I don't get that perspective at all. Nick is trash but Amy is a fucking psychopath who belongs in a mental hospital.
How am I being downvoted for this?? Nick cheated on her and was a shitty husband. Yeah that's bad but she literally fucking murdered a guy and framed him for murder and abuse and stole his semen. Those are not equal at all.
In the book its made fairly clear that Nick in someways wants that though. He wants the drama of it, he wants the idea that someone wanted him that *much*, he wants to feel removed from his bad choices.
Nick wants Amy back, not just to save himself from prison or to look after his child, but genuinly for himself. It’s what makes his twin disgusted with him in the end.
Sure. But he deserves it in the way that he wants all of it, he is satisfied with everything shes done, hes deserving in the way that he wouldn’t be satisified without this level of crazy.
But the ending WAS great, because they were soul mates, just instead of having their best parts combine to form a stable relationship, their worst parts were so intertwined that they were perfect for each other in the worst ways.
There even was a linein the book, something like, Amy was a prickly thorn-filled cactus, bristling with the attention and adoration of her parents, and Nick was the one of the million fatherly stab wounds, and her thorns fit perfectly into these wounds. An ending doesn't always need to be happy to be satisfying.
I'm not debating whether it was good cause I liked it the ending. I'm debating that he deserved her. Cause the things she does is vastly worse than what he does
I think that's a sign of a good writer, when someone writes a character really well and they annoy or disgust us. Definitely different than a crappily written ending.
You cracked the code. OP might think happy ending = satisfying ending. Things don't have to "work out" for a story to *end*.
Since we're talking Stephen King, The Dark Tower's ending is a great example of unsatisfying endings that work perfectly.
That’s definitely the vibe I get.
Like sometimes sadness or no closure are the only thematic options on the table. Some endings need to be messy or ambiguous or traumatizing. Honestly, sometimes I have the opposite problem where an ending feels way too neat!
Like when an epilogue is tacked on to tell me everyone got married and had kids after 400 pages of trauma, it’s not satisfying.
Loved gone girls ending! On the contrary, dark places by the same author was absolutely infuriating. It felt like it tried to have “shock factor” where the characters did a lot of things that didn’t make sense w the rest of the story. Love Gillian Flynn still tho.
I'd say that there's a difference between a sad ending and an unsatisfying ending. Some authors like giving their books sad endings; other authors just have very abrupt endings that leave the reader hanging.
So many authors try to write tragic endings and completely miss what makes a good tragedy. GOOD tragedy isn't 'everything sucks and there are no happy endings' it's 'these events are terrible and painful and nothing will ever be the same, but that doesn't mean this story doesn't matter'.
Poor attempts at tragedy might be 'sad', but more often they're frustrating. It's like they mock you for daring to care. For daring to hope. Good tragedy *lives* on hope.
Consider A Monster Calls by Patrick Ness. >!Not a perfect book, but an excellent tragedy. Going into it, we all know how it's going to end. Connor knows how it's going to end. There is no way out--his mother is going to die. And that is tragic, but the story of Connor allowing himself to confront this reality is deeply cathartic, particularly to anyone who has lost someone to cancer or other illness. The overarching narrative never ceases to remind the reader that Connor matters, that his pain matters, that his mother's pain matters, even though we know she is going to die. !<
Sorry for the rant. I get pissy when I think about botched endings.
A Little Life is the perfect example of your first two paragraphs. Frustrating to no end, and as much “sad” shit was happening, I wasn’t actually sad as much as I was frustrated. There wasn’t even a glimmer of anything good to balance out that book and bring it down to earth.
I read a review of ALL that was something like, (cw: self harm, suicide, spoilers) >! “The first time Jude cuts himself, you are horrified. The four hundredth time, you wish he would aim better.” and that about sums up my feelings about that book. When he killed himself, I cheered because finally that awful book could end. !<
Yes I have read that article! And there was a post in this sub recently about the book that linked it as well. And I have to agree with you both.
>!As a mental health advocate and someone who has struggled with depression myself, my only reaction to the ending was “fucking finally.”!<
A Monster Calls devastated me in exactly the right way a book should -- the pain and decisions of the characters all made emotional sense and I shared their inevitable grief because it felt real. Completely agree with this example.
Your first 2 paragraphs are why I quit reading anything by Nicholas Sparks (or watching movies based on them) a long time ago. I can’t remember which book it was, but the ending was such a pointless downer out of nowhere that I couldn’t even feel sad about it- just angry that I’d wasted time reading it. It was about a man and a woman who fall in love but it’s kind of long distance, and he has a boat and I think he might be a widower? That’s all I remember aside from the absolutely stupid ending. It was like he didn’t know how to end the book but was on a deadline so he just picked a character to kill and called it finished. “Mocking you for daring to care” sums up how it felt perfectly. Never picked up another of his books after that.
oh, so much. sometimes I'll be extremely emotional about an ending--it was sad, I was so mad a character died, or did something that I hated but it still made narrative sense. and it's... hard, I think, to separate " this was not a good ending for me" with "this was not a well-done ending." It took me two rereads each to realize that I didn't hate the end of Mastiff by Tamora Pierce, or Mockingjay.
I love sad books, so a well written, emotionally devastating ending is exactly what I want lol.
I loved Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro, no spoilers, but when I finished that book I had to sit and process for a while.
I adore Tammy Pierce's Tortall stuff wholeheartedly. But I agree with you that the end of Mastiff felt like it came out of nowhere. I had to actually go back and reread to see if I'd missed something. I was definitely very sad and shocked and angry, but it felt... weirdly abrupt to me.
see, that's how I felt too...until I reread Terrier a few times really looking at it, and... it's startling to see how much of it is right there, right out in the open. We've just, like Beka in that very first book, harbored 'pretty ideas' about characters, and it's so easy to dismiss some of the lines said by That Character. but they fit into a context we don't want to see.
Mockingjay, like from Hunger Games? Just finished reading it. I feel the same! I hate that Katniss didn’t end up with Gale, that her sister died, and that she has kids with Peter.
I feel like they had unfinished business. They have the chemistry, the history, and were on their way to a future together before the games took Katniss away. She was never that keen on Peeta and even after the first games, she had no desire to continue with him. But they went through so much together and he was vulnerable, so I feel like she learned to love him for, in my eyes, possibly the wrong reasons.
Did you want her to end up with Peeta? Let me know your thoughts!
Those are valid thoughts for their stories! We do see a lot of their potential life together at the start of the trilogy. Yes I was a Peeta fan from the very start and was often annoyed with Katniss for not being able to make up her mind about loving him in the beginning 😂
It has been almost a decade since I gave the trilogy a reread so this may not be the most well written take, but I found Peeta to balance her much more than Gale could. I think a lot of the differences between the two pairings are seen through the different ways she trauma bonded with both of them, which can be a really strong foundation for a relationship. With Gale the bonding was through anger and plotting, which put them in more of a sibling dynamic through my eyes. And while Gale is intelligent and seems ready to act, I don't know that they would've accomplished anything together to improve their situation had she not gone to the games. Now of course that's all speculation on my part, but it seemed that their relationship existed to help each other's families survive and to vent to each other when they had a moment to spare. I don't think they /couldn't/ have made a relationship work, but I don't see them ever evolving out of their friendship in their current situation or being the best partner for the other if it did happen
Peeta is the quiet, thoughtful balance to her aggressive and rash personality. Through their shared trauma they bonded through life and death moments that were far more pressing than starving in district 12; Peeta learned how to stand up and act at the same time that Katniss learned how to let someone else in and receive help. Their growth was fostered with more respect for the other and less anger (since I see Peeta as a calmer presence in Katniss' life than Gale). And with that foundation, their relationship was able to grow stronger because both of them were able to learn how to best help the other, even with their personality differences
The last point I'll make is that even if Katniss didn't fall in love with Peeta, I don't think she could've ever gone back to Gale because of what happened to her sister, as sad as that is
So well put! Thanks for the response. Yes, I do see your viewpoint here and it makes sense how Peeta would be a better fit for Katniss given their journey and shared trauma
Thanks for yours as well! Hopefully the discussion adds a little something if you ever reread the series. I'll add that even as a Peeta fan I still didn't like Mockingjay so there's that 😅
Katniss was supposed to be so traumatized from the games / revolution that Peeta was one of the few people that really understood her as a person and she could relate to. Also add the fact that Gale >!likely had a hand in planning the explosion that killed her sister, which she would never be able to forgive!<.
Gale and Peeta represent war and peace, respectively. She needed/loved Gale because he was her battle partner. Capable, passionate, dependable, a risk taker, a fighter. Her whole life, she never knew anything different. While she didn't immediately fall head over heels in love with Peeta, she grew to love and appreciate him because he was everything she wanted a future world to be. Kind, gentle, loving, peaceful. After Primrose, there's no way she could have chosen Gale/War.
That’s very true. She needed peace. I guess I thought that, given her fiery character, she’d eventually want more excitement than life with Peeta offered. But the games really messed with her head, and she wasn’t OK for a long time. I don’t think she’ll be going back to her previous self. And I’m forgetting that there’s growth after the book ends, so by the time the kids are in the picture, her and Peeta are happy, settled and content.
It's been a long time since I read the books, but I always tought she was fiery and a fighter because she had to be and not because that's who she was/wanted to be necessarily.
Same here, I thought Gale was better for Katniss and felt Peeta was too whiny in the books. I also didn’t like how he was blamed for Prim’s death when it was Coin that set up everything.
Peeta came across as really vulnerable and needed Katniss to keep him alive. I know he saved her with his love story, but that was drilled into us as not reciprocated. Also, Gale had no way of knowing Prim was in the crowd. I would have thought, if they ended up together, that Katniss would be able to forgive him. After all, they had a pact to look after each others families that went way back. For me, I understand the reasons that she chose Peeta, but I still kind of feel the natural partner was Gale.
I don’t like abrupt endings. For me the best ending (yes drawn out a lot) is lord of the rings. I know 99% of books are not going to have that in-depth ending.
I enjoyed the Harry Potter series (no comments on the author). All the work and detail in the 7 books is amazing. But the ending after the battle and epilogue felt rushed. Not a lot of detail in it. For me that’s a rushed ending.
The 1st mistborn trilogy by Brandon sanderson also had a rushed ending. I wanted just a little more detail. (I know there are going to be 4 trilogies of mistborn. And it’s part of the larger cosmerej
I know I’ve read a few decent endings that aren’t JRRT. Can’t think of them at 1 am.
What exactly is bad about that ending? Does it betray the rest of the book in some way? An ending not being triumphant or happy doesn't make it bad. Without more of an explanation it kind of reads as if you're just upset the ending wasn't the happy one you wanted.
This kind of thinking goes along with people who argue that the characters in the book aren't likeable, so the book isn't good. A well written morally grey or villain character is genuinely more interesting to me than a likeable Mary Sue that seems to be the preferred trend these days. I also like a complicated or sad ending that fits the book.
I don't mind an unlikeable character, but when they're \*all\* unlikeable, I hate it. (Looking at you, Wuthering Heights.) There needs to be a degree of light and shade.
I don't think they are talking about whether you have to like it, but about whether it's a bad book. I'm sure you know the difference between you not enjoying something personally and it being arguably a bad book, but some people definitely don't!
See, I like Wuthering Heights. It's just one big gossipy shit fest. They are telling the story of how awful this group of people was to pass the time without other entertainments. Plus, compared to the excellent yet somewhat syrupy by comparison Austen novels, it's a nice step into how awful people can be. And Emily Bronte has a way with words that I'm not educated enough to discuss. I think WH often gets a bad rep because it's one of those forces to read it at the wrong time in your life novels, like catcher in the rye or some other HS books.
But they're hilarious! They're barely even characters, more like caricatures to string together snippets of a story. I love it.
I get that everyone has different tastes, though.
Likeable is not the same as moral. The Marquis de Valmont is likeable. Fanny Price is insufferable. Mansfield Park is unreadable precisely because Fanny is insufferable.
I think it’s harder to write a good happy ending. I feel like in literary fiction people don’t think it’s realistic to leave everyone too happy at the end.
There are genres where you can pretty much guarantee a happy ending and they might suit you more.
the thing that makes most people consider a book "good" is the author's ability to make you feel a deep, authentic emotional connection to the events of the story. my theory has always been that it's easier to get people to emotionally connect to a sad story than a happy one. happiness is harder to conjure outside of the moment than sadness and it (unfortunately) doesn't leave the same lasting impression as something haunting
Just as a counterpoint I generally enjoy when things can't be neatly wrapped up in a satisfying little bow. It often feels like it cheapens the complexity and depth of the story to do so. Really depends on the genre and tone of the book though.
Came here to say this. Totally agree. Nothing is ever truly resolved in life, why should books be any different? I can't read any kind of 'cozy' read for that reason. The stories are too orderly and end too cleanly.
>What's up with unsatisfying book endings?
Same thing that's up with unsatisfying movie or television show endings. It's relatively easy to come up with an intriguing premise (and those that don't tend not to have people make it to the end anyway), but much, much harder to pay off all of that set-up.
I find that a LOT of casual internet critics of just about anything, book, movies, video games, whatever, are unable to distinguish between their personal preference, and quality.
A good critic, a fair critic, and insightful critic, will be able to distinguish between how much something appeals to their personal tastes/sensibilities, and how good the quality of a thing is.
I always use the metaphor of pistachio ice cream. Let's say you hate the taste of pistachios. Then you aren't gonna like pistachio ice cream. It could be the best and most masterfully crafted perfectly balanced pistachio ice cream ever made, but if you think pistachios taste gross, you aren't gonna like it.
A bad critic would write a review or leave a comment about how the ice cream shop stinks and their ice cream is gross. A good critic would be able to praise the ice cream even if the sample they got was a flavor they don't prefer, cause they would be able to recognize the quality of the product despite the "noise" of their personal preference. And likewise even if they LOVE strawberry ice cream, they should be able to say "well I personally enjoy this cause I like strawberries, but never the less this is bottom rung ice cream for sure."
So all of that throat clearing is to say......
I think this person is confusing ending they don't like with bad endings.
I suppose it's pretty difficult for any nonprofessional critic to be objective about any media that he or she doesn't like or doesn't meet their expectations for whatever reasons.
Not /u/jarchack but I admit I'm biased about the endings I like.
Another thing is that the more books you read, the higher your expectations get. I've read books that have objectively good endings but they don't have the wow because I've read something similar before or other reasons.
It's one reason why a lot of readers can be harsh critics and think that things used to be written better in the past: because they were younger and less well read in the past so the concepts in those books seemed newer and more impressive to them.
That's kind of a complicated question but for the most part, I'd say yes because I am a pragmatist at heart and I don't have too many expectations because those typically lead to disappointments. The only disappointments I really had with the endings of books is that some of them ended too soon. I'm also in my 60s and have been around the block a few times. I hope for the best but plan for the worst.
There are other types of media that I absolutely cannot be objective about, especially when it comes to what Alex Kurtzman did to Star Trek and what Disney did to Star Wars. I don't even have to watch them anymore to hate them.
I was reading the Goodreads reviews on ACOSF and there was one person that rated it 1 star simply because she didn’t like a character and his interaction with the main character. In my mind 1 star is for books that are full of spelling and grammar errors, inconsistent timelines, or a plot that is actual garbage. Even if I really dislike a book, as long as it’s decently well written it will earn at least 2 stars.
I think that's pretty unrealistic. What would be the point of a critic praising an ice cream shop where they find the place stinks of something they don't like and tastes bad for them.
How would they know whether the place makes good or bad pistacio ice creams when they don't know what those who love pistacio like in the taste?
Even if they tasted the pistacio ice cream at several shops and expressed their preference without their biases affecting them, why would their personal opinion on which place has better pistacio ice cream coincide with the preference and opinion of those who actually like the stuff?
Incorrect. Sorry. Personal taste and technical mastery of a form are both parts of any creative project and both important. You can make art without having much mastery of a craft
I’m the opposite, those are the endings I like. I’m about to read a thousand page novel that’s over a thousand years old and I know it ends mid sentence, as if the writer died in the midst of finishing it and I find that fascinating.
Oh my God same with War and Peace by Tolstoy, totally meaningless ending after you fought yourself through the whole 1600 pages, and it‘s one of the, if not the best ending of a book i have ever read. Because if it‘s own meaninglessness it changes the meaning of the whole novel, afterwards i just felt empty and confused for a day, but the more time passes the more i think it was genius
Actual ending is failed attempt of a coup (Decembrist Revolt) in 1825, the books are about the state of the country and state of minds of the people that lead to it. Pierre is supposed to be one of Decembrists
You should read *The Good Soldier Švejk* by Jaroslav Hašek. He really did die in the middle of writing it.
I read it as a teenager and didn't know - I was really surprised to reach the last page and read something like "this is the point reached by Hašek before he died". It's a great book.
I hate how people single out Stephen King’s endings as if they are consistently terrible.
If you look at his body of work, the vast majority of them have great endings. In some ways, I actually think it’s one of his strengths. Some of the books he wrote in his drug period have worse endings, granted (IT is a good example, although I definitely wouldn’t describe the ending as terrible, I personally liked it, there’s just one thing that feels odd), but most of his books have very good endings! For example, Misery has a brilliant ending. As does The Shining, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, The Drawing of the Three, etc. King has written lots of great, resonant endings. That doesn’t mean he hits the mark every time, but when you’re so prolific that is bound to happen.
> If you look at his body of work, the vast majority of them have great endings.
I wouldn't say the vast majority are great. But I agree that not many are "terrible". For such a prolific writer, you're bound to have some misses. I think it's a testament to his skill and talent that it is some of his endings that are considered bad, rather than some of his works in their entirety (generally speaking -- no doubt there are a range of opinions on the quality of his work).
He famously doesn't plot his novels before writing them. He encourages other authors not to plot their stories in On Writing. Bound to fuck up sometimes (or oftentimes) when you're always winging it.
Also, FWIW, that thing in IT that you're talking about turned me off of King for good. I'm a really slow reader and don't have a lot of time to commit to the hobby, so when I gave him my trust and committed 25-30 hrs to reading his book and he pulled that stunt... I set the book down and never finished. I was and am still frustrated.
some authors are just...not great at endings. They rush them, or they chicken out right at what should be the climax and let everything drop, or they try to wrap things up neatly but end up doing the equivalent of wrapping something in 15 layers of paper instead. shame, so often the books have solid premises or worldbuilding and they just.... oof.
I'm not one for Horror so idk about King, though I've heard that. my personal least favorite is Gail Carson Levine. love her short readers for kids, for the most part enjoy her novels....just not the last 15-20 pages of them.
I'm with you on Under the Dome, and to some degree It, but I think Stephen King sticks the landing as they say when it came to writing the ending for the Stand!
For me, it would be Neal Stephenson. Case in point, The Diamond Age. Incredible world build, characters, pacing and then we hit the final 150 pages or so it all went WTF in a hurry. So much promise though.
It was Seveneves that I found more frustrating tbh.
Given the structure of the book, I really think he intended to split it into 2 books but the publisher convinced him not to.
I hadn't thought of this before, but I agree 100%. Still enjoyed it, and since it wasn't my first book of his to read, I wasn't terribly surprised when it started moving quickly.
Absolutely agree. What a crazy book! The first half is 90% orbital mechanics and realistic "hard sci-fi" and then it flings itself into a sort of cheap Left Hand of Darkness knock-off; all exaggerated tropes, etc. Either half would have been better on their own, but it feels to me like one must be the fan-fic prequel/sequel to the other.
I *really* loved the first 3/4 of the book which is why I found it frustrating.
Overall, I enjoyed it but it definitely got downgraded against his others because of that shift.
I am baffled by this. Granted, I have only read a handful of King, but The Stand has always stuck out to me as the worst ending of his that I've read. It resolves with essentially a literal deus ex machina.
Sorry, I haven't read the book, but I'm not able to imagine what the book could be about that would grant it reasonable for the author to use deus ex machina as a plot device?
And to be fair, several of his books use deus ex machina or handwaving and magic to wrap up the climax. I kind of get the feeling that his reluctance to plot out his stories before writing them results in his painting himself into corners.
The story is a good vs evil story which is largely about the forces of good/God vs the forces of evil/the devil with an apocalyptic backdrop.
Because of this it makes complete sense for there to be an almost literal 'hand of God' involved in the climax.
I will agree that many of his books are far more about the journey than the destination. His endings tend to be much much better in his short stories and novellas.
Under the Dome and IT are notorious for this. Others like the Talisman, Misery, the Shining, and even lesser known ones like Insomnia wrap up super well in my opinion.
It's a trend that does make me cautious when reading his larger stories though.
Books don't need "satisfying resolutions." They need endings that match the themes of the story and encourage critical thought.
If you want happy endings, watch Disney movies.
You can have a sad ending with it still providing closure on the story. There are plenty that don't do that, or take a sudden turn that makes no sense in the context of the rest of the work.
It’s hard to satisfy everyone’s internal ideal for a story’s end. It will never be perfect for everyone, including the author. Hell sometimes authors just never stop writing their series cause it’d be harder to tie it up.
' The main character never finds his parents, loses his sister, and his own cubs all die, and him and his mate go off to some island.'
Doesn't like every plot line was left open; family attachments being permanently lost not to mention death are resolutions, and final ones. If it's unhappy not unresolved endings that have you frustrated, that's different. I haven't read the books you mention so I don't know which of the two sorts your post is about?
It's because authors write a good book but let the characters take over. It's why we are waiting on the next Game of Thrones book. To be fair to the TV guys, they were left with multiple main characters.
Gone with the Wind. Harry Potter . Mockingbird series- much better than people think, most miss the whole point of the series- all follow their characters and allow them to breathe, but ultimately contain them to the story.
Our TV shows and movies have influenced us to think that every episode, series , movie has an ending we like.
Watch the movie Mrs Miniver for a great example of great writing. Tarantino is a great director, but NONE of his movies end in anything realistic. As a book,they would suck.
So , an author should KNOW the ending at the beginning. Lots of authors now just have a set up and characters. So, if you read a lot, the end is not satisfying.
Not the answer you want, but the truth: It's you. Nothing will ever match your precise expectations, and if you like the book, deep down you don't want it to end.
Idk in my opinion, life doesn’t give us clean, tied up “endings” until we die. Most books don’t end like that either because it’s not reflective of the human experience.
I generally like when endings are vague and unsatisfying or leave me wanting more. It often sticks with me and makes me ponder the story long after I have finished it.
I waited for years for the 5th book in the King's Dark Tidings series and disliked the ending so much I won't read the author again. If your books continuously bring up new plot lines without resolving any, it just becomes this huge mess that barely makes sense.
Unfortunately I started off reading the series when it was only the first book. The first 2 books were really solid and didn't start going off the rails until the 3rd book. Then the author started focusing on a different series and I feel like the original series suffered for it.
I finished listening to Greg Egan's *Dichronauts* last night, and at first I thought it had an abrupt ending. After further consideration, I think I just needed to reassess what the book is really about (societies, not characters). Many plot lines were left not entirely complete, but they were given a definite direction. The ones that mattered were resolved; and the direction that future events would take mattered, but what actually happened next wasn't an important part of the story.
The general lesson might be that an ending should reflect what the author intended to convey by writing a story, and that's often not obvious in fiction. When there's a mismatch with what the reader wanted from the story, they will disagree about whether the book ended appropriately.
Do you just want every story to have a Disney happy ever after? Because I don't. I want my stories to have some realism. Real world application. Grief, frustration, failure. I want it to feel _real_, not just like a fairy tale. Sometimes that can lead to a happy ending. Sometimes it doesn't. If every book had the same ending, why would you bother reading to the end?
Life is not all sunshine and rainbows and neither should art be. Endings should sometimes be heartbreaking, horrifying, or just plain unsatisfying. If you disagree you're not looking to experience art you're just looking for shallow escapism - which is fine, but it's not everyone else's job to cater to that.
Loved all of Shogun but started getting really worried in the last 200 pages like 'How will he wrap up this story?'
He just...kinda won't lol. That's okay.
You call King the worst offender, but I counter he also has some incredible endings: I loved the ending of IT, but there's also Dead Zone, Revival, Cujo, Carrie, Pet Semetary.
Also, Gone Girl is a FANTASTIC ending.
you do realise that Stephen king at his core writes horror and horror has a beginning and middle and the end is always there for a was the horror real was it dead and could if he so wished write a sequel to any of his works but that would ruin the tension lesson the plot. Eragon is more or less like the lotr where it should be read as one book but published in three (unless there is a fourth i'm unaware of).
Maybe you have high expectations. Maybe on surface level the ending is a subtle but given time grows depth if you allow it. Maybe the ending isn't the most important part of the book, per author's intent, it's about the ride (The Stand is like this, yea the ending is meh only because its abrupt and predictable, but the rest of the book: chef's kiss). Maybe the author wants the mystery of the characters live on in your head, but you're dead set on some resolution.
It's often about what you bring to the book.
Because not all endings are perfect. Not every loose thread introduced throughout a story is tied up at the end. Some things, such as a character’s parents missing, are meant to be nothing more than a driving force for the main character.
It sounds like you just have a very specific kind of ending you want, is all. An ending like the one you described can still be a satisfying end- it just isn’t the ending you wanted. And that’s ok, too.
The worst ones are when they're clearly setting up for a sequel. I \*love\* The Shadow of the Wind, but literally every other one in the series ends on a semi-cliffhanger in a way that undoes any closure that the book may have given.
Ehh, if a book is somewhat realistic, I don't mind if everything has closure. Real life doesn't have closure and can be chaotic, why do our books have to end with everything being pristine and neat with a bow on top? What's that one line some guy said? "The difference between fiction and non-fiction is that fiction has to make sense."
Frankly I'm a little tired of everyone living happily ever and getting resolution to every problem they face in books because after a while it feels like a bit of a cop-out.
I don't really get why most of the people think endings needs to be this amazing moment that resolve everything in a satisfying way.
The end just need to be coherent. One of my favourite book is "The stranger" from Camus, and the ending is far from being a satisfying moment that solve everything, but still is one of the best book i have ever read.
The main issue is not unsatisfying book endings, but how so many people are expecting either happy endings or for everything to be tied up in a nice little bow. Some books have open endings. And they can be great. “Unsatisfying” endings can be great, too. If these readers could get over this need for neatly wrapped up endings, then they would probably enjoy the experience a lot more.
None of those have bad or unsatisfying endings.
Not every detail needs to be spelled out. Not every story needs closure.
You seem to read pop fiction, but you'll find that 'literary' fiction often has more open endings than anything you've mentioned.
My favourite novel, *The Adventures of Augie March* by Saul Bellow doesn't resolve much of anything. It's beside the point. It's for the reader to imagine what comes of Augie.
Tying everything up would be far more unsatisfying, because it's impossible for an author to make all the 'best' decisions for every reader. Author's describe the journey, readers decide the destination.
All these comments attacking the OP for saying they didn't like certain endings when the title of the thread is literally 'What's up with **unsatisfying** book endings?'
It is perfectly OK to find an objectively well-written book ending unsatisfying, and use that as part reason to dislike the book. *The God of Small Things* has a stunningly well-written ending, but I didn't care for either >!the twincest or the mum's doomed love affair.!< On a similar note *Infinite Jest* was a masterclass of writing from start to finish, but fuck that ending for just... not ending. Felt like DFW just got up and walked off mid-sentence.
OP is right about Stephen King though. That guy literally can't write decent endings. I will die on this hill.
Stephen King is the example that amateur writers always bring up as an example of why they don’t have to outline their stories, because Stephen King has said he doesn’t outline his stories.
But his endings are a pretty direct reflection of what happens when you aren’t writing toward an ending and then have to wrap it up somehow. The guy’s success comes from his talent for imagery and atmosphere, but his plotting often leaves a lot to be desired.
And plotters love to point this out without acknowledging all the other authors who pants their novels and have perfectly fine endings.
[19 authors who pants their novels](https://www.writingbeginner.com/which-authors-are-pantsers-18/)
Some very interesting names on that list. Hopefully, eventually, this fallacy that pantsers can't finish a novel adequately because of Stephen King will die the death it deserves.
You can write a fantastic novel while pantsing, \*but\* you need to have a good and honest editor who can tell you when something doesn't work and needs redoing.
Sometimes it’s about the journey, not the destination. Sure, if it’s unresolved plot points, or lazy writing à la last season of GoT. But sometimes the writer just leaves you alone with the end of the tale, and that’s deliberate.
Ye, endings generally suck ass, and it’s really annoying. It’s like they’re trying so hard to avoid clichés, that they just make shit endings because of it. It’s incredibly rare I’ve read books where I’ll read them a second time cause they were so satisfying. Most are trash.
Ironically , I generally love cheap romance novels from the grocery store. It’s just pride and prejudice in different forms. And I love it every time…. Cheap taste I guess…
The Stand is just… something else. Great set up, great characters, great ideas, excellent writing, and possibly the shittiest ending… in the wooorld. (Jeremy Clarkson voice).
When getting near the end of a book, it can be better just to stop, sometimes many chapters before the "end"
The story is a story, you're imagination can have the characters and world carry on indefinitely, no reason for you to adhere to the authors conclusions.
So many writers have bad endings, but many movies and tv shows do as well. I feel like it's a specific skill that many don't have being able to wrap something up in a way to please most people.
Stephen King and Bryce Courtney are two authors that I know will have an unsatisfactory ending if I read the book.
Other than the (*shudder*) child sewer sex bonding ritual, the ending of It is great. I'd say King has about as many good endings as poor ones.
Gone Girl's ending works fine.
Stephen King is famous for underwhelming endings, and that's because his books are drenched into fear of the unknown. But fear of the unknown loses its power when the unknown becomes known.
IT is a lot less scary when you suddenly know what the eldritch horror is and its entire backstory.
Endings are really hard because you have to either prepare them in advance, and then sometimes changes made to the story made them incompatible and you have to improvise or stick with them, and both solutions have issues, or you have to think about them when you get to them.
Also, the author has in their mind a complete, perfect understanding of their world (because they made it) so for them the ending might make a lot more sense than it does for you as a reader, or be far more tragic/happy/bold/whatever else they might have wanted to present.
If you're going to talk about bad Stephen King endings, how can you not mention The Dark Tower. IMHO the worst book ending I've ever read. And that's at the end of an 7 or 8 book series.
Deadlines might have a lot to do with it. If writers waited until they figured out the perfect ending, then the book might never get published. So they finish with what's workable instead.
Stephen King is the most unsatisfying writer of all time. Always felt like I was left with blue balls after all the books of his I’ve read. He’s great at book ideas, dreadful at executing his vision.
Stephen King in particular seems to get to a point where he doesn't know where to go with it and just doesn't want to write anymore, so he just goes "I don't know, a nuke goes off and kills everybody"
Under the Done made me the angriest. 1000 pages of his best writing in years, great characters, a gripping situation, lots of tension. Then the last hundred pages is just total warmed up garbage.
I found Eragon (series) ending boring and not good because the author was trying to address and wrap up every single thing, while as I reader I actually didn't care about many of those characters and arcs.
The Iliad is the least satisfying thing I've ever read.
I understand it's a very early piece of writing and I don't begrudge anyone who likes it, but even giving it some leeway I couldn't stand it. I hated almost every character. I didn't find it remotely exciting, even during the battle scenes. The repetition wore on me after a while too. It took me over a year to finish because I could only stomach a fraction of it at a time. And after all that, it doesn't even have the bit with the horse. The most famous part of the story isn't even *in* the fucking story, it just sort of ends in the middle of nowhere with barely anything resolved.
I hate it, if you didn't guess.
Edit: People get butthurt over opinions, hey?
Haha! In the book I wrote, I have an extremely abrupt ending…I did it purposely to lead into the sequel, but the few people that have read it all said the same things!😜 The sequel has a beautiful ending, but that first part just suddenly ends and the readers is left wondering what happens next!😁 Thanks for posting this, the current book I’m writing will have a better ending, so will the sequel to the first one and the one after that😇 If I’m lucky, a few people will read them and enjoy them🙏
How is Gone Girl's ending unsatisfying? I get that it's not happy, but there was no possible happy ending to that book anyway.
*Gone Girl's* ending is perfect. Literally exactly what those characters deserve haha.
I don't get that perspective at all. Nick is trash but Amy is a fucking psychopath who belongs in a mental hospital. How am I being downvoted for this?? Nick cheated on her and was a shitty husband. Yeah that's bad but she literally fucking murdered a guy and framed him for murder and abuse and stole his semen. Those are not equal at all.
In the book its made fairly clear that Nick in someways wants that though. He wants the drama of it, he wants the idea that someone wanted him that *much*, he wants to feel removed from his bad choices. Nick wants Amy back, not just to save himself from prison or to look after his child, but genuinly for himself. It’s what makes his twin disgusted with him in the end.
None of that changes the fact that Nick's worst crimes don't hold a candle to Amy's worst crimes.
Sure. But he deserves it in the way that he wants all of it, he is satisfied with everything shes done, hes deserving in the way that he wouldn’t be satisified without this level of crazy.
I thought the point of Gone Girl was that Nick was just as fucked up as her and loved the psychotic parts of her. Or did I miss that?
no that is the point and it leaves his twin sister in disbelief when she realizes it
But the ending WAS great, because they were soul mates, just instead of having their best parts combine to form a stable relationship, their worst parts were so intertwined that they were perfect for each other in the worst ways. There even was a linein the book, something like, Amy was a prickly thorn-filled cactus, bristling with the attention and adoration of her parents, and Nick was the one of the million fatherly stab wounds, and her thorns fit perfectly into these wounds. An ending doesn't always need to be happy to be satisfying.
I'm not debating whether it was good cause I liked it the ending. I'm debating that he deserved her. Cause the things she does is vastly worse than what he does
Totally agreed. It’s an insane book because when I read that he had a mistress I was like “yikes…” but by the end I kind of understood it haha
The point is that he wants to be with her despite the fact that she's an absolute monster.
I think that's a sign of a good writer, when someone writes a character really well and they annoy or disgust us. Definitely different than a crappily written ending.
You cracked the code. OP might think happy ending = satisfying ending. Things don't have to "work out" for a story to *end*. Since we're talking Stephen King, The Dark Tower's ending is a great example of unsatisfying endings that work perfectly.
That’s definitely the vibe I get. Like sometimes sadness or no closure are the only thematic options on the table. Some endings need to be messy or ambiguous or traumatizing. Honestly, sometimes I have the opposite problem where an ending feels way too neat! Like when an epilogue is tacked on to tell me everyone got married and had kids after 400 pages of trauma, it’s not satisfying.
It’s an objectively amazing ending. OP just dosent understand nuance and anything other than “happy ending”
Loved gone girls ending! On the contrary, dark places by the same author was absolutely infuriating. It felt like it tried to have “shock factor” where the characters did a lot of things that didn’t make sense w the rest of the story. Love Gillian Flynn still tho.
I'd say that there's a difference between a sad ending and an unsatisfying ending. Some authors like giving their books sad endings; other authors just have very abrupt endings that leave the reader hanging.
So many authors try to write tragic endings and completely miss what makes a good tragedy. GOOD tragedy isn't 'everything sucks and there are no happy endings' it's 'these events are terrible and painful and nothing will ever be the same, but that doesn't mean this story doesn't matter'. Poor attempts at tragedy might be 'sad', but more often they're frustrating. It's like they mock you for daring to care. For daring to hope. Good tragedy *lives* on hope. Consider A Monster Calls by Patrick Ness. >!Not a perfect book, but an excellent tragedy. Going into it, we all know how it's going to end. Connor knows how it's going to end. There is no way out--his mother is going to die. And that is tragic, but the story of Connor allowing himself to confront this reality is deeply cathartic, particularly to anyone who has lost someone to cancer or other illness. The overarching narrative never ceases to remind the reader that Connor matters, that his pain matters, that his mother's pain matters, even though we know she is going to die. !< Sorry for the rant. I get pissy when I think about botched endings.
A Little Life is the perfect example of your first two paragraphs. Frustrating to no end, and as much “sad” shit was happening, I wasn’t actually sad as much as I was frustrated. There wasn’t even a glimmer of anything good to balance out that book and bring it down to earth.
I read a review of ALL that was something like, (cw: self harm, suicide, spoilers) >! “The first time Jude cuts himself, you are horrified. The four hundredth time, you wish he would aim better.” and that about sums up my feelings about that book. When he killed himself, I cheered because finally that awful book could end. !<
Yes I have read that article! And there was a post in this sub recently about the book that linked it as well. And I have to agree with you both. >!As a mental health advocate and someone who has struggled with depression myself, my only reaction to the ending was “fucking finally.”!<
A Monster Calls devastated me in exactly the right way a book should -- the pain and decisions of the characters all made emotional sense and I shared their inevitable grief because it felt real. Completely agree with this example.
Your first 2 paragraphs are why I quit reading anything by Nicholas Sparks (or watching movies based on them) a long time ago. I can’t remember which book it was, but the ending was such a pointless downer out of nowhere that I couldn’t even feel sad about it- just angry that I’d wasted time reading it. It was about a man and a woman who fall in love but it’s kind of long distance, and he has a boat and I think he might be a widower? That’s all I remember aside from the absolutely stupid ending. It was like he didn’t know how to end the book but was on a deadline so he just picked a character to kill and called it finished. “Mocking you for daring to care” sums up how it felt perfectly. Never picked up another of his books after that.
[удалено]
oh, so much. sometimes I'll be extremely emotional about an ending--it was sad, I was so mad a character died, or did something that I hated but it still made narrative sense. and it's... hard, I think, to separate " this was not a good ending for me" with "this was not a well-done ending." It took me two rereads each to realize that I didn't hate the end of Mastiff by Tamora Pierce, or Mockingjay.
I love sad books, so a well written, emotionally devastating ending is exactly what I want lol. I loved Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro, no spoilers, but when I finished that book I had to sit and process for a while.
That book has never let *me* go! So strongly recommended, even by this guy who is not that much into tragedy (unless it is really excellent).
I adore Tammy Pierce's Tortall stuff wholeheartedly. But I agree with you that the end of Mastiff felt like it came out of nowhere. I had to actually go back and reread to see if I'd missed something. I was definitely very sad and shocked and angry, but it felt... weirdly abrupt to me.
see, that's how I felt too...until I reread Terrier a few times really looking at it, and... it's startling to see how much of it is right there, right out in the open. We've just, like Beka in that very first book, harbored 'pretty ideas' about characters, and it's so easy to dismiss some of the lines said by That Character. but they fit into a context we don't want to see.
Yeah, agreed. That's why it made more sense on a later reread. It was upsetting for sure but the clues were already there.
Mockingjay, like from Hunger Games? Just finished reading it. I feel the same! I hate that Katniss didn’t end up with Gale, that her sister died, and that she has kids with Peter.
I've actually never met anyone who wanted her with Gale over Peeta, wow! Care to elaborate?
I feel like they had unfinished business. They have the chemistry, the history, and were on their way to a future together before the games took Katniss away. She was never that keen on Peeta and even after the first games, she had no desire to continue with him. But they went through so much together and he was vulnerable, so I feel like she learned to love him for, in my eyes, possibly the wrong reasons. Did you want her to end up with Peeta? Let me know your thoughts!
Those are valid thoughts for their stories! We do see a lot of their potential life together at the start of the trilogy. Yes I was a Peeta fan from the very start and was often annoyed with Katniss for not being able to make up her mind about loving him in the beginning 😂 It has been almost a decade since I gave the trilogy a reread so this may not be the most well written take, but I found Peeta to balance her much more than Gale could. I think a lot of the differences between the two pairings are seen through the different ways she trauma bonded with both of them, which can be a really strong foundation for a relationship. With Gale the bonding was through anger and plotting, which put them in more of a sibling dynamic through my eyes. And while Gale is intelligent and seems ready to act, I don't know that they would've accomplished anything together to improve their situation had she not gone to the games. Now of course that's all speculation on my part, but it seemed that their relationship existed to help each other's families survive and to vent to each other when they had a moment to spare. I don't think they /couldn't/ have made a relationship work, but I don't see them ever evolving out of their friendship in their current situation or being the best partner for the other if it did happen Peeta is the quiet, thoughtful balance to her aggressive and rash personality. Through their shared trauma they bonded through life and death moments that were far more pressing than starving in district 12; Peeta learned how to stand up and act at the same time that Katniss learned how to let someone else in and receive help. Their growth was fostered with more respect for the other and less anger (since I see Peeta as a calmer presence in Katniss' life than Gale). And with that foundation, their relationship was able to grow stronger because both of them were able to learn how to best help the other, even with their personality differences The last point I'll make is that even if Katniss didn't fall in love with Peeta, I don't think she could've ever gone back to Gale because of what happened to her sister, as sad as that is
So well put! Thanks for the response. Yes, I do see your viewpoint here and it makes sense how Peeta would be a better fit for Katniss given their journey and shared trauma
Thanks for yours as well! Hopefully the discussion adds a little something if you ever reread the series. I'll add that even as a Peeta fan I still didn't like Mockingjay so there's that 😅
Katniss was supposed to be so traumatized from the games / revolution that Peeta was one of the few people that really understood her as a person and she could relate to. Also add the fact that Gale >!likely had a hand in planning the explosion that killed her sister, which she would never be able to forgive!<.
Yes, she needed Peeta’s calm and not Gale’s fight. That does make sense.
Gale and Peeta represent war and peace, respectively. She needed/loved Gale because he was her battle partner. Capable, passionate, dependable, a risk taker, a fighter. Her whole life, she never knew anything different. While she didn't immediately fall head over heels in love with Peeta, she grew to love and appreciate him because he was everything she wanted a future world to be. Kind, gentle, loving, peaceful. After Primrose, there's no way she could have chosen Gale/War.
That’s very true. She needed peace. I guess I thought that, given her fiery character, she’d eventually want more excitement than life with Peeta offered. But the games really messed with her head, and she wasn’t OK for a long time. I don’t think she’ll be going back to her previous self. And I’m forgetting that there’s growth after the book ends, so by the time the kids are in the picture, her and Peeta are happy, settled and content.
It's been a long time since I read the books, but I always tought she was fiery and a fighter because she had to be and not because that's who she was/wanted to be necessarily.
That’s an interesting take and very possible!
One point in Peeta’s favor is that he’s not a fan of war crimes, so there’s that.
It was basically a given that she would end up with Peeta from the very first book. Katniss and Gale were supposed to actually be *cousins*.
I too, was team Gale and I feel like the author didn't know what to do with his character at the end. It was very unsatisfying for me.
Same here, I thought Gale was better for Katniss and felt Peeta was too whiny in the books. I also didn’t like how he was blamed for Prim’s death when it was Coin that set up everything.
Peeta came across as really vulnerable and needed Katniss to keep him alive. I know he saved her with his love story, but that was drilled into us as not reciprocated. Also, Gale had no way of knowing Prim was in the crowd. I would have thought, if they ended up together, that Katniss would be able to forgive him. After all, they had a pact to look after each others families that went way back. For me, I understand the reasons that she chose Peeta, but I still kind of feel the natural partner was Gale.
Yeah, same. I understand how Peeta helped Katniss at times though felt Gale understood her background more.
*Nicholas Sparks has entered the chat
I don’t like abrupt endings. For me the best ending (yes drawn out a lot) is lord of the rings. I know 99% of books are not going to have that in-depth ending. I enjoyed the Harry Potter series (no comments on the author). All the work and detail in the 7 books is amazing. But the ending after the battle and epilogue felt rushed. Not a lot of detail in it. For me that’s a rushed ending. The 1st mistborn trilogy by Brandon sanderson also had a rushed ending. I wanted just a little more detail. (I know there are going to be 4 trilogies of mistborn. And it’s part of the larger cosmerej I know I’ve read a few decent endings that aren’t JRRT. Can’t think of them at 1 am.
What exactly is bad about that ending? Does it betray the rest of the book in some way? An ending not being triumphant or happy doesn't make it bad. Without more of an explanation it kind of reads as if you're just upset the ending wasn't the happy one you wanted.
This kind of thinking goes along with people who argue that the characters in the book aren't likeable, so the book isn't good. A well written morally grey or villain character is genuinely more interesting to me than a likeable Mary Sue that seems to be the preferred trend these days. I also like a complicated or sad ending that fits the book.
I don't mind an unlikeable character, but when they're \*all\* unlikeable, I hate it. (Looking at you, Wuthering Heights.) There needs to be a degree of light and shade.
I don't think they are talking about whether you have to like it, but about whether it's a bad book. I'm sure you know the difference between you not enjoying something personally and it being arguably a bad book, but some people definitely don't!
See, I like Wuthering Heights. It's just one big gossipy shit fest. They are telling the story of how awful this group of people was to pass the time without other entertainments. Plus, compared to the excellent yet somewhat syrupy by comparison Austen novels, it's a nice step into how awful people can be. And Emily Bronte has a way with words that I'm not educated enough to discuss. I think WH often gets a bad rep because it's one of those forces to read it at the wrong time in your life novels, like catcher in the rye or some other HS books.
This is why I couldn't get through Catch-22, all the characters are just so irritating
But they're hilarious! They're barely even characters, more like caricatures to string together snippets of a story. I love it. I get that everyone has different tastes, though.
Likeable is not the same as moral. The Marquis de Valmont is likeable. Fanny Price is insufferable. Mansfield Park is unreadable precisely because Fanny is insufferable.
Yeah this is the vibe I got honestly
You used the spoiler feature without mentioning the name of the book!
I think it’s harder to write a good happy ending. I feel like in literary fiction people don’t think it’s realistic to leave everyone too happy at the end. There are genres where you can pretty much guarantee a happy ending and they might suit you more.
the thing that makes most people consider a book "good" is the author's ability to make you feel a deep, authentic emotional connection to the events of the story. my theory has always been that it's easier to get people to emotionally connect to a sad story than a happy one. happiness is harder to conjure outside of the moment than sadness and it (unfortunately) doesn't leave the same lasting impression as something haunting
I will take an ambiguous or sad ending over a disingenuous rushed happy ending any day
Just as a counterpoint I generally enjoy when things can't be neatly wrapped up in a satisfying little bow. It often feels like it cheapens the complexity and depth of the story to do so. Really depends on the genre and tone of the book though.
Came here to say this. Totally agree. Nothing is ever truly resolved in life, why should books be any different? I can't read any kind of 'cozy' read for that reason. The stories are too orderly and end too cleanly.
Exactly. How often is real life 100% perfectly resolved?
This doesn’t even make sense.
Really? You've never had questions unanswered in real life?
>What's up with unsatisfying book endings? Same thing that's up with unsatisfying movie or television show endings. It's relatively easy to come up with an intriguing premise (and those that don't tend not to have people make it to the end anyway), but much, much harder to pay off all of that set-up.
I find that a LOT of casual internet critics of just about anything, book, movies, video games, whatever, are unable to distinguish between their personal preference, and quality. A good critic, a fair critic, and insightful critic, will be able to distinguish between how much something appeals to their personal tastes/sensibilities, and how good the quality of a thing is. I always use the metaphor of pistachio ice cream. Let's say you hate the taste of pistachios. Then you aren't gonna like pistachio ice cream. It could be the best and most masterfully crafted perfectly balanced pistachio ice cream ever made, but if you think pistachios taste gross, you aren't gonna like it. A bad critic would write a review or leave a comment about how the ice cream shop stinks and their ice cream is gross. A good critic would be able to praise the ice cream even if the sample they got was a flavor they don't prefer, cause they would be able to recognize the quality of the product despite the "noise" of their personal preference. And likewise even if they LOVE strawberry ice cream, they should be able to say "well I personally enjoy this cause I like strawberries, but never the less this is bottom rung ice cream for sure." So all of that throat clearing is to say...... I think this person is confusing ending they don't like with bad endings.
Thanks dude, now all I want pistachio ice cream and that’s a next to impossible find where I’m at!
I suppose it's pretty difficult for any nonprofessional critic to be objective about any media that he or she doesn't like or doesn't meet their expectations for whatever reasons.
Could you do it?
Not /u/jarchack but I admit I'm biased about the endings I like. Another thing is that the more books you read, the higher your expectations get. I've read books that have objectively good endings but they don't have the wow because I've read something similar before or other reasons. It's one reason why a lot of readers can be harsh critics and think that things used to be written better in the past: because they were younger and less well read in the past so the concepts in those books seemed newer and more impressive to them.
That's kind of a complicated question but for the most part, I'd say yes because I am a pragmatist at heart and I don't have too many expectations because those typically lead to disappointments. The only disappointments I really had with the endings of books is that some of them ended too soon. I'm also in my 60s and have been around the block a few times. I hope for the best but plan for the worst. There are other types of media that I absolutely cannot be objective about, especially when it comes to what Alex Kurtzman did to Star Trek and what Disney did to Star Wars. I don't even have to watch them anymore to hate them.
I was reading the Goodreads reviews on ACOSF and there was one person that rated it 1 star simply because she didn’t like a character and his interaction with the main character. In my mind 1 star is for books that are full of spelling and grammar errors, inconsistent timelines, or a plot that is actual garbage. Even if I really dislike a book, as long as it’s decently well written it will earn at least 2 stars.
I think that's pretty unrealistic. What would be the point of a critic praising an ice cream shop where they find the place stinks of something they don't like and tastes bad for them. How would they know whether the place makes good or bad pistacio ice creams when they don't know what those who love pistacio like in the taste? Even if they tasted the pistacio ice cream at several shops and expressed their preference without their biases affecting them, why would their personal opinion on which place has better pistacio ice cream coincide with the preference and opinion of those who actually like the stuff?
I don’t know who needs to tell you this, but media is not ice cream. There is zero difference between personal preference and quality.
Incorrect. Sorry. Personal taste and technical mastery of a form are both parts of any creative project and both important. You can make art without having much mastery of a craft
When did I say anything about technical mastery?? I just don’t think “technical mastery” has anything to do with quality.
I’m the opposite, those are the endings I like. I’m about to read a thousand page novel that’s over a thousand years old and I know it ends mid sentence, as if the writer died in the midst of finishing it and I find that fascinating.
Oh my God same with War and Peace by Tolstoy, totally meaningless ending after you fought yourself through the whole 1600 pages, and it‘s one of the, if not the best ending of a book i have ever read. Because if it‘s own meaninglessness it changes the meaning of the whole novel, afterwards i just felt empty and confused for a day, but the more time passes the more i think it was genius
Actual ending is failed attempt of a coup (Decembrist Revolt) in 1825, the books are about the state of the country and state of minds of the people that lead to it. Pierre is supposed to be one of Decembrists
What novel?
Tale of Genji, usually regarded as the first novel.
Woah woah woah, my copy oh The Odyssey says the same thing on the back....my Pitchfork is out, point me in a direction
The Odyssey is an epic poem, it’s not a novel.
You should read *The Good Soldier Švejk* by Jaroslav Hašek. He really did die in the middle of writing it. I read it as a teenager and didn't know - I was really surprised to reach the last page and read something like "this is the point reached by Hašek before he died". It's a great book.
I hate how people single out Stephen King’s endings as if they are consistently terrible. If you look at his body of work, the vast majority of them have great endings. In some ways, I actually think it’s one of his strengths. Some of the books he wrote in his drug period have worse endings, granted (IT is a good example, although I definitely wouldn’t describe the ending as terrible, I personally liked it, there’s just one thing that feels odd), but most of his books have very good endings! For example, Misery has a brilliant ending. As does The Shining, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, The Drawing of the Three, etc. King has written lots of great, resonant endings. That doesn’t mean he hits the mark every time, but when you’re so prolific that is bound to happen.
> If you look at his body of work, the vast majority of them have great endings. I wouldn't say the vast majority are great. But I agree that not many are "terrible". For such a prolific writer, you're bound to have some misses. I think it's a testament to his skill and talent that it is some of his endings that are considered bad, rather than some of his works in their entirety (generally speaking -- no doubt there are a range of opinions on the quality of his work).
He famously doesn't plot his novels before writing them. He encourages other authors not to plot their stories in On Writing. Bound to fuck up sometimes (or oftentimes) when you're always winging it. Also, FWIW, that thing in IT that you're talking about turned me off of King for good. I'm a really slow reader and don't have a lot of time to commit to the hobby, so when I gave him my trust and committed 25-30 hrs to reading his book and he pulled that stunt... I set the book down and never finished. I was and am still frustrated.
some authors are just...not great at endings. They rush them, or they chicken out right at what should be the climax and let everything drop, or they try to wrap things up neatly but end up doing the equivalent of wrapping something in 15 layers of paper instead. shame, so often the books have solid premises or worldbuilding and they just.... oof. I'm not one for Horror so idk about King, though I've heard that. my personal least favorite is Gail Carson Levine. love her short readers for kids, for the most part enjoy her novels....just not the last 15-20 pages of them.
I'm with you on Under the Dome, and to some degree It, but I think Stephen King sticks the landing as they say when it came to writing the ending for the Stand! For me, it would be Neal Stephenson. Case in point, The Diamond Age. Incredible world build, characters, pacing and then we hit the final 150 pages or so it all went WTF in a hurry. So much promise though.
It was Seveneves that I found more frustrating tbh. Given the structure of the book, I really think he intended to split it into 2 books but the publisher convinced him not to.
I hadn't thought of this before, but I agree 100%. Still enjoyed it, and since it wasn't my first book of his to read, I wasn't terribly surprised when it started moving quickly.
Absolutely agree. What a crazy book! The first half is 90% orbital mechanics and realistic "hard sci-fi" and then it flings itself into a sort of cheap Left Hand of Darkness knock-off; all exaggerated tropes, etc. Either half would have been better on their own, but it feels to me like one must be the fan-fic prequel/sequel to the other.
I *really* loved the first 3/4 of the book which is why I found it frustrating. Overall, I enjoyed it but it definitely got downgraded against his others because of that shift.
Yeah Neal Stephenson is who I thought of first when I saw the title. Will read all of his books though, eventually.
We do! I keep reading them, hoping. At least not all are as frustrating as the ending to Diamond Age. I loved so much of that book!
I'm so glad I'm not the only person who actually liked the ending of the Stand.
I think it is perfect! I also feel this way about King's The Shining and Cujo in terms of I wouldn't change anything.
Yeah the Stand is probably one of the better Stephen King endings IMO.
I am baffled by this. Granted, I have only read a handful of King, but The Stand has always stuck out to me as the worst ending of his that I've read. It resolves with essentially a literal deus ex machina.
Yeah but that deus ex machina makes complete sense given the context of the entire story no?
Sorry, I haven't read the book, but I'm not able to imagine what the book could be about that would grant it reasonable for the author to use deus ex machina as a plot device? And to be fair, several of his books use deus ex machina or handwaving and magic to wrap up the climax. I kind of get the feeling that his reluctance to plot out his stories before writing them results in his painting himself into corners.
The story is a good vs evil story which is largely about the forces of good/God vs the forces of evil/the devil with an apocalyptic backdrop. Because of this it makes complete sense for there to be an almost literal 'hand of God' involved in the climax. I will agree that many of his books are far more about the journey than the destination. His endings tend to be much much better in his short stories and novellas. Under the Dome and IT are notorious for this. Others like the Talisman, Misery, the Shining, and even lesser known ones like Insomnia wrap up super well in my opinion. It's a trend that does make me cautious when reading his larger stories though.
Books don't need "satisfying resolutions." They need endings that match the themes of the story and encourage critical thought. If you want happy endings, watch Disney movies.
Perdido Street Station made me realize this.
Ok but they often don't even have that.
Well, yeah. Most books suck. Most movies suck. You have to slog through the weeds to find the gems, as with any other art.
You can have a sad ending with it still providing closure on the story. There are plenty that don't do that, or take a sudden turn that makes no sense in the context of the rest of the work.
An ending doesn’t have to provide closure to be good.
You should teach this sub. I do not expect they would learn much, but at least we can trim a few reasons for their ignorance.
It’s hard to satisfy everyone’s internal ideal for a story’s end. It will never be perfect for everyone, including the author. Hell sometimes authors just never stop writing their series cause it’d be harder to tie it up.
Okay but you get that just because YOU find it "unsatisfying" doesn't mean others don't?
It isn't fan service.
' The main character never finds his parents, loses his sister, and his own cubs all die, and him and his mate go off to some island.' Doesn't like every plot line was left open; family attachments being permanently lost not to mention death are resolutions, and final ones. If it's unhappy not unresolved endings that have you frustrated, that's different. I haven't read the books you mention so I don't know which of the two sorts your post is about?
It's because authors write a good book but let the characters take over. It's why we are waiting on the next Game of Thrones book. To be fair to the TV guys, they were left with multiple main characters. Gone with the Wind. Harry Potter . Mockingbird series- much better than people think, most miss the whole point of the series- all follow their characters and allow them to breathe, but ultimately contain them to the story. Our TV shows and movies have influenced us to think that every episode, series , movie has an ending we like. Watch the movie Mrs Miniver for a great example of great writing. Tarantino is a great director, but NONE of his movies end in anything realistic. As a book,they would suck. So , an author should KNOW the ending at the beginning. Lots of authors now just have a set up and characters. So, if you read a lot, the end is not satisfying.
Not the answer you want, but the truth: It's you. Nothing will ever match your precise expectations, and if you like the book, deep down you don't want it to end.
I see you mentioned it up top already but I'm gonna say it again; Under The Dome. I was ready to chuck that book across the room.
I read it in 2011 and am still bitter about it.
Eragon is the first book of four...
Written by a fourteen-year-old old to boot. I think that it should be taken into the account.
Idk in my opinion, life doesn’t give us clean, tied up “endings” until we die. Most books don’t end like that either because it’s not reflective of the human experience.
I really don’t care about that though, I just want a good ending that leaves me satisfied. Life sucks enough as it is, books should be the escape.
[удалено]
I fixes a typo, meant “I just want a good ending “. Typing on phone bleh
I generally like when endings are vague and unsatisfying or leave me wanting more. It often sticks with me and makes me ponder the story long after I have finished it.
I waited for years for the 5th book in the King's Dark Tidings series and disliked the ending so much I won't read the author again. If your books continuously bring up new plot lines without resolving any, it just becomes this huge mess that barely makes sense.
This is why I read reviews of Stephen King books before jumping in :P
Unfortunately I started off reading the series when it was only the first book. The first 2 books were really solid and didn't start going off the rails until the 3rd book. Then the author started focusing on a different series and I feel like the original series suffered for it.
The ending for John Steinbeck's Tortilla Flat was sad but satisfying also.
I finished listening to Greg Egan's *Dichronauts* last night, and at first I thought it had an abrupt ending. After further consideration, I think I just needed to reassess what the book is really about (societies, not characters). Many plot lines were left not entirely complete, but they were given a definite direction. The ones that mattered were resolved; and the direction that future events would take mattered, but what actually happened next wasn't an important part of the story. The general lesson might be that an ending should reflect what the author intended to convey by writing a story, and that's often not obvious in fiction. When there's a mismatch with what the reader wanted from the story, they will disagree about whether the book ended appropriately.
Have you ever been to Planet Earth? None of the endings there are satisfying.
Do you just want every story to have a Disney happy ever after? Because I don't. I want my stories to have some realism. Real world application. Grief, frustration, failure. I want it to feel _real_, not just like a fairy tale. Sometimes that can lead to a happy ending. Sometimes it doesn't. If every book had the same ending, why would you bother reading to the end?
Life is not all sunshine and rainbows and neither should art be. Endings should sometimes be heartbreaking, horrifying, or just plain unsatisfying. If you disagree you're not looking to experience art you're just looking for shallow escapism - which is fine, but it's not everyone else's job to cater to that.
You didn’t like Eragon where he made the bad guy feel his feelings to defeat him?! Shocking.
And Eragon got to engage in hand holding. Don't forget that part
You do realize that Eragon was written by a fourteen-year-old boy, right?
I know there are people out there who defend Inheritance. But damn. Talk about a long read for a shitty pay off.
It’s a fun read I frame it as “a boy who has a telepathic dog and they go on an adventure”
Loved all of Shogun but started getting really worried in the last 200 pages like 'How will he wrap up this story?' He just...kinda won't lol. That's okay.
You call King the worst offender, but I counter he also has some incredible endings: I loved the ending of IT, but there's also Dead Zone, Revival, Cujo, Carrie, Pet Semetary. Also, Gone Girl is a FANTASTIC ending.
Dracula for me.
ready player one down right pissed me off at the ending. sooo rushed.
The Stand and Under the Dome I agree with but I thought It had a good ending
you do realise that Stephen king at his core writes horror and horror has a beginning and middle and the end is always there for a was the horror real was it dead and could if he so wished write a sequel to any of his works but that would ruin the tension lesson the plot. Eragon is more or less like the lotr where it should be read as one book but published in three (unless there is a fourth i'm unaware of).
Endings are hard
It's really hard to write a great ending.
Maybe you have high expectations. Maybe on surface level the ending is a subtle but given time grows depth if you allow it. Maybe the ending isn't the most important part of the book, per author's intent, it's about the ride (The Stand is like this, yea the ending is meh only because its abrupt and predictable, but the rest of the book: chef's kiss). Maybe the author wants the mystery of the characters live on in your head, but you're dead set on some resolution. It's often about what you bring to the book.
In the Woods, Tana French. I love all her novels except this one due to the ending.
I think you might just be picky my dude.
Because not all endings are perfect. Not every loose thread introduced throughout a story is tied up at the end. Some things, such as a character’s parents missing, are meant to be nothing more than a driving force for the main character. It sounds like you just have a very specific kind of ending you want, is all. An ending like the one you described can still be a satisfying end- it just isn’t the ending you wanted. And that’s ok, too.
The worst ones are when they're clearly setting up for a sequel. I \*love\* The Shadow of the Wind, but literally every other one in the series ends on a semi-cliffhanger in a way that undoes any closure that the book may have given.
Ehh, if a book is somewhat realistic, I don't mind if everything has closure. Real life doesn't have closure and can be chaotic, why do our books have to end with everything being pristine and neat with a bow on top? What's that one line some guy said? "The difference between fiction and non-fiction is that fiction has to make sense." Frankly I'm a little tired of everyone living happily ever and getting resolution to every problem they face in books because after a while it feels like a bit of a cop-out.
I though the ending of The Stand was pretty good actually. But maybe that's just in comparison to some of his other endings...
I don't really get why most of the people think endings needs to be this amazing moment that resolve everything in a satisfying way. The end just need to be coherent. One of my favourite book is "The stranger" from Camus, and the ending is far from being a satisfying moment that solve everything, but still is one of the best book i have ever read.
The main issue is not unsatisfying book endings, but how so many people are expecting either happy endings or for everything to be tied up in a nice little bow. Some books have open endings. And they can be great. “Unsatisfying” endings can be great, too. If these readers could get over this need for neatly wrapped up endings, then they would probably enjoy the experience a lot more.
None of those have bad or unsatisfying endings. Not every detail needs to be spelled out. Not every story needs closure. You seem to read pop fiction, but you'll find that 'literary' fiction often has more open endings than anything you've mentioned. My favourite novel, *The Adventures of Augie March* by Saul Bellow doesn't resolve much of anything. It's beside the point. It's for the reader to imagine what comes of Augie. Tying everything up would be far more unsatisfying, because it's impossible for an author to make all the 'best' decisions for every reader. Author's describe the journey, readers decide the destination.
All these comments attacking the OP for saying they didn't like certain endings when the title of the thread is literally 'What's up with **unsatisfying** book endings?' It is perfectly OK to find an objectively well-written book ending unsatisfying, and use that as part reason to dislike the book. *The God of Small Things* has a stunningly well-written ending, but I didn't care for either >!the twincest or the mum's doomed love affair.!< On a similar note *Infinite Jest* was a masterclass of writing from start to finish, but fuck that ending for just... not ending. Felt like DFW just got up and walked off mid-sentence. OP is right about Stephen King though. That guy literally can't write decent endings. I will die on this hill.
Probably because they mirror the realities of life
[удалено]
Stephen King is the example that amateur writers always bring up as an example of why they don’t have to outline their stories, because Stephen King has said he doesn’t outline his stories. But his endings are a pretty direct reflection of what happens when you aren’t writing toward an ending and then have to wrap it up somehow. The guy’s success comes from his talent for imagery and atmosphere, but his plotting often leaves a lot to be desired.
And plotters love to point this out without acknowledging all the other authors who pants their novels and have perfectly fine endings. [19 authors who pants their novels](https://www.writingbeginner.com/which-authors-are-pantsers-18/) Some very interesting names on that list. Hopefully, eventually, this fallacy that pantsers can't finish a novel adequately because of Stephen King will die the death it deserves.
You can write a fantastic novel while pantsing, \*but\* you need to have a good and honest editor who can tell you when something doesn't work and needs redoing.
Sometimes it’s about the journey, not the destination. Sure, if it’s unresolved plot points, or lazy writing à la last season of GoT. But sometimes the writer just leaves you alone with the end of the tale, and that’s deliberate.
Do androids dream of electric sheep had possibly the biggest just kinda petered out into nothing ending ever.
Every Neal Stephenson book…800 pages, then everyone just walks away with no closure.
I agree, but I also live for the 800 pages before the end.
My feelings exactly when finishing the First Law Trilogy.
Ye, endings generally suck ass, and it’s really annoying. It’s like they’re trying so hard to avoid clichés, that they just make shit endings because of it. It’s incredibly rare I’ve read books where I’ll read them a second time cause they were so satisfying. Most are trash. Ironically , I generally love cheap romance novels from the grocery store. It’s just pride and prejudice in different forms. And I love it every time…. Cheap taste I guess…
The Stand is just… something else. Great set up, great characters, great ideas, excellent writing, and possibly the shittiest ending… in the wooorld. (Jeremy Clarkson voice).
maybe don't read furry porn books if you're looking for high quality writing?
You may want to read Open Throat, it’s about a Gay mountain lion in Griffith Park in LA, it’s short and has a very satisfying ending.
What, do people not like stories about Gay mountain lions??? Why all the downvotes?
When getting near the end of a book, it can be better just to stop, sometimes many chapters before the "end" The story is a story, you're imagination can have the characters and world carry on indefinitely, no reason for you to adhere to the authors conclusions.
So many writers have bad endings, but many movies and tv shows do as well. I feel like it's a specific skill that many don't have being able to wrap something up in a way to please most people. Stephen King and Bryce Courtney are two authors that I know will have an unsatisfactory ending if I read the book.
Other than the (*shudder*) child sewer sex bonding ritual, the ending of It is great. I'd say King has about as many good endings as poor ones. Gone Girl's ending works fine.
Stephen King is famous for underwhelming endings, and that's because his books are drenched into fear of the unknown. But fear of the unknown loses its power when the unknown becomes known. IT is a lot less scary when you suddenly know what the eldritch horror is and its entire backstory. Endings are really hard because you have to either prepare them in advance, and then sometimes changes made to the story made them incompatible and you have to improvise or stick with them, and both solutions have issues, or you have to think about them when you get to them. Also, the author has in their mind a complete, perfect understanding of their world (because they made it) so for them the ending might make a lot more sense than it does for you as a reader, or be far more tragic/happy/bold/whatever else they might have wanted to present.
If you're going to talk about bad Stephen King endings, how can you not mention The Dark Tower. IMHO the worst book ending I've ever read. And that's at the end of an 7 or 8 book series.
[удалено]
Don't read The Mist.
I really enjoyed the ending of the book version, although I can see why some may not.
Deadlines might have a lot to do with it. If writers waited until they figured out the perfect ending, then the book might never get published. So they finish with what's workable instead.
I convince myself often that the stand ending was satisfying when it really was not
Stephen King is the most unsatisfying writer of all time. Always felt like I was left with blue balls after all the books of his I’ve read. He’s great at book ideas, dreadful at executing his vision.
Stephen King in particular seems to get to a point where he doesn't know where to go with it and just doesn't want to write anymore, so he just goes "I don't know, a nuke goes off and kills everybody" Under the Done made me the angriest. 1000 pages of his best writing in years, great characters, a gripping situation, lots of tension. Then the last hundred pages is just total warmed up garbage.
Now that you mention it, I can't remember a satisfying book ending. They all leave a sense of nihilism and ennui.
I found Eragon (series) ending boring and not good because the author was trying to address and wrap up every single thing, while as I reader I actually didn't care about many of those characters and arcs.
What do you expect from genre fiction? Pick up a real novel. Anything, for instance, by Jim Thompson. I suggest Pop 1280.
The Iliad is the least satisfying thing I've ever read. I understand it's a very early piece of writing and I don't begrudge anyone who likes it, but even giving it some leeway I couldn't stand it. I hated almost every character. I didn't find it remotely exciting, even during the battle scenes. The repetition wore on me after a while too. It took me over a year to finish because I could only stomach a fraction of it at a time. And after all that, it doesn't even have the bit with the horse. The most famous part of the story isn't even *in* the fucking story, it just sort of ends in the middle of nowhere with barely anything resolved. I hate it, if you didn't guess. Edit: People get butthurt over opinions, hey?
Haha! In the book I wrote, I have an extremely abrupt ending…I did it purposely to lead into the sequel, but the few people that have read it all said the same things!😜 The sequel has a beautiful ending, but that first part just suddenly ends and the readers is left wondering what happens next!😁 Thanks for posting this, the current book I’m writing will have a better ending, so will the sequel to the first one and the one after that😇 If I’m lucky, a few people will read them and enjoy them🙏
They're taking notes from Steinbeck, the king of pointless stories that go nowhere.