on endings

[thehefner]

In Creative Writing, we were told not to write a story with an ending in mind. You should just write and let the ending grow from there. I may not be that accomplished a writer (2 unpublished books and a handful of unpublished short stories), but even at the time I had a strong urge to call "bullshit." And now that I have finished THE DARK TOWER, now more than ever, I can hold Stephen King up as proof against that way of thinking.

The problem with Stephen King is that he has no idea how the book is going to end before he writes it. He has said that the ending comes from the story, and I can understand that feeling, sure. He even says the very thought himself in the afterword: "The journey is more important than the destination." And he's right. He's absolutely right.

I rather like his take on it, "You are the unfortunate ones who still get the lovemaking all confused with the paltry squirt that comes at the end of the lovemaking (the orgasm is, after all, God's way of telling us that we're finished, at least for the time being, and should go to sleep.)"

Here's the thing. King's an excellent, sometimes brilliant storyteller. When he's at the top of his game, he weaves and builds excellent tales that make the reader interested, make them care, make them want to see what happens next. But without an ending in mind, without some excellent, powerful climax to work up to, I kind of see it as building a mansion on top of a lake. Maybe that's not the most apt metaphor, but hopefully you know what I mean.

Not that his endings suck, exactly. They just... sorta... *end.* His endings wrap up the story, tie up the loose ends, are basically perfectly functional. If he can come up with a decent solution to finish a story, that's it then, the end. It doesn't matter if it's "satisfying," just that it's the end, justifying it as "the way it has to end." It may satisfy the writer, but it kind of blows for the reader. But then, I suppose your view on that basically falls back on whether art is for the artist or the patrons (I kind of like to have it both ways, like having both versions of Star Wars available to us on DVD).

I've heard a story described as a promise. And when a writer delivers a lame ending, I think he breaks that promise. I mean, go back to the sex metaphor. Yeah, sex has to be more than just the orgasm, but, y'know, the orgasm's kinda important too, isn't it? The climax! Just having it come shouldn't be enough. It should be that promise fulfilled to the very last drop, the culmination of every thread woven from the story's rich tapestry. Especially, especially if the story before it has been great! Ok, now my metaphors are all over the fucking place, but whatever. It's LJ. You're lucky I'm even spelling "laid" correctly.

I'll actually write about the DARK TOWER itself at some point after I've digested it a bit and talked with the few other folks who've read it. spacechild, charisma18, and testopolis, I'm a-looking in your directions. For now, I just needed to get out these thoughts which I'd been pondering ever since Prof. Mooney's class, ever since I finished books like THE SHINING, SALEM'S LOT, and CELL with little more than a "Huh? That's it? Well, uh, I guess that works. Still..."

The thing is, up until I read the ending of DARK TOWER (I mean the very, very end, the coda, which King himself advises you not to read. I'd take his advice, I thought the way it ended before that worked just fine. It's like AI: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE all over again!), I thought that even if I hated it, nothing could take away my deep love for the rest of the stories. The journey and the destination and all that, right? But now, a mere half hour after finishing the book, I can't help but wonder and fear if the ending might have put a stain upon all the rest of the books. To think, "THAT'S what it's all lead up to? That's what it was all for?" Can I just consider that coda a DVD extra optional ending? I can, right? God, I definitely want to reread THE TALISMAN to see if I can still love it like I did before.

The journey is more important than destination, absolutely. But the destination should be pretty bloody good too. Otherwise, why travel there in the first place?

Comments

[kwsapphire.livejournal.com]

I totally agree. A friend and I both have stories that we want to tell, that we never seem to get anywhere with. We're now starting a joint venture to see if, together, we can get a story written. And while we want it to be a great story, the end is important too.

Just like The Fountain. Yes, visually pretty move, but .. eh? I think if you're going to tell a story, it should have a point. My favorite stories all have some kind of realization at the end, some Ah HAH! moment. Except Raptor Red, which is my favorite book evar, and I wish it were ten times as long. It's just a year in the life of a Utahraptor, and doesn't really have a specific end.

But most books, I want to feel like I learned something from reading it. I want to maybe think about the world a little differently, or notice some kind of evolution and growth for the characters. That's partially story, but it's part of the ending too.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree (well, obviously, since you're agreeing with me in the first place), I think knowing what you're working up to is important to the overall final sense of satisfaction. A great book should be interesting to read and leave a satisfied (no, more than satisfied, I say) feeling in the memory afterwards. It's not easy, but hey, great art of any sort isn't.

Personally, I did have that with The Fountain. For me, satisfaction came in all three of the stories' climaxes. What happens when he drinks the sap, the big effects in space, and his decision in the present day, those served as the satisfactory endings because, well, I didn't really see them coming at all, but they made sense without "oh, well, that's nice." But then, that's how I felt.

I've heard about Raptor Red. In a bizarre way, the way you talk about it reminds me of LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT, which is one case where's I'm the only one not satisfied with the ending.

Yeah, partially the story and partially the ending, it totally is. I think the story has to be greater, but it's a partnership, and damn it, I wanna finish a book and go "wow!"

[morganashkevron.livejournal.com]

You know, I felt exactly the same way after reading American Gods. The ending made sense for the characters and the plot, but it just wasn't satisfying. There was no big "Ahhh, now I see why everyone loves Neil Gaiman" moment. And the sad thing is, I really liked the book until I finished it. But it was like the literary equivalent of blueballs, I guess (and I'll have to guess since I haven't any balls) in that it was over, but I didn't feel like it was finished. This is why I prefer writers like Guy Kay - he strings you along and just builds on the tension and then BAM! knocks you over the head with an amazing plot twist (that both astounds and makes sense) and he still takes the time to cuddle with you when it's over. No loose ends and a completely satisfying read. If you get the urge to test him out, start with Lions of Al-Rassan (which is currently being adapted into a movie by Ed Zwick, the guy behind The Last Samurai) or Sailing to Sarantium and its sequel, Lord of Emperors.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, I think I agree with you on AMERICAN GODS, I just never realized it till now.

Honestly, if you wanna see the big deal about Gaiman, read THE SANDMAN. I think that saga was handled very well, but then, I should reread it sometime soon.

I need to check out this Guy Kay, it seems. Maybe it's cheap of me, but dash it all, I love a good twist ending! I love it because you don't see it coming, which is what a good ending should be! Unpredictable, yet tied so closely into the story that it should make sense and not feel like it's coming out of left field.

Oh, Ed Zwick. One reviewer likes to describe his movies as the plight of the oppressed minorities and the noble white man who comes to their rescue (see SAMURAI, GLORY, and his forthcoming BLOOD DIAMOND). That description rather tickles me.

[jellied.livejournal.com]

I've actually never read the last installment of the series. I kept putting it off, and now I don't care. I probably should read it at some point.

Honestly, I still like the Gunslinger the best.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Honestly, the only reason I enjoy Dark Tower half as much as I do is because of all the connecting books. THE STAND, THE TALISMAN, BLACK HOUSE, HEARTS IN ATLANTIS, INSOMNIA, SALEM'S LOT, how they all tie in and how the characters from one pop up in DT and serve some purpose there... I totally love that. Just the DT books themselves are good and all, but it's the whole saga that I really loved.

So that said, I don't know what else of the series you've read, but if you've read those others then yeah, check out the last one. I really did love it, save for the coda, which I'll be pondering about for some time.

[jellied.livejournal.com]

I've read everything that King's written.

Of the books that aren't in his quote-unquote saga, I happen to enjoy The Stand and Insomiac the best.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Oh, rock. Then in that case, yeah, definitely do finish the last book when you can. In many ways (at least in King's mind) it's the culmination of his life's work.

(And also there's a little treat for fans of Insomnia in there)

[tompurdue.livejournal.com]

In writing, the journey and the destination are the same thing. A book is a whole object, and the destination affects every other point on the book.

I don't think it's absolutely necessary for a book to have a great ending. Some stories are more like music: you're really just appreciating it moment to moment. Graphic novels have that opportunity more than most, because you're really there to appreciate each panel and will dwell on it. You can't dwell on music the way you will on art, but like art the ending of the music isn't a hidden thing waiting for you; it's simply good right at the instant and there's nothing for you to put together. There's no sense of suspense.

Some stories depend on suspense; others don't. Those that depend on suspense are abject failures if the resolution is bad. A mystery with a bad ending is not worth reading, not even page 1.

A story which doesn't depend on its resolution will often feel disappointing because its author hasn't used all the tools available. Maybe it's fun moment to moment; different readers will appreciate that differently. Some will enjoy the journey and others won't. Many will say it could have been better if it had a sense of flow, because it's something a book can do, and if this book doesn't, you could have spent the time on one which does both.

But that must be a conscious choice by the author. Mysteries are the extreme example, but nearly every book uses at least some element of suspense, and to declare that an invalid tool is pretentious. And if you're writing a notion of suspense without having the resolution in mind, then you're building without a structure.

I don't think that comparing it to sex is particularly helpful; sex is a very different kind of pleasure from reading, and the orgasm is very different from the ending of the book. Analogies can be useful in illustrating a point, and in discovering solutions, but they're never a useful form of argumentation unless the analogy is so precise as to make it irrelevant that you're arguing by analogy at all.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Good points, all. I got nothing to add to any of that.

Well those who can... and all that

[the-mithril-man.livejournal.com]

Over on Chuck Dixon's site he talked about this recently. Sorry if this seems a bi long.

"So, my advice on getting started and keeping the fires burning?

1) Don’t feel that you have to start at the beginning and work forward. EVERYone works differently and approaches writing differently. I usually come up with several very strong visual scenes first and work out from there. Batman tied to a harbor buoy as the tide rises and the sharks are circling. Now, how to get there? And how to get OUT of it? If you have a great scene, don’t be afraid to write that first and worry about the preceding story later.

2) Don’t be afraid to start a story without knowing the ending. At the outset, unless your story is auto-biographical, you don’t know the situations or characters well enough. As you learn more, a plausible, un-contrived ending will grow from that knowledge.

3) No idea or concept is so stupid that you can’t make it work. I call this The Kirby Principle. Jack Kirby was a fearless creator who could sell the dumbest idea you can think of. Come on, the Silver Surfer? Modok? The Mother Box? Have faith in your idea and figure out what’s needed to make it work dramatically. The guy who thought of a story where people are trapped on a city bus that will explode if it goes below 50 mph hasn’t checked the sofa cushions for change lately.

4) Don’t rush it. Write in snippets if you have to. Don’t set ridiculous deadlines you’ll never keep.

5) Immerse yourself. It’s easy at the outset of a project to dive in and write like a madman. But then life interrupts and going back to the now-cold stuff you wrote before seems like the dullest task in the world. Well, if you’re gonna be a pro and have a career then you’re gonna have to write even when it’s the last thing in the world you want to do. MAKE yourself jump into the frigid-cold, deep end of the pool. You’ll be surprised how quickly the work warms up again and once more you’re blazing and at home in your initial concepts. Which leads me to…

6) The simplest and yet best advice I ever got. I read an interview with an old Hollywood hand at screenwriting who said that he never wrote down his last idea of the day. That way he knew where he was going to start the next day and could get back to work without excuses or hesitation. So simple and yet it’s made my life easier on so many occasions."

Re: Well those who can... and all that

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think this is some pretty solid advice. Not too far in either direction, flexible enough to the preferences and comforts (a dangerous thing, since comfort can sometimes be the enemy, I admit) of the writers. It's also encouraging advice, which I like.

[gnort.livejournal.com]

I agree, I'm rather ambivalent on the last book. There is a lot of great stuff in there and I did have a hard time putting it down, and I can see why King would see that as a fitting ending but at the same time there is a lot about that last part that bothers me.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Ach, I *knew* I was forgetting another Dark Tower reader!

Aye. I think I really am going to think of the coda as, like, a DVD extra. Personally, I think the story ended perfectly satisfactorily just before all that. And I agree, I can see why he did that, but still, IIIIII don't know. It doesn't sit well with me either.

[testopolis.livejournal.com]

ooooh, wow. Discussing such a(n)... *can't find adjective to fit here* series with Hefner?

I must say, I'm a little bit intimidated!! =P
It's been a while since I finished it (and even longer since I read the other books...) but I shall try!

I wonder if my opinion of them is different from other people's because these are the ONLY books by King that I've ever read...

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

SPOILERS AHOY!

Intimidated by the series or by me? Because I don't think I'm about as intimidating as a sack of kittens. A felt sack of kittens.

I just really feel like the ending was perfectly fine without the Coda. Because, look, it doesn't matter what's in the Tower. It really doesn't! Anything he could come up with would be a disappointment, but give a clue or two and leave it up to the reader's imaginations to ponder and interpret and that's perfect!

But instead, we get... what? That it sucks to be Roland? Why is he doomed to be in a loop? What was his sin, if he's being punished at all? Is it purely because he's doomed to be a literary character to relive it all over and over again? Because if that's so, that's so fucking wanky! Even wankier than writing himself into it (which a lot of people hate, but I didn't, it worked for me). He doesn't even give a reason contextually in the story! It's like, "Well, sucks to be Roland!"

And if the idea is that he's a literary character, doomed to loop over and over, ummmm, by extent, isn't EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE ENTIRE SAGA?!

The ending is just fine without the Coda. I say we don't need to know what's in the Tower. Aside from one or two mentions of "the room at the top of the Tower," the overriding obsession for Roland, it seemed to me, was getting to the Tower and saving the Tower. That's all. When he enters it, he can rest.

So I think the Coda should be considered like a DVD extra alternate ending.

And yes, I named him Oy. Actually, I initially named him Hamburglar, but he quickly became Oy. Oy the Hamburglar.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Oh, and also, I don't know if I'd have loved DT half as much if I hadn't read many of the other books that tie in!

Books you HAVE HAVE HAVE to read:

The Talisman
Black House
The Stand
Insomnia
Salem's Lot
Hearts in Atlantis

IT isn't as important, but it introduces the Turtle and is generally considered one of his masterpieces.

IF NOTHING ELSE, read Talisman. But definitely, oh god yes, check the others out.

[spacechild.livejournal.com]

so was my assessment of the ending of DT accurate for you?

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Mmm... in a way... I mean, what you said was what I was kinda expecting anyway, but on the other hand... no. Because, like... the only part I don't like is the Coda. The totally seperate little thing. The thing that could be easily ignored as a DVD extra, or at least, that's my plan.

[spacechild.livejournal.com]

well, i'd expect you rto have your own take on it.

but you know what i mean.. you finish it and you're kinda like.. was that a total gyp? or was that brilliantly clever?

and ya just dont know what to think of it.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I'm neither. I'm like, well, nothing he could have witten would have been satisfactory. I just kinda wished he had the balls to leave the Coda off (as I almost suspect he WANTED to, based on the start of the Coda... it sounds like he only wrote that because readers would have killed him if he didn't reveal what's in the Tower). He should have had the balls to leave it off and to at least point out (perhaps earlier on, so it's less of a shock) that it doesn't MATTER what's in the Tower. All that matters is the GETTING there.

[spacechild.livejournal.com]

the Coda? i'm a little lost about that. its been a long time since i read that.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

At the end, Roland cries the names of everybody and goes into the Tower. The, the epilogue, Susanna in New York where she meets "Eddie" and "Jake." And after that, the Coda. It stars with King saying, "You might not want to read this, it'll only piss you off, I'm warning you, ok, fine, go on" and everything after that. That's the Coda.

[spacechild.livejournal.com]

ah, i follow. i just didnt know that was called a coda.