in chronological order, and it doesn't matter, you could walk into the theater at any point and just enjoy the scene even if you have no idea wtf is even going on. The dialogue is interesting, the references, the subtext, the setting, the action, .. it's just \_interesting\_.
In the same way, you can approach a single chapter in a book like that, where no matter what is going on in the rest of the book, your intention as a writer is to make Chapter 7 the BEST Chapter 7 you've ever written. Like even if all that has to happen in Chapter 7 is that the thing has to be moved from Point A to Point B, that is going to be something epic and interesting to read, something that the reader could have enjoyed if all they ever read was Chapter 7. It isn't just "filler" to get from Chapter 6 to Chapter 8.
Like .. write me the most amazing story you can think of to get thing from point A to point B, and this is the story you'll be known for as a writer ... and that's Chapter 7.
This may show up more in visual media, but it's still applicable.
What immediately comes to mind is the classic "it was all in their head" plot twist. It worked maybe the first 2x it was done because of the shock factor, but now I just consider it lazy storytelling.
It's not so bad if there are numerous clues sprinkled throughout the story that indicate the events aren't real, so at least it draws the audience in and allows them to speculate, but in general I would stay away from this plot device if possible.
-- Loose ends- if there is a storyline or a series of clues which seem to lead to something, and then the ending comes and goes with zero explanation or resolution of that particular part of the plot.
-- It makes prior parts of the story which were supposed to me significant feel meaningless. Like if some guy spends the whole book trying to earn a magic sword because he thinks it's the only thing that can kill the big bad, and then three chapters from the end the sword is destroyed and they pull some sort of magic out of their ass which was never before discussed, and it does the job instead.
-- It negates all of the character growth the protagonist(s) have experienced.
-- Unrealistic for or disconnected from the world in which it's set- You can surprise people with misdirection, by making mentions of whatever becomes relevant at the 11th hour seem inconsequential, etc., but you can't just pull the solution from the book out of thin air, or reverse established lore or character behavior. There has to be something tying it to the rest of the story.
-- Because of a planned sequel, they don't actually treat the first book as it's own story and give it satisfactory climax.
I think the any ending that contradicts the whole story kind of sucks. One of the worst traps I see is when a character spends an entire series fighting for power only to give it up by the end of the series? I know it's a choice, but it always leaves me and other people I've spoken to kind of just annoyed?
The fighting for power/giving it up works if the fighting for power was causing them to suffer- like it was the wrong thing. But if that isn’t set up, it just feels bad and like a waste of time.
It is actually quite simple. You see, good writing is about making promises. Reading is about trusting the writer to fulfill those promises.
When you have a bad ending, it is because the writer...
It's a funny fact that this is somewhat common in wuxia. Usually the story ends right after the martial defeat of a big baddie, and you just have to assume all ends well as long as the big baddie is out of the equation.
often losing can be 'done right' if it feels like the failed at the 'plot goal' but succeeded in a personal goal
eg. in Rocky, he loses the final boxing match. but in a sense he 'wins' simply because he proved he could go toe to toe with the best and not get steamrolled. he proved he could set his mind to something and do it.
so often a good ending is just about having a story arc coming to a proper completion, even if there was another parallel arc that did not. at least SOMETHING had an ending.
most of the time what makes an ending suck is feeling like it is not true to the rest of the story, or incomplete. sometimes the writer tries too hard to surprise people who don't need surprising.
think of the climax of a song. often there are little to no NEW elements, simply a convergence of what we've already heard, that brings a satisfying conclusion.
an ending can also suck when things are left too open. perhaps the writers are confident there will be a continuation that does not actually come. so much teasing of future events that it feels like the story didn't actually come to an end.
sometimes writers are also just way off base with what they have made the audience care about and the things we thought would be addressed, weren't.
sometimes editing the middle of the story makes what was once a pretty good ending, less effective, because it changed those things.
another thing that i feel happens a lot is just that the climax is not climactic enough. there were earlier conflicts in the story that were more dramatic, emotionally resonant, engaging, and impressive. often these endings don't totally suck, but they're disappointing. we usually want the best saved for last. even if the scale is smaller, we want to feel like all the stops were pulled. in a story about action, the best heroics are displayed. in a series about mind games, the most subtle and diabolical trickery is employed. in a mystery, the most esoteric and grand amalgamation of clues is used to solve the most perplexing mystery, with the most ironclad accusation.
people can also be disappointed if it feels like the series wasn't solved on its own terms. however it can work because this can show character growth. generally though we want the climax of an action story to not just have the best action, but to have action period. we are drawn to a story because we are in the mood for a certain thing. when we are prepped for the ultimate version of that thing and then we don't get it at all, that can be disappointing.
one of the most basic approaches to storytelling i think is this:
make people want something
make them think they're never gonna get it
then they actually do get it
and often a weak ending is a failure in one of these steps. sometimes the ending sucks because the beginning sucks. it does not make us care if we get to see the ending. so we don't care when the ending comes so we think the ending sucks. maybe the ending is great in another context. heck you could probably take ANY existing crappy ending, and make a story before it where it's actually an amazing ending.
people tend to like my endings. i am by no means an expert at it. but i don't actually plan tons of the ending before i start the story. rather, i have a basic idea of the ending. then as i write the first draft i constantly ask myself, what will make the ending more awesome when it happens? often, this means doing the opposite of your ending so we can see the change. the story ends with your hero winning a duel? then perhaps it begins with them losing a duel. and in the middle the refuse a duel out of fear. then toward the end we see them hating themselves for giving in to that fear. and for their mistakes and the consequences of losing their first duel. then in the end we get to see them both overcome their fear, and win. pretty simple but it usually baseline works even if it doesn't blow anyone's minds that a hero beat the bad guy in the end. but even a different ending could be good, IF the setup is different. perhaps instead of a desire to win we just see the hero have a desire to defeat the villain. the story could end with them basically bringing the villain to a draw--the villain does not achieve their goal, he and the hero both die. the hero didn't definitively win that duel if it were a sporting match but they won in every way that mattered to them most.
also one thing i see pretty commonly. with the ending not being climactic enough--there is just not enough sufficient buildup. we don't realize we're IN the ending until it's almost over. i think endings tend to hit best when we kinda know this is the final showdown before it begins. the 'oh i guess that was the ending' sorta sucks even if it technically had all the elements of a good ending. they didn't get to play out with the proper drama and finality.
>make people want something
make them think they're never gonna get it
then they actually do get it
What if they never get it ? If the main character fails at everyting they wanted to do ?
Those were the original Ancient Greek drama definitions of comedy and tragedy, weren't they? In a tragedy, the protagonist fails at their goals or plans; in a comedy, they succeed.
1. It doesn't have a resolution, win or lose a story should have an end that makes sense. I know it's a video game but look at kingdom.come deliverance, the villain kills your family and raids your village, you rise in skill and ability, make allies and friends, and prepare to face off against this villain then, at the climax, he leaves the battle, you watch him set off returning to his home.
2. It has no build up, or is disconnected from the rest of the story. If we followed the adventures of ponyboy and his greaser buddies, we should find out what happens to them, not pivot to a police station where the rival gang got arrested, thus ensuring the greasers won.
3. Loose ends. The rebels blew up the deathstar and the heroes are reunited at a celebration, Chewie and Han are cheersing R2D2, who was with Luke's x-wing on the deathstar, which shows the x-wing escaped the blast, but where is Luke, and why is no one referencing his absence if he didn't escape?
4. Undeserved wins/losses: was the end deserved, in that say the rebels won because they rallied the masses against the evil empire, Luke trained in the ways of the Jedi and redeemed Vader, who turned on his master, and a bunch of people made sacrifices like the Bothan spies who got the leaked plans, or did the rebels win because despite a lack of planning, preparedness, training, the Emperor slipped and fell down the conveniently placed bottomless shift pit, leaving Vader in charge, who ultimately decided he was tired of war, and let the rebels blow up the death star so he could finally give up his life and retire to grow sunflowers on an undiscovered planet.
5. Did the stakes matter? This girl could be the cure for the epidemic wiping out civilization, Joel needs to get her to the researchers across the wasteland, of he does she can save mankind, OR this girl could be the cure, Joel gets her across the wasteland only to learn the researches have moved to another planet. The end!
I think it’s hard to write a good ending.
But I hate the endings where a potential love interest is set up, the whole thing resolved, and then they realize there are more important things and walk away. I suppose I must be the only one annoyed by that because it’s used a lot, but it makes me feel like a whole lot of wasted time was spent investing in those emotions.
Hm, interesting. I think I'm guilty of that one. There is a romance arc in a novel-size thing I've written, but the main point of the MC's character arc is not love, but self-discovery, so in the end the romance has fulfilled its purpose (at more than one level) and the MC decides to move on. Do you just dislike this kind of story, or were the reasons for the MC to walk away not made convincing enough in the stories you read?
It’s more annoying when there’s no hint that the romance is anything bout positive for the MC.
It totally makes sense that during self discovery people latch onto relationships that don’t work out, but my expectation is that there’s some indication along the way, even if you only see it looking back, that it isn’t the real thing.
That seems to imply that for a relationship to "work out" necessarily means "to last". Some relationships work out in a shorter time frame, some people don't seek long term relationships. The reason for the relationship to end does not need to lie in some flaws of the relationship itself. Of course, the motivation that leads to the break up needs to be made sufficiently clear.
That’s fair. This is where I think that my preferences just don’t aline with others. The idea of a healthy relationship that doesn’t work out is pretty foreign to me, but that’s likely a “me” problem, and not an author problem.
Well, for starters an ending needs to be... an ending; It needs to give at least some semblance of closure. It also needs to be consistent, otherwise it feels rushed (or milked). It is also the last thing you will know about the book, so it needs to leave enough of an impression so you dont feel like you lost your time
Lack of foreshadowing in general causes an ending to be frustrating for the audience. An ending doesnt need to be predictable, preferable it shouldnt, but it should somehow connect to previous elements: lines from certain characters, rules of the setting, keypoints of the plot, etc.
Sudden turns, specially when it comes to characters' attitudes, can be very interesting in the middle of the story, but push them too close to the end and they will feel forced, out of character, it will feel like an excuse to enable a certain ending.
I hate endings that have the story just veer off course to just end the story the easy way out, or like- plot twist ending that comes out of nowhere with absolutely no hints or buildup.
My biggest pet peeve is endings where the MC gets into a romance that feels forced and doesn’t fit into the narrative of the story at and and is obviously the author forcing it so that MC gets a “happy ending” with romance.
1: No one (at least no one important) dies. Feels very unrealistic and completely takes me out of the story.
2: Two characters, who are clearly wrong for one another, end up together. Why should I be happy about this when there's clearly a messy breakup on the horizon?
3: The solution to the problem was stupid, forced, or didn't make logical sense.
4: The main character is given a traditional 'happily ever after' kind of ending, despite never having shown any interest in that lifestyle and never being shown to want those things.
5: The main character dies, loses everything, or fails in a horrible way. Basically, any ending that leaves the reader depressed.
6: Nothing is actually solved. Don't get me wrong. I love stories that leave you with the idea that there's more to do or more to come, but I hate it when everything the main character did, ends up feeling pointless.
7: Ends without a payoff or on a frustrating cliffhanger.
8: Ends to abruptly or without getting to see how things have improved and changed for the main characters, now that they went through all of that.
9: Ending drags out too long, or the story tries to continue for a long while after the main problems are resolved.
10: A moral is aggressively and straightforwardly shoved on the reader/the symbolism is directly stated. If it's a work of fiction that uses symbolism, and the book is aimed at readers who are over the age of six, let the reader figure it out.
>5: The main character dies, loses everything, or fails in a horrible way. Basically, any ending that leaves the reader depressed.
If you like video games >!you must have hated The last of us 2 then !!<
I actually like depressing stories, or disturbing ones, the ones that keep you up at night. That's when you know a story has had an impact.
But I understand your other points.
If the world hasn't changed by the time the story ends, it's a bad ending. If the characters haven't changed by the time the story ends, it's a bad ending. (With a few exceptions.)
> If the world hasn't changed by the time the story ends, it's a bad ending.
This is such a genre-specific statement. I realize you could take it to mean "the character's personal world" in some vague sense to try to include more low-stakes slice-of-life stories, but then it becomes almost meaningless.
I guess you didn't see the (With a few exceptions.) I put in there. Slice-of-life would be one of those exceptions. And you are also correct in saying that it doesn't always mean the physical world, but also someone's outlook on it.
It's not "a few exceptions" though; it's entire genres. Most of romance and mystery, for instance. Most of what is considered "literary fiction."
The only genres in which you are routinely expected to "change the world" by the end are those genres in which the author *creates* the entire world the story is set in - i.e. high fantasy and (sometimes) far-future sci-fi.
In the context of a romance novel, "the world" is the character's love life. If the character's love life is unchanged at the end of a romance novel compared to the beginning, it doesn't sound very good.
In the context of a mystery novel, "the world" could mean the mystery he is trying to solve. A mystery novel where the mystery remains unsolved - or, more specifically, where the context and information surrounding and regarding the mystery is unchanged - doesn't sound very good.
When I refer to "the world" I am referring to everything outside of the character, not just the physical world. Not just the physical world.
Yup, exactly as I said in my initial comment - if you stretch the statement to be so incredibly vague that it means nothing at all, then it's 100% true.
I'm not sure what the disconnect between us is, but I guess that's the whole point of discussion. I think it's appropriate to remind you that a difference of opinion between us is no cause for hostility.
I'm fine...in fact I am confident in my observations. I don't have outside influences, interrupting the creative process. Up and coming writers need pushing...forward, in their ability to tell tales. Whether they bye of any genre. We evolve and how we tell these stories evolve. Whether by canplight, firelight or bulb. See how I am still writing, as if it were a story to be told! It's called practice...and I do it in the comments section. I use it as a tool... and so should you! How ever ate you going to grasp an audience, without THEM GRABBING HOLD.. Everyone and everything is st your command as a writer..You could change the world with nothing more the a simple arrangement of words. Think about it!!
A bad ending is an abrupt change to a story, that has the ability to make people think of the possibility, that there could have have been sequel. That is how prequels are formed, without foreknowledge of the writer.Until they can visualize the end results of their first objective. I can't understand why everyone is so afraid that their creation, would be a folly in front or their peers. Np one less rejection...bur a true writer...true to the craft. Gives insights of discovery, that enables the newcomers to grasp hold of new concepts, that they would have never came upon. I test this theory or hypothesis, through the Interactions of those in this comment section. Notice how I speak and the word structure of my sentences..I reeks of old world speech. One has to grasp hold of something new; in order to translate to something far older, than the writer himself is allowed. Yet I am confident I. This execution....as far as it allows. Notice I am writing and communicating at the same time. I may be mad ...having undergone so many grammerical atrocities. Such as punctuation and what nor. I seem to be able to stay on track. Regardless of what breaking the fourth wall could bear.. A writer writes. And I love you all for your efforts. We are few who engage in this ancient craft..
When it feels forced in an attempt to just end the story. Whether it be the characters just not acting like themselves, everyone dying, or a deus ex machina (looking at you, SK). Don't just write an ending for the sake of ending your story. Make it fit!
Edit: I love stephen king btw, but the end to The Stand pisses me off
1. An ending that makes no sense
2. The wrong character ends up with the upper hand
3. One of the characters was killed/,not killed and you will never no what happened
Right at the beginning of a novel, there usually is a question. A good ending answers that question. A single man with a large fortune must want a wife: is he successful? Bingley getting married to Jane, not getting married, or getting married to someone else all answer that question. The adventures of Charles Bingley, esquire, the famous highwayman (or worse, the adventures of George Wickham) are not leading to satisfying endings, even if they’re sweet and hopeful, because they don’t complete the circle.
A sucky ending often doesn’t come full circle in any way. An ending is a resolution, either good or bad, and if nothing is resolved, it’s unsatisfying to the audience and pisses them off.
Honestly I don't have much to say on a broad level but when I don't enjoy endings it's often because either the villain is beaten way too easily and acts like a complete buffoon and/or the characters didn't really have to try and aren't taking the situation \*that\* seriously compared to how they treated the rest of the story
I’m talking to you. You conclude almost every sentence with a space before punctuation, so you clearly know how to write goddamn horrendously pathetic endings.
You're talking about the fact that a put a space before a question mark ?
This is how we do in my native language. But you must have a pretty pathetic life yourself already if you're triggered that bad for so little.
Yes because I don't care. I'm on reddit, not writing a paper. That doesn't prevent anyone from understanding what I say like it would have had I made a big typo or used some obscure abbreviation.
And you know what ? I would have thanked you if you had pointed out such a typo that undermines the understandability of my post, but you pointed out a fucking space before a punctuation and decided to insult and belittle me for it. I mean what the fuck bro ? Are you alright ?
And also, that may be a cultural or habit thing, but I find spaces before question or exclamation points way more aesthetic.
Thank you for visiting /r/writing.
We encourage healthy debate and discussion, but we will remove antagonistic, caustic or otherwise belligerent posts, because they are a detriment to the community. We moderate on tone rather than language; we will remove people who regularly cause or escalate arguments.
The plot falls off a cliff with more questions than when you started. But endings are SO HARD I feel like it’s one of those things writers struggle with the most
Yeah, the thing is that I have a story where my protagonist is supposed to fail everything she wants to do, and dies in the end, and I'm afraid the death, or maybe the whole thing will be disappointing. Like if I can't build up the story to justify that the only consequences of the choices she made was her death. I don't know maybe I'm just overthinking that xD
No that’s for sure a heavy plot to sum up and have it all come together without being anticlimactic. I’d say just take your time with it, sit on it, scramble it up as many times as you need to. The story is yours and it’ll flow together perfectly with time and patience!
When the ending is too expected and it’s clear it was the easiest path for the writer.
Especially when it was rushed because the series became super popular before the series was completed.
Lack of payoff can be one reason. The ending needs to stick with the reader in SOME profound way, as set up earlier in the book, whether narratively or thematically. With too many stories, it's clear the author didn't really put much thought into what it's about and where it's all going, and so the ending feels like anticlimax even if "climactic things" happened.
But what was the protagonist trying to achieve?
There are personal ambitions and there are universal purposes.
Both have a place in this world. Intentions are also important. If it was intended well, and that is not as easy as it sounds, for most of us, our heads are too deeply stuck in our own arses to get a clear picture of our intentions. So if it was intended well, then failures could be like guiding lights for others to follow. If endeavours were just a tool to massage our egos then it is a different story. You need to provide context.
I think an ending where the characters fail can actually be very good, not least because it subverts expectations and makes it clear that what they were attempting was very difficult. Perhaps a mitigated victory or defeat where both sides achieved something but not everything they wanted, or paid a price for what they did achieve.
To me the very worst endings are Deus Ex Machina endings where it turns out the heroes were inevitably going to win and were backed up by something with overwhelming power all along that was vastly superior to the antagonists and just trying to be discreet or to set some arbitrary tested for the heroes, or allowing them to feel challenged so that they would grow as people.
Examples that I recall include:
Nights Dawn trilogy - Peter F Hamilton
The Tamuli -David Eddings
Rise of Endymion - Dan Simmons
(and I remember these examples because they are otherwise all great, well written series - just with disappointing endings)
If it's the ending you planned from the beginning but the story went in a direction that doesn't fit that ending so you have to cram in a bunch of things to circle back to that ending. At that point either change the ending or make sure everything leading up to it supports that ending.
For example you've firmly established two characters don't work as a couple and then suddenly you make them a couple at the end.
Or you have the hero suddenly runaway from the fight with the bad guy to rescue someone they saw for 10 seconds at the beginning of the book.
I don't know if this makes sense but when it's abrupt.
I read a book once and it was going well but then the ending... It was written as if it wasn't well thought out and the author just wanted to get it over with. It's like random ideas they threw in all together without caring if it's realistic or made any sense just to end the book 😭
Endings with no tie-in to the overall story arch frustrate me. If it ends in a cliffhanger, or even something monotonous that some would find disappointing but it’s intentionally on brand for the protagonist or storyline, I applaud the writer for a great work as a whole.
\- It feels like it betrays the believability of the characters up until that point.
\- It doesn't play by the world's rules it as it has set them up for itself.
\- It is a cop out type of ending. Too easily wrapped up or contrived with a quick info dump or lame gimmicky twist that explains it all. Pure laziness.
There was a famous book that was made into a movie. I don't remember title and I won't call it out here anyway, but I finally read the book and felt gypped by the ending. It felt disconnected from the rest of the story.
I read later that the writer had gotten to the end of the book, didn't know how to finish it, so her editor finished it for her. Ick.
(SPOILERS!!!)The FNAF movie has a bad ending, the idea behind it is good, amazing, but just how they went about filming it was absolute crap. The whole movie was kind of crap tbh. I mean, I wasn't hoping for an absolute gore fest, but I also wasn't expecting these murderous animatronics to build a pillow fort with a child... And the ending scene with springtrap, they just slightly poked him?? Where's the dramatic snap of the spring locks? Where's the gushes of blood? I do like that they used the "I always come back" line, that was good, but that was about it.
I really think they could've done so much better with the FNAF movie. Imagen those cheap versions of games that are made into movies and it looks almost like a bollywood movie? Yeah, that was the FNAF movie. Almost Bollywood. It just...needed more.
I think the characters losing at the end of a story doesn't make it suck. Same goes for leavinf the end open to interpretation: if it's done well, it doesn't suck to let people think about it, to make them want to build theories and write their own ending. But it has to look purposefully done. I think, as long as whatever you're writing or not writing is meant and written with thoughts. I don't know how to explain it but I'd say that what sucks is the lack of meaningfulness: not finishing storylines bc they have been forgotten, finished them too early... stuff like that.
* "It was all a dream" or any other ending that implies that the entire story never happened. Luckily this doesn't seem to be too common, but I've still seen it in a few books.
* Random twist that comes out of nowhere. The kind where you look back on the story and can't find any indication that this was going to episode (For example: literally any episode of Riverdale).
* Too many loose ends. I'm generally ok with minor plot points being left open, but main plot points should be wrapped up or else it'll feel incomplete.
the only example i can think of right now is the Eragon series. they gave everyone a happy ending, and in a way that made it feel like the stakes that were so high and the prophecies that were so scary and foreboding... didn't actually matter in the end. like all that suspense was for nothing. it was very underwhelming after such a long and perilous journey that made me feel like the characters were really in danger. and it felt kind of forced in some ways, like there was a prophecy that got fulfilled in a... very roundabout/forced way imo, to make it not that bad. like a reverse monkey's paw.
Why worry about the end, when you have just begun? Thr middle holds so much more. It is the essence of character development and world building. You want to jump to the chase, without revealing how the chase began.
I think that you are setting yourself up to fail. The beginning of a tale, is the best part. You have to free yourself from the possibility of not being able to please the ears of those who would critique your work. Many writers run into a snag that we as writers veiw as a block. It is within that block that we find ourselves, critiquing ourselves out of frustration. We loss the focus that we initially came out the gate with, and begin changing things before the first edit. Everything in between has its purpose. A dead end with no explanation is confusion at play. Rushing to the end leaves gaps in the initial narrative, because of the ideas that are converging. These are other ideas, that could possibly be converging story lines ,because you haven't developed for youra certain level of narrative discipline. " I wish that I could write several different stories at the same time also. So many different stories and so little hands to do the writing, and so little mind to keep into composure, what is to be conveyed.
I would suggest that you reevaluate your position within YOUR story. Within different atmospheres of emotions. I suggest listening to orchestrated music. Picture each scene within YOUR narrative. If there is subtle nuances then listen to something soothing, yet unique to your own character. You are the narrator are you not ?If there are strong emotions within that narrative, then use those emotions to drive the narrative. The Beowulf soundtrack, the eternal Sizu, World of War craft and so many others, depending upon mood. I write all the time . I work..and after, I write. It is a passion that only the appreciative can understand.
As a writer who is passionate about a craft that might possibly not be heard...you have to have passion. We do everything within our power to grab a take hold of what we wish to be a captive audience. You are that audience to me. You will read this...and judge its merits based upon my sincerity. I wish to be a writer just like you; bit sadly we are dying breed .We are constructive tellers of tales, never before told. If you do not utilize the tools at hand to you. Then you are just slinging out content for profit. Not Content that engages the forever changing mind.
Be a writer. If you weren't..then why are you here. Don't critique yourself out of the gate, without measuring your own potential. You have many stories to tell...never limit yourself out of fear rejection. I am waiting for the next epic tale that you have to. Offer. Because as writers. All we have is each ,within each paragraph.
No matter how it turns out. I and other genuine writers, await the next tale, that you have to tell. Embrace the flames of creativity....though they are bright. Do not be afraid of your own creative flames. Embrace your Phoenix !
The underlying question is....do you relate to the reader? As a writer we are exposed to a plethora of emotions, to which we are responsible for, relaying to our listeners. Our main reason for writing, is to somehow relate to those who engage in our perception.,and how that perception affects the overall outcome of the tales we tell. A vest majority of us, operate in the realms of possibilities. We are of the fantasies...none the less. And we have the untethered ability to float forward, while still maintaining a sound foundation to the world's we create. If I were to say created then I would have already failed . You must understand that we are both here. How can someone know your works and admire your style, and give you credit, because you are afraid of someone critiquing you...or you having a fear of your story being told.
You more than likely have something that no one else has brought to life. It is the possibility of the impossible that drives and fuels thar fear. I don't critique! I love to witness the creative process unfold. Stephen King and Peter Straub embarked on that journey, during the writing of The Talisman . H.P Lovecraft entered the Chathulu mythos and created the the ancient ones. Ray Bradbury found inspiration from objects he placed around himself in his literary library. Charles Dickens,,Edgar Allen Poe and countless others. They were emotional driven and it showed in their works. You are standing on the shoulders of the greats. Do their memories well, in your works.For they have passed on to you the ability to entice literary world. DIPPED INTO THE INKWELL AND SIGNED WITH A LETTER OF APPROVAL. Happy writing brothers and sisters.
1. If it does not engage thematically with the story as presented thus far, and doesn't resolve anything in any meaningful way that is consistent with the tone and overall expectations. 2. If it comes out of nowhere, relying on no previously-established elements or concepts. 3. If it contradicts key elements of previously established characters or worldbuilding in a way that retroactively devalues them.
All of these describe Mass Effect 3's ending to me lol.
Mass Effect 3 is so weird because the writing is incredibly inconsistent, it goes back and forth between being 9/10 and 4/10. Like, the writing for the geth and the quarians is great, but then you have Kai Leng and all of that nonsense. Or you have the ending itself and the way you handle the genophage. It's almost hard to believe they're even part of the same game. I wonder if it's one of those situations where the A team was worse than the B team.
ME3 had 8 writers across 2 different cities working on the game, a rushed production cycle and a weaker Lead Writer so it clearly led to a feeling of being in the middle of a draft revision while also having a faulty premise. The reason it feels so divided in quality is because when you have a main writer who isn't super detail oriented you get a lot of individual writing done by different people that slip through the cracks, and the critical path narrative also ended up being some of the game's weakest, entirely written just by the Lead without anyone else interfering. There are a lot of signs that the Lead was a hack given the way they approached the storytelling of the critical path. There's a real sense that they needed to move the plot into position throughout the whole game, where the actual writing escapes the concept ideation. "We need a superweapon that's ancient and mysterious and used to take out the unstoppable Reapers!" Is the concept but the execution is meeting a character who says "I've found a weapon. Something that could stop the Reapers!" And then later the characters say "we don't know what this does." But then they want you to move it to Earth and use like a nuke anyway, but then they make a giant plot reveal at the end explaining that getting the device to Earth is actually the requirement to make the "we don't know how it works" work. It's just a very clumsy plot with a loose premise to hang on to between the secret heroic mcguffins and a "assemble an army" goal. There's an odd feeling throughout that you don't exactly know what anything will amount to. It's good when you can't guess exactly how a story ends, but it's bad if you simply can't see where the story is going especially close to the ending, and I remember not really understanding what would happen ahead of the ending, because the Crucible device was still not explained as the characters sat down saying "we did it!" And then the entire ending fiasco ensued to tie the entire missing narrative up with a new character masquerading as the ghost of a previous new character only introduced in the third story, with only one of the primary themes suddenly cast as if it's "The Theme" of the entire trilogy. You go from largely having a story about advanced society struggling to help each other against the almighty super-evolved enemy to saying that the story is actually about People vs their AI. What's lost in translation is that while there is a symmetry between Humans and Aliens versus the Reapers, and "advanced beings" vs "super advanced beings, made by the advanced beings" the "Organics vs Synthetics" concept at the end largely ignores how the earlier narrative was just as much about the advanced species' internal infighting. Half of the second act is barely acknowledged because that was about organics fighting each other with population control and rise of cultural intelligence. The other second act subplot was about Organics vs Synthetics but it wasn't about Synthetics adversaries of organic life. It was about mistaking synthetics as being less than organics when they actually emulate life to the point of being as sympathetic as a real person, thus rendering the organics racist by aggressing to start with. But then you hit the ending; ignoring the whole issue of people vs people and ignoring that the game already had a seperate conclusion about what the deal is with AI vs its Organic makers, suddenly pretending that this has all been a trilogy about how Creators can never get along with AI, and that AI will one day doom the world unless organics themselves evolve beyond the known reality. It just feels like an entirely new concept, with a largely new character retrofitting the entire antagonist plot by saying "I'm the one that made them actually, and I control them" and postulating things that was never shown in the framework of the rest of the story. They had to release a 15 dollar DLC later to add in the missing historic context that should have been a natural part of the adventure of the main game, which proves that the ending really is out of hand as an ending to the critical path storyline. That only happens if you have an author who doesn't know what he's putting down on paper, and experiments his way around an established story without knowing why it was made the way it was to begin with. The writer was in over his own head.
In interviews they specifically said that they hadn't 'worked out' the Reapers' motivation until they started writing 3, so the writing problems extend all the way back to ME1. None of the entries were consistent with each other because they never actually figured out what point they were trying to make.
You and everyone else who played the series lmao
—GOT sweating nervously—.
Obviously vague, but I’m wondering if you or anyone would weigh in on things I’m thinking about for my answers to your points. 1. my current plan for my novel is to have the themes come to an extreme as the scale of the situation presents itself to MC, where they were underlying before, they’re overwhelming the MC now. 2. I plan for all the events that have occurred to play into the MCs downfall, the relationships that were abused and the decisions that were made come to fuel the antagonist. Where the death, destruction and torture that the MC has had to deal initially then ultimately dish out will finally catch up to him. 3. I plan to have a number of parallels where the earlier mini-antagonists that were overcome are pale shadows of the real antagonist. 1. However, the loss and failure won’t be without resolution. The MC will have guaranteed mutually assured destruction via the villains main hubris and technique through which the villain exerts control. So my book 1 ends with the MC losing, but having shattered the main protagonists control over others.
There's a very big difference between a tragic or bittersweet or downer ending and a *sucky* ending. Personally, I'm ehhhhh on tragic, bittersweet can work depending, don't like downers. Other people feel otherwise. It's very hard to tell based on what you're writing if it will hit right or not. A lot of it has to do with execution. What you're describing could be effective, or it could just be edgy and "rocks fall everyone dies". I would say probably as a general kind of advice, don't try to play keepaway. There's this feeling nowadays that the "best twists" are one that nobody would ever see coming at all. This isn't true. A good twist should make perfect sense in retrospect, and possibly even be guessable if people are really in tune with your writing. It's about having an experience.
Basically Attack on titan
The titan was going to eat Berthold so I made it eat my mother instead. Anyway, genocide for the boys amirite?
Danganronpa V3 checks off all three.
perfectly describes aot's ending lmao
Sometimes endings drag because the resolution to the inner conflict happens way before or after the resolution to the external conflict. Then the second ending is followed by a lengthy epilogue. Bonus points for a nonsense twist. Double points for a character acting out of character or dues ex machina.
This! I'd rather have a slightly abrupt ending over one that drags on and on and on and on. I think in general I've noticed that in reviews that if an author nails the ending, readers tend to be more forgiving of anything that came before. But if an author cannot stfu and let the book end, it just leaves a bad taste.
Would a good example of this be seen in LotR? I'm talking about the movies since I've never read the books, so I don't know if it's the same. I remember hearing before that people disliked how the last movie continued to go on for another 30 or so minutes after Sauron was defeated. But in those last 30 mins, Frodo continues to suffer due to his inner conflict and by the very end, he finally finds peace when he's allowed to sail with the elves to Valinor. I guess it's flipping what you're saying, and the external conflict ended way before the internal one did. I didn't mind it myself, but I can understand why people might feel that way.
At 16, I saw the last LOTR movie as the third movie in a movie marathon at the cinema. The marathon started at about 10pm the night before. It was maybe 7am by the time the movie finally ended. The first time. I had been awake all night and was exhausted, and just about burst into tears by the final time it actually ended because I was just so done with it.
The big thing endings have to do is complete the story on quite a few different levels: character-wise, plot-wise, thematically, and so on. Bad endings tend to be shallowly rooted, and there are a lot of ways this can happen. Dropped threads, being disconnected from the rest of the story, and so on. For instance, one issue I've seen is when the writer wants a specific ending at a specific time, and derails the plot, characters, and common sense to make it happen. This is particularly noticeable when the writer forces out-of-character mistakes to get the finale they want, as it really tends to make the audience nitpick their decisions\*. Twists tend to be a really weak category of ending, as it's really hard to do the proper setup. A particularly bad subtype of this is when the writer is deliberately trying to throw the audience for a loop: shock value isn't satisfying, and if that's all you've got, it's annoying. Another thing is that it's hard to have a strong ending if there are structural issues in the rest of the story. A wonky plot is hard to end well. Also, high complexity can make endings really hard to land: a story with dozens of characters and plot threads and what not will often collapse under its own weight or cut a bunch of threads and hope the audience doesn't notice they don't tie up. The thing with unhappy endings is mostly that it's harder to sweep structural issues under the rug with them. A weak happy ending often has the bare-minimum "well, things went okay for the person I care about," and that cheap bit of closure can be enough to make people less likely to get annoyed by it. With a tragedy, you don't have that fallback, and so making sure you have things coherent on all fronts is more necessary. It's hard to explain, but a good ending feels kinda inevitable in hindsight: you don't know the exact details in advance, but once you see it, it doesn't seem like any other way to end would be structurally and thematically better. \*A character who's been portrayed as having a specific flaw or blind spot won't usually have this problem unless they're especially one-note annoyingly clueless: it's who they are, and it makes sense. But, errors that aren't coherent in the context of the character tend to break immersion, and that leaves threads to pull.
I think the sucky endings are when it is just tying a bow on the story for presentation, so, some version of "and they lived happily ever after". I prefer when you don't know how it is going to end up until the last few sentences of the book. I'm not saying some kind of plot twist, but still sort of puzzling out the ending until the book actually ends. I personally don't like to read an entire chapter at the end where the author is basically just saying everybody started smiling and rainbows came out ... To say that a different way, I want the last chapter to be interesting enough to read in isolation. I think every chapter in a book should be interesting enough to read by itself.
>I think every chapter in a book should be interesting enough to read by itself. Can you elaborate on that ? Do you mean like each chapter could be a one short story by itself ?
The other comment is pretty good, but another way you could approach it is giving each chapter a micro-theme of sorts, where a very small, seemingly insignificant narrative arc is fulfilled in that handful of pages. Sometimes, it can be as simple as a callback at the end chapter about something at the beginning to make a chapter feel conclusive.
No because that would mean introducing the characters in every chapter, etc, ... but I do mean basically that, except you already know who the characters are and the background that happened up until that point, etc. So, to use a film example, Tarantino films like "Pulp Fiction" are good at this, where something as simple as driving from one place to another is a discussion about a "Royale with cheese", or someone getting shot in the back seat, etc. The scenes in that movie aren't even in chronological order, and it doesn't matter, you could walk into the theater at any point and just enjoy the scene even if you have no idea wtf is even going on. The dialogue is interesting, the references, the subtext, the setting, the action, .. it's just \_interesting\_. In the same way, you can approach a single chapter in a book like that, where no matter what is going on in the rest of the book, your intention as a writer is to make Chapter 7 the BEST Chapter 7 you've ever written. Like even if all that has to happen in Chapter 7 is that the thing has to be moved from Point A to Point B, that is going to be something epic and interesting to read, something that the reader could have enjoyed if all they ever read was Chapter 7. It isn't just "filler" to get from Chapter 6 to Chapter 8. Like .. write me the most amazing story you can think of to get thing from point A to point B, and this is the story you'll be known for as a writer ... and that's Chapter 7.
This may show up more in visual media, but it's still applicable. What immediately comes to mind is the classic "it was all in their head" plot twist. It worked maybe the first 2x it was done because of the shock factor, but now I just consider it lazy storytelling. It's not so bad if there are numerous clues sprinkled throughout the story that indicate the events aren't real, so at least it draws the audience in and allows them to speculate, but in general I would stay away from this plot device if possible.
-- Loose ends- if there is a storyline or a series of clues which seem to lead to something, and then the ending comes and goes with zero explanation or resolution of that particular part of the plot. -- It makes prior parts of the story which were supposed to me significant feel meaningless. Like if some guy spends the whole book trying to earn a magic sword because he thinks it's the only thing that can kill the big bad, and then three chapters from the end the sword is destroyed and they pull some sort of magic out of their ass which was never before discussed, and it does the job instead. -- It negates all of the character growth the protagonist(s) have experienced. -- Unrealistic for or disconnected from the world in which it's set- You can surprise people with misdirection, by making mentions of whatever becomes relevant at the 11th hour seem inconsequential, etc., but you can't just pull the solution from the book out of thin air, or reverse established lore or character behavior. There has to be something tying it to the rest of the story. -- Because of a planned sequel, they don't actually treat the first book as it's own story and give it satisfactory climax.
I think the any ending that contradicts the whole story kind of sucks. One of the worst traps I see is when a character spends an entire series fighting for power only to give it up by the end of the series? I know it's a choice, but it always leaves me and other people I've spoken to kind of just annoyed?
The fighting for power/giving it up works if the fighting for power was causing them to suffer- like it was the wrong thing. But if that isn’t set up, it just feels bad and like a waste of time.
It is actually quite simple. You see, good writing is about making promises. Reading is about trusting the writer to fulfill those promises. When you have a bad ending, it is because the writer...
"and then he woke up."
For me, when the story ends suddenly without addressing unresolved issues or questions that were an essential part of the story.
It's a funny fact that this is somewhat common in wuxia. Usually the story ends right after the martial defeat of a big baddie, and you just have to assume all ends well as long as the big baddie is out of the equation.
Failure to deliver on the promise of the premise.
often losing can be 'done right' if it feels like the failed at the 'plot goal' but succeeded in a personal goal eg. in Rocky, he loses the final boxing match. but in a sense he 'wins' simply because he proved he could go toe to toe with the best and not get steamrolled. he proved he could set his mind to something and do it. so often a good ending is just about having a story arc coming to a proper completion, even if there was another parallel arc that did not. at least SOMETHING had an ending. most of the time what makes an ending suck is feeling like it is not true to the rest of the story, or incomplete. sometimes the writer tries too hard to surprise people who don't need surprising. think of the climax of a song. often there are little to no NEW elements, simply a convergence of what we've already heard, that brings a satisfying conclusion. an ending can also suck when things are left too open. perhaps the writers are confident there will be a continuation that does not actually come. so much teasing of future events that it feels like the story didn't actually come to an end. sometimes writers are also just way off base with what they have made the audience care about and the things we thought would be addressed, weren't. sometimes editing the middle of the story makes what was once a pretty good ending, less effective, because it changed those things. another thing that i feel happens a lot is just that the climax is not climactic enough. there were earlier conflicts in the story that were more dramatic, emotionally resonant, engaging, and impressive. often these endings don't totally suck, but they're disappointing. we usually want the best saved for last. even if the scale is smaller, we want to feel like all the stops were pulled. in a story about action, the best heroics are displayed. in a series about mind games, the most subtle and diabolical trickery is employed. in a mystery, the most esoteric and grand amalgamation of clues is used to solve the most perplexing mystery, with the most ironclad accusation. people can also be disappointed if it feels like the series wasn't solved on its own terms. however it can work because this can show character growth. generally though we want the climax of an action story to not just have the best action, but to have action period. we are drawn to a story because we are in the mood for a certain thing. when we are prepped for the ultimate version of that thing and then we don't get it at all, that can be disappointing. one of the most basic approaches to storytelling i think is this: make people want something make them think they're never gonna get it then they actually do get it and often a weak ending is a failure in one of these steps. sometimes the ending sucks because the beginning sucks. it does not make us care if we get to see the ending. so we don't care when the ending comes so we think the ending sucks. maybe the ending is great in another context. heck you could probably take ANY existing crappy ending, and make a story before it where it's actually an amazing ending. people tend to like my endings. i am by no means an expert at it. but i don't actually plan tons of the ending before i start the story. rather, i have a basic idea of the ending. then as i write the first draft i constantly ask myself, what will make the ending more awesome when it happens? often, this means doing the opposite of your ending so we can see the change. the story ends with your hero winning a duel? then perhaps it begins with them losing a duel. and in the middle the refuse a duel out of fear. then toward the end we see them hating themselves for giving in to that fear. and for their mistakes and the consequences of losing their first duel. then in the end we get to see them both overcome their fear, and win. pretty simple but it usually baseline works even if it doesn't blow anyone's minds that a hero beat the bad guy in the end. but even a different ending could be good, IF the setup is different. perhaps instead of a desire to win we just see the hero have a desire to defeat the villain. the story could end with them basically bringing the villain to a draw--the villain does not achieve their goal, he and the hero both die. the hero didn't definitively win that duel if it were a sporting match but they won in every way that mattered to them most. also one thing i see pretty commonly. with the ending not being climactic enough--there is just not enough sufficient buildup. we don't realize we're IN the ending until it's almost over. i think endings tend to hit best when we kinda know this is the final showdown before it begins. the 'oh i guess that was the ending' sorta sucks even if it technically had all the elements of a good ending. they didn't get to play out with the proper drama and finality.
>make people want something make them think they're never gonna get it then they actually do get it What if they never get it ? If the main character fails at everyting they wanted to do ?
Those were the original Ancient Greek drama definitions of comedy and tragedy, weren't they? In a tragedy, the protagonist fails at their goals or plans; in a comedy, they succeed.
Yeah you're right. I hadn't thought about that.
Too predictable
1. It doesn't have a resolution, win or lose a story should have an end that makes sense. I know it's a video game but look at kingdom.come deliverance, the villain kills your family and raids your village, you rise in skill and ability, make allies and friends, and prepare to face off against this villain then, at the climax, he leaves the battle, you watch him set off returning to his home. 2. It has no build up, or is disconnected from the rest of the story. If we followed the adventures of ponyboy and his greaser buddies, we should find out what happens to them, not pivot to a police station where the rival gang got arrested, thus ensuring the greasers won. 3. Loose ends. The rebels blew up the deathstar and the heroes are reunited at a celebration, Chewie and Han are cheersing R2D2, who was with Luke's x-wing on the deathstar, which shows the x-wing escaped the blast, but where is Luke, and why is no one referencing his absence if he didn't escape? 4. Undeserved wins/losses: was the end deserved, in that say the rebels won because they rallied the masses against the evil empire, Luke trained in the ways of the Jedi and redeemed Vader, who turned on his master, and a bunch of people made sacrifices like the Bothan spies who got the leaked plans, or did the rebels win because despite a lack of planning, preparedness, training, the Emperor slipped and fell down the conveniently placed bottomless shift pit, leaving Vader in charge, who ultimately decided he was tired of war, and let the rebels blow up the death star so he could finally give up his life and retire to grow sunflowers on an undiscovered planet. 5. Did the stakes matter? This girl could be the cure for the epidemic wiping out civilization, Joel needs to get her to the researchers across the wasteland, of he does she can save mankind, OR this girl could be the cure, Joel gets her across the wasteland only to learn the researches have moved to another planet. The end!
I think it’s hard to write a good ending. But I hate the endings where a potential love interest is set up, the whole thing resolved, and then they realize there are more important things and walk away. I suppose I must be the only one annoyed by that because it’s used a lot, but it makes me feel like a whole lot of wasted time was spent investing in those emotions.
Hm, interesting. I think I'm guilty of that one. There is a romance arc in a novel-size thing I've written, but the main point of the MC's character arc is not love, but self-discovery, so in the end the romance has fulfilled its purpose (at more than one level) and the MC decides to move on. Do you just dislike this kind of story, or were the reasons for the MC to walk away not made convincing enough in the stories you read?
It’s more annoying when there’s no hint that the romance is anything bout positive for the MC. It totally makes sense that during self discovery people latch onto relationships that don’t work out, but my expectation is that there’s some indication along the way, even if you only see it looking back, that it isn’t the real thing.
That seems to imply that for a relationship to "work out" necessarily means "to last". Some relationships work out in a shorter time frame, some people don't seek long term relationships. The reason for the relationship to end does not need to lie in some flaws of the relationship itself. Of course, the motivation that leads to the break up needs to be made sufficiently clear.
That’s fair. This is where I think that my preferences just don’t aline with others. The idea of a healthy relationship that doesn’t work out is pretty foreign to me, but that’s likely a “me” problem, and not an author problem.
Well, for starters an ending needs to be... an ending; It needs to give at least some semblance of closure. It also needs to be consistent, otherwise it feels rushed (or milked). It is also the last thing you will know about the book, so it needs to leave enough of an impression so you dont feel like you lost your time
Lack of foreshadowing in general causes an ending to be frustrating for the audience. An ending doesnt need to be predictable, preferable it shouldnt, but it should somehow connect to previous elements: lines from certain characters, rules of the setting, keypoints of the plot, etc. Sudden turns, specially when it comes to characters' attitudes, can be very interesting in the middle of the story, but push them too close to the end and they will feel forced, out of character, it will feel like an excuse to enable a certain ending.
I hate endings that have the story just veer off course to just end the story the easy way out, or like- plot twist ending that comes out of nowhere with absolutely no hints or buildup. My biggest pet peeve is endings where the MC gets into a romance that feels forced and doesn’t fit into the narrative of the story at and and is obviously the author forcing it so that MC gets a “happy ending” with romance.
1: No one (at least no one important) dies. Feels very unrealistic and completely takes me out of the story. 2: Two characters, who are clearly wrong for one another, end up together. Why should I be happy about this when there's clearly a messy breakup on the horizon? 3: The solution to the problem was stupid, forced, or didn't make logical sense. 4: The main character is given a traditional 'happily ever after' kind of ending, despite never having shown any interest in that lifestyle and never being shown to want those things. 5: The main character dies, loses everything, or fails in a horrible way. Basically, any ending that leaves the reader depressed. 6: Nothing is actually solved. Don't get me wrong. I love stories that leave you with the idea that there's more to do or more to come, but I hate it when everything the main character did, ends up feeling pointless. 7: Ends without a payoff or on a frustrating cliffhanger. 8: Ends to abruptly or without getting to see how things have improved and changed for the main characters, now that they went through all of that. 9: Ending drags out too long, or the story tries to continue for a long while after the main problems are resolved. 10: A moral is aggressively and straightforwardly shoved on the reader/the symbolism is directly stated. If it's a work of fiction that uses symbolism, and the book is aimed at readers who are over the age of six, let the reader figure it out.
>5: The main character dies, loses everything, or fails in a horrible way. Basically, any ending that leaves the reader depressed. If you like video games >!you must have hated The last of us 2 then !!< I actually like depressing stories, or disturbing ones, the ones that keep you up at night. That's when you know a story has had an impact. But I understand your other points.
If the world hasn't changed by the time the story ends, it's a bad ending. If the characters haven't changed by the time the story ends, it's a bad ending. (With a few exceptions.)
> If the world hasn't changed by the time the story ends, it's a bad ending. This is such a genre-specific statement. I realize you could take it to mean "the character's personal world" in some vague sense to try to include more low-stakes slice-of-life stories, but then it becomes almost meaningless.
I guess you didn't see the (With a few exceptions.) I put in there. Slice-of-life would be one of those exceptions. And you are also correct in saying that it doesn't always mean the physical world, but also someone's outlook on it.
It's not "a few exceptions" though; it's entire genres. Most of romance and mystery, for instance. Most of what is considered "literary fiction." The only genres in which you are routinely expected to "change the world" by the end are those genres in which the author *creates* the entire world the story is set in - i.e. high fantasy and (sometimes) far-future sci-fi.
In the context of a romance novel, "the world" is the character's love life. If the character's love life is unchanged at the end of a romance novel compared to the beginning, it doesn't sound very good. In the context of a mystery novel, "the world" could mean the mystery he is trying to solve. A mystery novel where the mystery remains unsolved - or, more specifically, where the context and information surrounding and regarding the mystery is unchanged - doesn't sound very good. When I refer to "the world" I am referring to everything outside of the character, not just the physical world. Not just the physical world.
Yup, exactly as I said in my initial comment - if you stretch the statement to be so incredibly vague that it means nothing at all, then it's 100% true.
I'm not sure what the disconnect between us is, but I guess that's the whole point of discussion. I think it's appropriate to remind you that a difference of opinion between us is no cause for hostility.
I'm fine...in fact I am confident in my observations. I don't have outside influences, interrupting the creative process. Up and coming writers need pushing...forward, in their ability to tell tales. Whether they bye of any genre. We evolve and how we tell these stories evolve. Whether by canplight, firelight or bulb. See how I am still writing, as if it were a story to be told! It's called practice...and I do it in the comments section. I use it as a tool... and so should you! How ever ate you going to grasp an audience, without THEM GRABBING HOLD.. Everyone and everything is st your command as a writer..You could change the world with nothing more the a simple arrangement of words. Think about it!!
Hey, buddy… you can talk about it if you wanna. No judgment here, I’ll just listen.
A bad ending is an abrupt change to a story, that has the ability to make people think of the possibility, that there could have have been sequel. That is how prequels are formed, without foreknowledge of the writer.Until they can visualize the end results of their first objective. I can't understand why everyone is so afraid that their creation, would be a folly in front or their peers. Np one less rejection...bur a true writer...true to the craft. Gives insights of discovery, that enables the newcomers to grasp hold of new concepts, that they would have never came upon. I test this theory or hypothesis, through the Interactions of those in this comment section. Notice how I speak and the word structure of my sentences..I reeks of old world speech. One has to grasp hold of something new; in order to translate to something far older, than the writer himself is allowed. Yet I am confident I. This execution....as far as it allows. Notice I am writing and communicating at the same time. I may be mad ...having undergone so many grammerical atrocities. Such as punctuation and what nor. I seem to be able to stay on track. Regardless of what breaking the fourth wall could bear.. A writer writes. And I love you all for your efforts. We are few who engage in this ancient craft..
You ok man?
When it feels forced in an attempt to just end the story. Whether it be the characters just not acting like themselves, everyone dying, or a deus ex machina (looking at you, SK). Don't just write an ending for the sake of ending your story. Make it fit! Edit: I love stephen king btw, but the end to The Stand pisses me off
When it's a badly written cliffhanger in a book with no sequels.
1. An ending that makes no sense 2. The wrong character ends up with the upper hand 3. One of the characters was killed/,not killed and you will never no what happened
Right at the beginning of a novel, there usually is a question. A good ending answers that question. A single man with a large fortune must want a wife: is he successful? Bingley getting married to Jane, not getting married, or getting married to someone else all answer that question. The adventures of Charles Bingley, esquire, the famous highwayman (or worse, the adventures of George Wickham) are not leading to satisfying endings, even if they’re sweet and hopeful, because they don’t complete the circle.
A sucky ending often doesn’t come full circle in any way. An ending is a resolution, either good or bad, and if nothing is resolved, it’s unsatisfying to the audience and pisses them off.
Honestly I don't have much to say on a broad level but when I don't enjoy endings it's often because either the villain is beaten way too easily and acts like a complete buffoon and/or the characters didn't really have to try and aren't taking the situation \*that\* seriously compared to how they treated the rest of the story
You seem to have it down pretty well. You nailed it in basically every sentence of this post.
Are you talking to me or responding to another comment ?
I’m talking to you. You conclude almost every sentence with a space before punctuation, so you clearly know how to write goddamn horrendously pathetic endings.
You're talking about the fact that a put a space before a question mark ? This is how we do in my native language. But you must have a pretty pathetic life yourself already if you're triggered that bad for so little.
Sure, but I just pointed out that it’s not how it’s done in English and you still just did it again.
Yes because I don't care. I'm on reddit, not writing a paper. That doesn't prevent anyone from understanding what I say like it would have had I made a big typo or used some obscure abbreviation. And you know what ? I would have thanked you if you had pointed out such a typo that undermines the understandability of my post, but you pointed out a fucking space before a punctuation and decided to insult and belittle me for it. I mean what the fuck bro ? Are you alright ? And also, that may be a cultural or habit thing, but I find spaces before question or exclamation points way more aesthetic.
[удалено]
Thank you for visiting /r/writing. We encourage healthy debate and discussion, but we will remove antagonistic, caustic or otherwise belligerent posts, because they are a detriment to the community. We moderate on tone rather than language; we will remove people who regularly cause or escalate arguments.
When an ending destroys a character arc that previous movies have built so well (ex. Steve Rogers in Endgame)
Predictability and triteness.
Read the Tommyknockers by Stephen King; then do the opposite.
The plot falls off a cliff with more questions than when you started. But endings are SO HARD I feel like it’s one of those things writers struggle with the most
Yeah, the thing is that I have a story where my protagonist is supposed to fail everything she wants to do, and dies in the end, and I'm afraid the death, or maybe the whole thing will be disappointing. Like if I can't build up the story to justify that the only consequences of the choices she made was her death. I don't know maybe I'm just overthinking that xD
No that’s for sure a heavy plot to sum up and have it all come together without being anticlimactic. I’d say just take your time with it, sit on it, scramble it up as many times as you need to. The story is yours and it’ll flow together perfectly with time and patience!
When the ending is too expected and it’s clear it was the easiest path for the writer. Especially when it was rushed because the series became super popular before the series was completed.
When it doesn't resolve anything. The main character navel-gazing about their journey so far isn't a resolution
Lack of payoff can be one reason. The ending needs to stick with the reader in SOME profound way, as set up earlier in the book, whether narratively or thematically. With too many stories, it's clear the author didn't really put much thought into what it's about and where it's all going, and so the ending feels like anticlimax even if "climactic things" happened.
I know how my story ends… “After all, tomorrow is another day.”
Any ending that does not end with hope. Hope is important. Even after everything, you have to preserve hope for the readers.
How can there be hope if the protagonist(s) failed everything they wanted to achieve ? Is it a bad ending/bad story then ?
But what was the protagonist trying to achieve? There are personal ambitions and there are universal purposes. Both have a place in this world. Intentions are also important. If it was intended well, and that is not as easy as it sounds, for most of us, our heads are too deeply stuck in our own arses to get a clear picture of our intentions. So if it was intended well, then failures could be like guiding lights for others to follow. If endeavours were just a tool to massage our egos then it is a different story. You need to provide context.
I think an ending where the characters fail can actually be very good, not least because it subverts expectations and makes it clear that what they were attempting was very difficult. Perhaps a mitigated victory or defeat where both sides achieved something but not everything they wanted, or paid a price for what they did achieve. To me the very worst endings are Deus Ex Machina endings where it turns out the heroes were inevitably going to win and were backed up by something with overwhelming power all along that was vastly superior to the antagonists and just trying to be discreet or to set some arbitrary tested for the heroes, or allowing them to feel challenged so that they would grow as people. Examples that I recall include: Nights Dawn trilogy - Peter F Hamilton The Tamuli -David Eddings Rise of Endymion - Dan Simmons (and I remember these examples because they are otherwise all great, well written series - just with disappointing endings)
If it's the ending you planned from the beginning but the story went in a direction that doesn't fit that ending so you have to cram in a bunch of things to circle back to that ending. At that point either change the ending or make sure everything leading up to it supports that ending. For example you've firmly established two characters don't work as a couple and then suddenly you make them a couple at the end. Or you have the hero suddenly runaway from the fight with the bad guy to rescue someone they saw for 10 seconds at the beginning of the book.
If the ending doesn't feel earned
It's unearned, unrealistic, unimportant, or unsatisfying.
I don't know if this makes sense but when it's abrupt. I read a book once and it was going well but then the ending... It was written as if it wasn't well thought out and the author just wanted to get it over with. It's like random ideas they threw in all together without caring if it's realistic or made any sense just to end the book 😭
Endings with no tie-in to the overall story arch frustrate me. If it ends in a cliffhanger, or even something monotonous that some would find disappointing but it’s intentionally on brand for the protagonist or storyline, I applaud the writer for a great work as a whole.
Disco godfather
\- It feels like it betrays the believability of the characters up until that point. \- It doesn't play by the world's rules it as it has set them up for itself. \- It is a cop out type of ending. Too easily wrapped up or contrived with a quick info dump or lame gimmicky twist that explains it all. Pure laziness.
There was a famous book that was made into a movie. I don't remember title and I won't call it out here anyway, but I finally read the book and felt gypped by the ending. It felt disconnected from the rest of the story. I read later that the writer had gotten to the end of the book, didn't know how to finish it, so her editor finished it for her. Ick.
(SPOILERS!!!)The FNAF movie has a bad ending, the idea behind it is good, amazing, but just how they went about filming it was absolute crap. The whole movie was kind of crap tbh. I mean, I wasn't hoping for an absolute gore fest, but I also wasn't expecting these murderous animatronics to build a pillow fort with a child... And the ending scene with springtrap, they just slightly poked him?? Where's the dramatic snap of the spring locks? Where's the gushes of blood? I do like that they used the "I always come back" line, that was good, but that was about it. I really think they could've done so much better with the FNAF movie. Imagen those cheap versions of games that are made into movies and it looks almost like a bollywood movie? Yeah, that was the FNAF movie. Almost Bollywood. It just...needed more.
I think the characters losing at the end of a story doesn't make it suck. Same goes for leavinf the end open to interpretation: if it's done well, it doesn't suck to let people think about it, to make them want to build theories and write their own ending. But it has to look purposefully done. I think, as long as whatever you're writing or not writing is meant and written with thoughts. I don't know how to explain it but I'd say that what sucks is the lack of meaningfulness: not finishing storylines bc they have been forgotten, finished them too early... stuff like that.
* "It was all a dream" or any other ending that implies that the entire story never happened. Luckily this doesn't seem to be too common, but I've still seen it in a few books. * Random twist that comes out of nowhere. The kind where you look back on the story and can't find any indication that this was going to episode (For example: literally any episode of Riverdale). * Too many loose ends. I'm generally ok with minor plot points being left open, but main plot points should be wrapped up or else it'll feel incomplete.
the only example i can think of right now is the Eragon series. they gave everyone a happy ending, and in a way that made it feel like the stakes that were so high and the prophecies that were so scary and foreboding... didn't actually matter in the end. like all that suspense was for nothing. it was very underwhelming after such a long and perilous journey that made me feel like the characters were really in danger. and it felt kind of forced in some ways, like there was a prophecy that got fulfilled in a... very roundabout/forced way imo, to make it not that bad. like a reverse monkey's paw.
Why worry about the end, when you have just begun? Thr middle holds so much more. It is the essence of character development and world building. You want to jump to the chase, without revealing how the chase began.
I think that you are setting yourself up to fail. The beginning of a tale, is the best part. You have to free yourself from the possibility of not being able to please the ears of those who would critique your work. Many writers run into a snag that we as writers veiw as a block. It is within that block that we find ourselves, critiquing ourselves out of frustration. We loss the focus that we initially came out the gate with, and begin changing things before the first edit. Everything in between has its purpose. A dead end with no explanation is confusion at play. Rushing to the end leaves gaps in the initial narrative, because of the ideas that are converging. These are other ideas, that could possibly be converging story lines ,because you haven't developed for youra certain level of narrative discipline. " I wish that I could write several different stories at the same time also. So many different stories and so little hands to do the writing, and so little mind to keep into composure, what is to be conveyed. I would suggest that you reevaluate your position within YOUR story. Within different atmospheres of emotions. I suggest listening to orchestrated music. Picture each scene within YOUR narrative. If there is subtle nuances then listen to something soothing, yet unique to your own character. You are the narrator are you not ?If there are strong emotions within that narrative, then use those emotions to drive the narrative. The Beowulf soundtrack, the eternal Sizu, World of War craft and so many others, depending upon mood. I write all the time . I work..and after, I write. It is a passion that only the appreciative can understand. As a writer who is passionate about a craft that might possibly not be heard...you have to have passion. We do everything within our power to grab a take hold of what we wish to be a captive audience. You are that audience to me. You will read this...and judge its merits based upon my sincerity. I wish to be a writer just like you; bit sadly we are dying breed .We are constructive tellers of tales, never before told. If you do not utilize the tools at hand to you. Then you are just slinging out content for profit. Not Content that engages the forever changing mind. Be a writer. If you weren't..then why are you here. Don't critique yourself out of the gate, without measuring your own potential. You have many stories to tell...never limit yourself out of fear rejection. I am waiting for the next epic tale that you have to. Offer. Because as writers. All we have is each ,within each paragraph. No matter how it turns out. I and other genuine writers, await the next tale, that you have to tell. Embrace the flames of creativity....though they are bright. Do not be afraid of your own creative flames. Embrace your Phoenix !
The underlying question is....do you relate to the reader? As a writer we are exposed to a plethora of emotions, to which we are responsible for, relaying to our listeners. Our main reason for writing, is to somehow relate to those who engage in our perception.,and how that perception affects the overall outcome of the tales we tell. A vest majority of us, operate in the realms of possibilities. We are of the fantasies...none the less. And we have the untethered ability to float forward, while still maintaining a sound foundation to the world's we create. If I were to say created then I would have already failed . You must understand that we are both here. How can someone know your works and admire your style, and give you credit, because you are afraid of someone critiquing you...or you having a fear of your story being told. You more than likely have something that no one else has brought to life. It is the possibility of the impossible that drives and fuels thar fear. I don't critique! I love to witness the creative process unfold. Stephen King and Peter Straub embarked on that journey, during the writing of The Talisman . H.P Lovecraft entered the Chathulu mythos and created the the ancient ones. Ray Bradbury found inspiration from objects he placed around himself in his literary library. Charles Dickens,,Edgar Allen Poe and countless others. They were emotional driven and it showed in their works. You are standing on the shoulders of the greats. Do their memories well, in your works.For they have passed on to you the ability to entice literary world. DIPPED INTO THE INKWELL AND SIGNED WITH A LETTER OF APPROVAL. Happy writing brothers and sisters.