Let's talk about cliffhangers

[rolanni]

There seem to be a group of readers (and movie viewers, too) who loathe and eschew what they term "cliffhanger" endings in novels. There also seem to be at least as many schools of thought regarding what constitutes a cliffhanger as there are readers who eschew them.

At one end of the curve, we have those who dislike books that end on a Moment of Extreme Peril-or-Drama. And at the other, we have those who cry "cliffhanger" if one thread is left untied, or one destiny unfulfilled by the time they hit "The End."

Let me say upfront that I don't mind true cliffhangers in the least. In fact, I rather like them. This may be because I grew up watching movie serials, episodes of Zorro/Spin & Marty/Corky & White Shadow/Rocky & Bullwinkle/&c, reading serialized newspaper comics, and listening to serialized radio stories. (I also have no trouble remembering what happened in Book One of a given series, and so don't have to re-read it when Book Two comes out. My brain, alas, is wired to remember story, which it faithfully does, despite the gallons of other stuff that daily pass through it unremarked and unrecalled.) What I object to in a novel is a story that Just Stops.

Just Stopping, IMHO, is different from a cliffhanger in several important ways. A cliffhanger ending, properly done, happens after minor-but-important story points have been resolved, and things seem to be coasting to a denouement, all according to the Chart of How A Story Is Constructed that was all the rage when I was trapped in high school English classes. So, minor points resolved at peak, slow slide, then, instead of the narrative continuing downhill toward gentle closure, it takes a sharp left turn, the stakes are abruptly escalated, our characters are in motion toward a Helluva Mess(tm) -- and that's a wrap. To Be Continued Next Time. Note that a properly done cliffhanger is a conscious decision on the part of the author, i.e. She Meant to Do That.

For the record, please note that a cliffhanger at the end of a standalone novel is Bad Form, though it is not necessary, IMHO, to tie up Every Single Thread into pretty bows.

Just Stopping, now, has a whole different feel to it -- the entire story is still in motion, all plot points in play, you're moving along at a steady pace and "The End" appears out of nowhere, leaving all suspended, no closure at all.

Happily, novels that Just Stop aren't, in my experience, all that common. They may be slightly rarer than those novels in which the reader is allowed to feel the motion of the characters beyond the ending of the book.

The master of that effect, IMHO, is Dick Francis, whose characters absolutely are living and in motion on either side of the novel, that is, they are going about their business, acting out of the necessity of their own beings, doing their jobs, when Something Happens. The action of the characters from that point until the resolution of the problem born of that Happening, is caught, like a snapshot, between the covers of the book. The characters, however, are independent of the story -- they continue onward, going about their business, acting out of the necessity of their own beings, and doing their jobs.

That sort of thing is not a cliffhanger, it is a Moment of Art.

So -- what does "cliffhanger" mean to you, and why do you or don't you care for them?

Comments

[autopope.livejournal.com]

I'm with you 100% on the distinction between a cliff-hanger and a story that just stops. However, the "just stop" thing is quite often not the author's fault (if the book's part of a series).

I got a lot of stick from readers because "The Family Trade" did the "just stop" thing. Unfortunately, the original MS I handed in didn't do that -- but Tor chopped the book in two.

I'm not the only author this has happened to recently; I believe Scott Westerfield's "The Risen Empire" got the same treatment, as did one of Peter Watts' novels. It seems to mostly affect midlist authors whose likely sales won't get the original big, fat MS over the threshold at which a big fat book is economically viable (i.e. to get a discount on the cost of printing.)

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

I got a lot of stick from readers because "The Family Trade" did the "just stop" thing. Unfortunately, the original MS I handed in didn't do that -- but Tor chopped the book in two.

This also happened to John C. Wright. He turned in One Whopping Big Book, which the publisher said they'd have to cut in half. They worked with him to find a reasonable cut-off point. The last page of Book One bore the promise that the story would be concluded in Book Two.

Except, in a surprise move,the publisher subsequently cut Book Two in half -- and then there were three...

[queenmaggie.livejournal.com]

I don't mind a few threads left unbowed.... perhaps there'll be another book later about all these people I've grown to love...but I've gotten to the point, that if a book says "Book 1 of the XXX trilogy" I put it back on the shelf. I will no longer buy a book or a series that doesn't have an ending. I've spent too much time reading up to a point, then having it either disappear forever (and I can't even remember which books on my shelves are suspended in mid story, that I told myself I'd look for on Amazon later when the next one came out) or else turn into a series that churned out a new book every year, beating the same drum with less artistry for book #23 in the 'XXX series'

[alethea-eastrid.livejournal.com]

I am exactly the same. This summer is "catch up on lurking series" summer, as I have a half-dozen or so fantasy and sf trilogies (or more) that have finally All Come Out, so I will now start reading.

Part of the problem is just that I get positively jittery when the story (main plot arc; I don't mind dangling threads here and there) is incomplete, and spend a lot of energy and time fretting at it. (After each of the last two Harry Potter books, for example--especially the latest--I have sunk an appalling amount of time into the online fandom in order to deal with the unresolved emotional investment.) This is also part of the reason I've more-or-less stopped watching television; I like TV shows with long arcs, but I end up spending ungodly amounts of time *picking* at unfinished stories. Since I don't *have* ungodly amounts of time to play with, I've more or less given up...things that are complete I add to the "catch this sometime on DVD" list, and I still havn't figured out what I'm going to do about Battlestar Galactica...

For similar reasons, I tend to only read comics in trade paperback. They rarely wrap up the entire plot, but most--the few I read, anyway--are pretty good about resolving the major arc. Anticipation has its moments, but I generally prefer to spend the time reading something else--so many books, so little time--rather then fretting about what could, might, should happen in whatever I just finished.

Cliffhangers

[starrcat.livejournal.com]

My biggest problem with cliffhangers is the uncertainty of the publishing world. Ten years waiting to find out about Plan B was nine years and one months (I'll give 11 months between books ) too long.

And also these days if you see an interesting book and is three of three, it can be very hard to find one and two. Shelf life is way too short for too many series.

I also dislike cliffhangers when it is done just to get you to buy the next book. Yes, I know that is the goal, but I should be buying the next book because I need to know what happened to these people, not because of a plot point. That's the sequel I will skim in the store to find out the resolution of the plot, but not buy because I don't care about the people.

As for books that just stop, as long as the main points are resolved and it is a natural stopping, I don't mind. Not everything has to be tied up in a pretty, neat bow but there better be resolution of the major points of the plot. Doesn't have to be happy, doesn't have to be the total end, but some kind of resolution I need.

Re: Cliffhangers

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

...I should be buying the next book because I need to know what happened to these people, not because of a plot point.

That's interesting, because my understanding of a cliffhanger is that it stops at a point of High Drama-or-Peril, which would naturally involve the fate and continued good health of the characters. Since I don't necessary read books for "plot" either, I wouldn't be inclined to pick up Book Two of Plot Driven Sci-Fi to learn if the aliens do devour the Earth -- if I wasn't already invested in the characters.

Re: Cliffhangers

[starrcat.livejournal.com]

It is easy to see who the writer is and who is clearly not (me!) What I meant is that I really don't care about the people even if they are on the brink of death, destruction, etc. but am somewhat curious about what happens. It is like a TV show that you don't really want to watch but skim an episode guide. You find out what happens but don't have to spend time with so many characters you don't like.
I find that usually I will like maybe one or two minor characters and care about them but not enough to wade through a whole book.
Hope that is a bit clearer.

[gryphonlsb.livejournal.com]

Like everything about me...my answers are never Set in Stone

Cliffhangers work or do not on the strength of the author(s) and how they resolve the issues. There are a few authors who have gone past what I thought would be the natural resolution of a story and almost begin a new novel

I have had books end in its own time that I still didnt like, and then Ive had cliffhangers that made me glad the characters were still living out there...somewhere doing what they do best (or worst)

I have also rad so many books that do not have an end yet (or hadnt when I started them) Kings Dark Tower always comes to mind.

If the story is good, I will hate the cliffhanger but only because I want more of that world and its peoples

[janni.livejournal.com]

I think there's a definite difference between a cliffhanger and just stopping (and much prefer the former, of course), but neither is an ending to me. To me, an ending is when the characters have come to--some sort of completion/resolution/end-of-arc-iness for whatever they were dealing with throughout the book. If the characters are literally hanging over the edge of a cliff when this happens, about to fall, it doesn't matter--the book has ended well. But if this doesn't happen--if nothing changes for anyone, if nothing shifts or arcs or gets in some way resolved--then it doesn't matter if we've saved the world and are now safe back at home; the book hasn't really reached an ending.

[gjules.livejournal.com]

Cliffhangers don't bother me so long as I know the story is going to be continued. I might get impatient waiting for the next book, but it doesn't feel like a betrayal of the implicit reader-author contract. Cliffhangers at the end of Book Three of a trilogy, however, are Not On. (At least in a stand-alone, there's always the possibility of a sequel.)

I think I'm okay with unresolved threads so long as it's clear that they're moving forward, if that makes any sense. Ending a book with an unhappy POV character who's trapped and has no idea of where to go -- that troubles me. Maybe I need to be troubled, of course, and I can see places where this would be the only logical ending. But I find it troubling. A character whose path was still up in the air, but who had a sense of forward motion and being able to keep adapting and doing things, wouldn't bother me the same way, even in their fate was still uncertain. If I can't see them working things out, I'd like to have the feeling that they'll be able to do so.

My favorite form of cliffhanger, in a series at least, is the ending where things *look* like they've been resolved... until some logical, unpleasant, and far-reaching consequence of the events of the book rears its ugly head, and the characters realize that things are about to go pear-shaped again. Unfortunately, this sort of ending is really difficult to write, and a lot of writers seem to miss the mark. The ending where some of the plot threads have been sewn up, but others remain open to lead into the next book is easier to plan out in advance, and works in similar (though for me less effective) ways.

[lensedqso.livejournal.com]

I don't mind some loose threads, but I expect the main action of the current book to have some resolution. There are exceptions (there are always exceptions) but I almost always dislike single continuous stories that are just chopped off at random point because size constraints say "here and no further" and not because something in the story says "this is a logical place to end this adventure before continuing the lives of these people in the next book." If you have to provide a serial rather than a series (the distinction being that a series is a set of mostly independent stories set in a single universe that may or may not involve the same characters while a serial is a set of connected stories that follow directly from one another), then tie up each small story in a single installment. Provide a cliffhanger for the next story if you must after wrapping up this one, but don't make it feel like a gratuitous attempt to force me to read it. If you can't make it feel like a natural extension of the current story, skip the cliffhanger.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

If you have to provide a serial rather than a series (the distinction being that a series is a set of mostly independent stories set in a single universe that may or may not involve the same characters while a serial is a set of connected stories that follow directly from one another)

OK, now that's fascinating, because I don't consider a series a set of independent stories with independent characters that happen to take place in the same universe at all. To me series=series, while Discontinuous Books Written in the Same Universe are, um, Books Written in the Same Universe.

Agent of Change and Balance of Trade are not in series; they have nothing to do with each other, plor-or-character-wise. They share geography, since both take place in the Liaden Universe(r), but either could easily exist without the other.

Agent of Change and Carpe Diem, now, are books-in-series; the action in the first has set the action of the second into motion. The second book could not exist (in the same form, granted) without the first; they are tied by an overreaching story arc.

What about chex?

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

Let's see. So for we have books, books in a common universe, and series within an overall story arc. What about conflict of honors and agent of change? It seems as if the relationship between AoC and Carpe Diem is somewhat different than the relationship between AoC and CoH?

Not that I care so much about the categories, as long as there are books filling them!

[filkferengi]

The best cliffhanger is the one where I've already got the next book. Why, yes, I *did* wait over a year to read the first _Crystal_ book [until I had them both]; why do you ask? ;)