• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Wrapping it all up...

Caged Maiden

Staff
Article Team
I got two thirds of the way done with a novel I'm very excited about. But then I read the last third in this editing pass... and I was underwhelmed. I mean, I knew I was going to have to do some re-writes, but it's really probably better if I start fresh.

Unfortunately, knowing this, doesn't seem to be helping me with actually doing it. SO I have a few questions for this community, because endings aren't really my strength.

1) My story is a sort of spy novel, with a rat in the gears being a big part of the MCs' paranoia and decision-making. How important do you deem that conclusion is? My reason for asking (embarrassingly enough) is that I planned to have the rat meet their end through their own organization's betrayal. Does that sound wholly dissatisfying?

2) There were a few sort of "could this be love, developing" relationships throughout the story. I was going to kill off two people, one to crush my MC who chose to be selfish and endanger someone she loves, and the other to wreck another MC who will fall apart when this person she loves is killed young. Does that sound rather weak? I'm shooting for a crushing blow, but the reasoning behind the deaths would be because I can't see those relationships continuing. I feel like I'm cheating in a way. How do you decide who to kill and who to let live?

3) The main bad guy isn't a monster... well literally. He's a pretty bad person, though. His plans were to betray his friends, commit treason and murder, and get away completely free because he's untouchable by the law. Well, my MC's are fighting to get those laws changed and in the end, I see their "victory" as the moment when they expose the bad guy's plotting and he's arrested, after a failed assassination attempt on his boss (the pope). Is an arrest satisfying for the reader? DO I need to be more bloody than that? Because the novel is gritty in tone and there was no shortage f blood... I'm worried an arrest won't feel like "closure". However, that was the MC's goals the whole time. He wanted to enact social reform, when they could have killed the bad guy the whole time. They didn't want him dead and allow another corrupt person to fill his spot. They wanted to reform the law so that corruption like that wasn't possible again. It was the reason people lost their lives. Am I way off base?

Okay... Thank you so much for your advice. I'm really struggling with these concepts and I just can't write anymore while I'm second-guessing my own story-telling concepts here.
 
1) My story is a sort of spy novel, with a rat in the gears being a big part of the MCs' paranoia and decision-making. How important do you deem that conclusion is? My reason for asking (embarrassingly enough) is that I planned to have the rat meet their end through their own organization's betrayal. Does that sound wholly dissatisfying?

That depends on what the story's really about. If the rat is at the center of the story's themes, it would be more powerful to confront him (her?) in some way. If the paranoia is at the center of the story's themes, it could create quite a strong effect to have the MCs remain paranoid because they don't know the rat is dead, and have them continue to make bad decisions for what the reader now knows is an entirely pointless reason. (And if neither is at the center of the story's themes, it might not be a good idea to devote so much of the story to it.)

2) There were a few sort of "could this be love, developing" relationships throughout the story. I was going to kill off two people, one to crush my MC who chose to be selfish and endanger someone she loves, and the other to wreck another MC who will fall apart when this person she loves is killed young. Does that sound rather weak? I'm shooting for a crushing blow, but the reasoning behind the deaths would be because I can't see those relationships continuing. I feel like I'm cheating in a way. How do you decide who to kill and who to let live?

Not all deaths are created equal. The first death is a result of the MC's actions, and while I'd need to read the story to evaluate it, there's a very good chance it's thematically appropriate. The MC will have to learn and grow to escape the guilt from the death.

The second death invites the question "Can the MC continue to be strong without their support?" The answer is almost always "Yes, the MC can continue to be strong," and since the MC was generally strong with the support, the change is often relatively shallow--we don't get to see the MC act and think in new ways. Since the character is usually forgotten by the end of the story, it tends to be like the character never existed in the first place, which is often a waste of a good character. You said that you "can't see those relationships continuing"--does death have to be the way this particular relationship ends? (Breakups, for instance, can explore the reason why two characters aren't compatible in the long term, so they tend to say more than deaths that remove supporting pillars.)

3) The main bad guy isn't a monster... well literally. He's a pretty bad person, though. His plans were to betray his friends, commit treason and murder, and get away completely free because he's untouchable by the law. Well, my MC's are fighting to get those laws changed and in the end, I see their "victory" as the moment when they expose the bad guy's plotting and he's arrested, after a failed assassination attempt on his boss (the pope). Is an arrest satisfying for the reader? DO I need to be more bloody than that? Because the novel is gritty in tone and there was no shortage f blood... I'm worried an arrest won't feel like "closure". However, that was the MC's goals the whole time. He wanted to enact social reform, when they could have killed the bad guy the whole time. They didn't want him dead and allow another corrupt person to fill his spot. They wanted to reform the law so that corruption like that wasn't possible again. It was the reason people lost their lives. Am I way off base?

If the end of the story rejects the reasoning that was used not to kill him at the beginning, then either the story needs to be about how and why that reasoning should be rejected, or it's going to feel like a tremendous anticlimax. (And speaking personally, I'm not sure I'd want to write a story where the message is "Straight-up murdering a dude is better than putting him in jail.") If it absolutely must end in blood, you can have the bad guy kill himself rather than be jailed, or have other bad guys kill him to keep him from blabbing to the authorities, but prison should be enough of an end for him.
 

Rullenzar

Troubadour
I got two thirds of the way done with a novel I'm very excited about. But then I read the last third in this editing pass... and I was underwhelmed. I mean, I knew I was going to have to do some re-writes, but it's really probably better if I start fresh.

Unfortunately, knowing this, doesn't seem to be helping me with actually doing it. SO I have a few questions for this community, because endings aren't really my strength.

1) My story is a sort of spy novel, with a rat in the gears being a big part of the MCs' paranoia and decision-making. How important do you deem that conclusion is? My reason for asking (embarrassingly enough) is that I planned to have the rat meet their end through their own organization's betrayal. Does that sound wholly dissatisfying?

2) There were a few sort of "could this be love, developing" relationships throughout the story. I was going to kill off two people, one to crush my MC who chose to be selfish and endanger someone she loves, and the other to wreck another MC who will fall apart when this person she loves is killed young. Does that sound rather weak? I'm shooting for a crushing blow, but the reasoning behind the deaths would be because I can't see those relationships continuing. I feel like I'm cheating in a way. How do you decide who to kill and who to let live?

3) The main bad guy isn't a monster... well literally. He's a pretty bad person, though. His plans were to betray his friends, commit treason and murder, and get away completely free because he's untouchable by the law. Well, my MC's are fighting to get those laws changed and in the end, I see their "victory" as the moment when they expose the bad guy's plotting and he's arrested, after a failed assassination attempt on his boss (the pope). Is an arrest satisfying for the reader? DO I need to be more bloody than that? Because the novel is gritty in tone and there was no shortage f blood... I'm worried an arrest won't feel like "closure". However, that was the MC's goals the whole time. He wanted to enact social reform, when they could have killed the bad guy the whole time. They didn't want him dead and allow another corrupt person to fill his spot. They wanted to reform the law so that corruption like that wasn't possible again. It was the reason people lost their lives. Am I way off base?

Okay... Thank you so much for your advice. I'm really struggling with these concepts and I just can't write anymore while I'm second-guessing my own story-telling concepts here.

The idea works in my opinion. If your character is that kind of person then it shouldn't leave readers dissatisfied especially if they stuck it out knowing your MC's goals. One thing you could do for a spin is something your character did not see coming. Having the baddie die in prison by inmates or assassinated by someone he's wronged. It's totally out of your MC's control and even though his goals were met the baddie suffered the end some would agree he deserved.
 

Caged Maiden

Staff
Article Team
Thank you so much, guys. Really, I was worried about reader satisfaction, like maybe I couldn't succeed with gaining reader satisfaction if I kept to my intentions and realized my vision, but now it seems that's exactly what will lead to the most reader satisfaction. I really appreciate it.

One thing I wanted to expound on was the two character deaths. I'm sorry, I kept it vague for a reason because a couple people who frequent this site are beta reading this book for me. So if you are one of them... DON'T READ ON!!!!!


Luca is Daniela's stable hand and best friend. They grew up together, snuck out of the house together, and in every way have a genuine, innocent relationship based on love and trust and deep companionship. So... she begs her husband to bring Luca to the city to live with them. Partly because she missed him and partly because her father doesn't he the same resources. Luca will always be a shepherd at her father's house, but in the city, her husband would pay for his apprenticeship and she wants to see him have a good life. BUT Luca's ideas of what constitutes a "good life" are different than Daniela's and the reader knows he goes with her to make her happy, not really because he wants more opportunity. So... that's why I think his death is really important. She does something brash and breaks out of a safe house, dragging Luca with her and in the process of running away, she stumbles into a situation she can't control (another theme of the book, social class equality). They kill the servant without a second thought and take the woman hostage. So after her husband rescues her (not a simple process but not worth going into for the sake of this post) he takes her back to where Luca is dying (not dead as she originally thought). She gets to say goodbye. In the very end of the book then, her husband pays for Luca (a servant who meant nothing to him) to be buried in his family plot, reinforcing the way he feels about social classes.

Okay, and the end scene... I am so glad you think an arrest is enough because there were several times along the way when they could have killed the bad guy, but they didn't because in the event of his death, it was just as likely that someone else would carry on his legacy. He was part of a corrupt institution, not one tyrannical man. So, they fought for two years (my heroes) to bring about social reform and change the laws. Without exposing the bad guy's plotting, the results wouldn't have the same effect and it would just ruin their plans if he dies. There's even a scene where one of the MC's gets fed up and goes off to kill him. One of her friends (the guy in the second "is this love" relationship) follows and stops her. He talks her down from a suicidal mission and it's a really touching scene, where the reader learns he cares for her though she's twenty years older than him and a traumatized woman, incapable of ever settling down again.

Which leads into my next thing... the second death of a loved one:

So, the woman is in her 40s and the man is 26. THey have a tense relationship of employer and employee for about 20 chapters. We learn little about his background and focus more on hers... because that's how she sees him, as a name and little more. Then, they go on a few missions together and the man begins to suspect he's being played. That he's cannon fodder if the situation calls for it, and he basically leaves the organization. The woman follows and convinces him to listen while she tells him all the secrets he demanded to know, to prove he was a partner rather than an expendable. (okay, that sounds cheesy, but it's pretty good execution. It's basically a talk about why they're doing this and the missing background on the man). Okay, so then there's a little scene where they go to kill a man who's already dead and the woman almost gets killed by the murderer. The man saves her and they leave in a hurry. After that, though, she's traumatized. She realizes she's not going to live through the events coming and she decides to take matters into her own hands and murder the bad guy. The man follows her and stops her, revealing that the two have a fondness for each other.

So, they devise a new plan to instead of killing the bad guy, get him paranoid about the peopel in his own network, thereby getting his attention off of them and onto someone else. The thing is, this relationship can't happen, romantically and this woman looks at this young man as someone who has their whole life ahead of them. She wants him to get out and start a life but he refuses until it's finished and the bad guy is in jail. So... his death would be really heartbreaking to the woman and I kinda want to do it. I guess I don't have to.... because it isn't critical to the story, but I'm kinda feeling like that's the last nail in her coffin, so to speak... the thing that pushes her over the edge and into a mental and emotional place from which she cannot return.
 

Noma Galway

Archmage
Personally, I think that is a good reason to kill a character (the second, I mean). On the first one, I like it, and think it should remain the way it is.
 

Mindfire

Istar
I haven't read any of the preceding posts so I could give you "pure", unbiased response. Apologies if I repeat anything already said.

1) My story is a sort of spy novel, with a rat in the gears being a big part of the MCs' paranoia and decision-making. How important do you deem that conclusion is? My reason for asking (embarrassingly enough) is that I planned to have the rat meet their end through their own organization's betrayal. Does that sound wholly dissatisfying?

I'd like you to clarify what you mean by this. I personally find it to be very satisfying whenever a villain is hoisted by his own petard. How satisfying this kind of ending is might depend more on the surrounding circumstances than the event itself. For example, do the characters ever find out who the rat is, or do they remain ignorant of his identity? Does his demise happen in such a way that the reader might feel the protagonists have been somehow cheated of their retribution (which is sometimes a risk with these sort of endings) or does it feel like the villain got all that was coming to him? I'd need details about the ending to judge its satisfactory-ness.

2) There were a few sort of "could this be love, developing" relationships throughout the story. I was going to kill off two people, one to crush my MC who chose to be selfish and endanger someone she loves, and the other to wreck another MC who will fall apart when this person she loves is killed young. Does that sound rather weak? I'm shooting for a crushing blow, but the reasoning behind the deaths would be because I can't see those relationships continuing. I feel like I'm cheating in a way. How do you decide who to kill and who to let live?

I tend to shy away from killing my protagonists, so I may not be the best advisor on this, but here goes. One thing you could consider is, if you don't kill these characters, what would happen to them instead? And then once you've decided that, of all the possible scenarios, which will make for the most effective and satisfying ending?

I'm assuming the two couples involved are Rafe/LinetteDaniela and Vincenzo/Yvette? If that's the case, were it me making the decision, I'd choose to let the former live and the latter die. Rafe and Daniela are still young and have only begun their lives together. Seeing them reconcile and build a life together afterwards would be more satisfying, to my mind, than ending their relationship so prematurely, especially since you've built up how much they're growing to like each other. Unless you're dead set on a wholly tragic ending, giving them a promising, though not challenge-free, future would be best I think. Vincenzo and Yvette on the other hand are hardened veterans and carry an air of world-weariness about them. If they both survive this ordeal, what is left for them to go back to? After devoting themselves to the cause of revenge for so long can they really have a normal life? Can they nurture a new relationship? Unless you're aiming for the most boldly optimistic of endings, I'd say that their story should end in death for one or both of them. And another thing to consider is that even if the characters live, they may not live happily ever after, which introduces another variable to play with.

I see the possible outcomes of this story being arranged on a sliding scale from most tragic to most optimistic. What ending you should go with depends as much on where you want to fall along that scale as it depends on the preceding events of your story. Plus, you know, themes and motifs and all that stuff. If you want to discuss this in further detail I can list the different permutations and give you my opinions on each... but that would be a bit long for a forum post. :D
3) The main bad guy isn't a monster... well literally. He's a pretty bad person, though. His plans were to betray his friends, commit treason and murder, and get away completely free because he's untouchable by the law. Well, my MC's are fighting to get those laws changed and in the end, I see their "victory" as the moment when they expose the bad guy's plotting and he's arrested, after a failed assassination attempt on his boss (the pope). Is an arrest satisfying for the reader? DO I need to be more bloody than that? Because the novel is gritty in tone and there was no shortage f blood... I'm worried an arrest won't feel like "closure". However, that was the MC's goals the whole time. He wanted to enact social reform, when they could have killed the bad guy the whole time. They didn't want him dead and allow another corrupt person to fill his spot. They wanted to reform the law so that corruption like that wasn't possible again. It was the reason people lost their lives. Am I way off base?

I don't think ending the story with your villains arrest is terribly unsatisfying. The villain doesn't always have to die just to provide cathartic release for the reader. I think it might be helpful if you make it clear that your heroes have actually accomplished their goal despite their nemesis not being executed. You could stress the fact that the laws are being changed, society is being reformed, Things Will Be Different Now, etc. As long as the reader understands that your characters have indeed accomplished something, the fact that the villain doesn't die shouldn't be a problem. (E.g. Ozai's fate and the ending of Avatar: The Last Airbender.)
 
Last edited:
Top