Quoteskimming through a conversation
Today's icon contains a quote from Alice in Wonderland, in case you were wondering.
Earlier this week, I posted a conversation with some other writers about book endings. It was fun for me to participate in a conversation with Tessa Garton (everflame), Carrie Jones (carriejones), Jill Myles (irysangel) and Maggie Stiefvater (m_stiefvater), as well as with folks who posted in the comments. Here are a few quotes from that conversation that had me thinking long after the conversation was over:
From Tessa Garton:
Happy endings v. good or satisfying endings
"Here's my definition of a happy ending: the main character survives and defeats the bad guy, any love interests or best friends also survive, and the road ahead is (at least for the foreseeable future) a positive one.
This is different from a good ending. Happy endings CAN be good endings if, they follow the characterization and genre of the story. Meaning: if Hamlet had made up with Claudius and he and Gertrude stepped down in favor of Hamlet, that would be happy, but NOT good, because it would have been totally out of character for ALL the characters."
About her expectations as a teen
"I know now that what I want is satisfying. But when I was a teen, I thought I wanted HEA (or at least HFN)."
From Carrie Jones:
Best writing to food metaphor EVER, and therefore quoted in full
Nancy Lamb wrote in CRAFTING STORIES FOR CHILDREN that a book's ending “must honor the contract [the author] made with the reader in the opening paragraphs.”
So, to me, that's what it's about. The ending has to fit. The ending has to matter, and make sense. I could care less about whether it's happy or sad or atomic. The ending is the place where you go, "Aha. Of course. That's right."
And it can vary. If you think of the book as a meal at a fancy restaurant (bear with me) it makes more sense.
You have a beginning of a book like a beginning of a meal.
You have no idea what you're going to eat or order. You have no idea what's going to happen. Everything is vague and then the beginning gives you a focus. You are going to order portabella mushroom risotto. That is what the beginning of the meal tells you.
The beginning of a book is the same way. You have no idea what's going on. You open the book and you are suddenly focused from the infinite to the finite. Okay, you say, this book is going to be about a girl who falls in love with a hamster.
Then the middle of the book kind of scopes out. You aren't just having risotto. You also, it turns out, are getting a salad and these cute little rolls that come with cinnamon-scented butter, or perhaps olive oil. You have greens. Your risotto has red pepper in it. You never expected that.
A book is the same way. Reality is suddenly a lot bigger. The story and characters are a lot more rounded. And it's all so tasty and yummy and good. That is the middle.
Then we have the end, right? The end is more like the beginning because it takes everything that's happened before and brought it to this one action. It's something important and necessary. It might be happy like a hazelnut crostata. It might be a little dangerous like some limoncello. It might be something good and comforting like a brownie sundae, but it has to make sense with the rest of the meal.
The ending of the book is like that too. Everything is all about one action suddenly. All the characters and the wants and themes and the dialogue is all suddenly tied up in one lasting action and one lasting image. And that ending has to make sense.
The author has entered a promise with the reader. That promise is set up at the beginning with the tone of the book, and with the problem confronting the character, and sometimes with the formula of the genre. The reader has expectations created from the very first page. Those expectations have to be met. No matter how awesome your dinner is, if you find a brown recluse spider in your bananas foster you are not going to be saying, "Damn. That meal was ex-cel-lent." You're going to be saying, "Holy crud! I am NEVER eating there again."
Books are the same way, I think.
So, it's not about happy for me. It's about keeping up the promise.
From Jill Myles:
About wanting a happy ending
"The [Happily Ever After] doesn't have to mean that the two main characters are now manacled together for the rest of their lives (especially in YA, because that would just be kind of weird). I guess it's that I need to believe that they're going to be able to explore their relationship to the fullest."
About romances, paranormal or otherwise:
"They're the same, plot wise - the entire goal is to get the hero and heroine together and work them toward the happy-ever-after. . . . plots are different in romances than in regular urban fantasy/paranormal. No matter how you dress it up, it's still a cake (IE, romance). You can put a ton of frosting on it, but it's still a cake. And if you remove the elements that the romance readers want (the happy ending, etc), you're basically putting icing on uh...a shoe. And your audience will hate you for it."
From Maggie Stiefvater:
About consequences and logical endings
"I wanted to pitch in on the idea of reader expectations too. Because I'm going to be the devil's advocate and say that I don't think that reader expectations define a happy ending. Because then what do we do with surprise endings? The ones where you go 'WHOA I never saw that coming but YUM.'
So therefore it can't all be about reader expectation. I think it's more about consequences. All events that happen in a book create consequences. All character flaws and attributes color those consequences. A happy ending is one that gives you the best possible logical consequence of those actions, and a sad ending is one that gives you anything else.
When you look at it that way, it leaves room for a happy ending being less than rah-rah-sunshine-pudding time.
. . . I think a logical happy ending is almost always bittersweet."
Comment from boreal_owl:
"For me an ending has to make sense, has to leave room for some hope, and has to be satisfying. . . . I can live with an unhappy ending, although I don't prefer it, if I understand it."
Comment from robinellen:
"[I]f an author sets up the story to be about one thing, then the ending has to fulfill that promise. Books (and movies) which don't do this are beyond frustrating -- because this is why we read (and watch)."
Comment from viabloomington:
"I love HEA endings as a reader (or more particularly as a movie goer), but, as a writer, I have discovered that they don't always work, the story doesn't always take you to HEA. . . .[Y]ou have to be true to the story (so the book doesn't get heaved across the room in disgust.)"
Earlier this week, I posted a conversation with some other writers about book endings. It was fun for me to participate in a conversation with Tessa Garton (everflame), Carrie Jones (carriejones), Jill Myles (irysangel) and Maggie Stiefvater (m_stiefvater), as well as with folks who posted in the comments. Here are a few quotes from that conversation that had me thinking long after the conversation was over:
From Tessa Garton:
Happy endings v. good or satisfying endings
"Here's my definition of a happy ending: the main character survives and defeats the bad guy, any love interests or best friends also survive, and the road ahead is (at least for the foreseeable future) a positive one.
This is different from a good ending. Happy endings CAN be good endings if, they follow the characterization and genre of the story. Meaning: if Hamlet had made up with Claudius and he and Gertrude stepped down in favor of Hamlet, that would be happy, but NOT good, because it would have been totally out of character for ALL the characters."
About her expectations as a teen
"I know now that what I want is satisfying. But when I was a teen, I thought I wanted HEA (or at least HFN)."
From Carrie Jones:
Best writing to food metaphor EVER, and therefore quoted in full
Nancy Lamb wrote in CRAFTING STORIES FOR CHILDREN that a book's ending “must honor the contract [the author] made with the reader in the opening paragraphs.”
So, to me, that's what it's about. The ending has to fit. The ending has to matter, and make sense. I could care less about whether it's happy or sad or atomic. The ending is the place where you go, "Aha. Of course. That's right."
And it can vary. If you think of the book as a meal at a fancy restaurant (bear with me) it makes more sense.
You have a beginning of a book like a beginning of a meal.
You have no idea what you're going to eat or order. You have no idea what's going to happen. Everything is vague and then the beginning gives you a focus. You are going to order portabella mushroom risotto. That is what the beginning of the meal tells you.
The beginning of a book is the same way. You have no idea what's going on. You open the book and you are suddenly focused from the infinite to the finite. Okay, you say, this book is going to be about a girl who falls in love with a hamster.
Then the middle of the book kind of scopes out. You aren't just having risotto. You also, it turns out, are getting a salad and these cute little rolls that come with cinnamon-scented butter, or perhaps olive oil. You have greens. Your risotto has red pepper in it. You never expected that.
A book is the same way. Reality is suddenly a lot bigger. The story and characters are a lot more rounded. And it's all so tasty and yummy and good. That is the middle.
Then we have the end, right? The end is more like the beginning because it takes everything that's happened before and brought it to this one action. It's something important and necessary. It might be happy like a hazelnut crostata. It might be a little dangerous like some limoncello. It might be something good and comforting like a brownie sundae, but it has to make sense with the rest of the meal.
The ending of the book is like that too. Everything is all about one action suddenly. All the characters and the wants and themes and the dialogue is all suddenly tied up in one lasting action and one lasting image. And that ending has to make sense.
The author has entered a promise with the reader. That promise is set up at the beginning with the tone of the book, and with the problem confronting the character, and sometimes with the formula of the genre. The reader has expectations created from the very first page. Those expectations have to be met. No matter how awesome your dinner is, if you find a brown recluse spider in your bananas foster you are not going to be saying, "Damn. That meal was ex-cel-lent." You're going to be saying, "Holy crud! I am NEVER eating there again."
Books are the same way, I think.
So, it's not about happy for me. It's about keeping up the promise.
From Jill Myles:
About wanting a happy ending
"The [Happily Ever After] doesn't have to mean that the two main characters are now manacled together for the rest of their lives (especially in YA, because that would just be kind of weird). I guess it's that I need to believe that they're going to be able to explore their relationship to the fullest."
About romances, paranormal or otherwise:
"They're the same, plot wise - the entire goal is to get the hero and heroine together and work them toward the happy-ever-after. . . . plots are different in romances than in regular urban fantasy/paranormal. No matter how you dress it up, it's still a cake (IE, romance). You can put a ton of frosting on it, but it's still a cake. And if you remove the elements that the romance readers want (the happy ending, etc), you're basically putting icing on uh...a shoe. And your audience will hate you for it."
From Maggie Stiefvater:
About consequences and logical endings
"I wanted to pitch in on the idea of reader expectations too. Because I'm going to be the devil's advocate and say that I don't think that reader expectations define a happy ending. Because then what do we do with surprise endings? The ones where you go 'WHOA I never saw that coming but YUM.'
So therefore it can't all be about reader expectation. I think it's more about consequences. All events that happen in a book create consequences. All character flaws and attributes color those consequences. A happy ending is one that gives you the best possible logical consequence of those actions, and a sad ending is one that gives you anything else.
When you look at it that way, it leaves room for a happy ending being less than rah-rah-sunshine-pudding time.
. . . I think a logical happy ending is almost always bittersweet."
Comment from boreal_owl:
"For me an ending has to make sense, has to leave room for some hope, and has to be satisfying. . . . I can live with an unhappy ending, although I don't prefer it, if I understand it."
Comment from robinellen:
"[I]f an author sets up the story to be about one thing, then the ending has to fulfill that promise. Books (and movies) which don't do this are beyond frustrating -- because this is why we read (and watch)."
Comment from viabloomington:
"I love HEA endings as a reader (or more particularly as a movie goer), but, as a writer, I have discovered that they don't always work, the story doesn't always take you to HEA. . . .[Y]ou have to be true to the story (so the book doesn't get heaved across the room in disgust.)"