The Cliffhanger

[MystiqueRain]

It's more like...because something happens to the main character that the focus of the plot changes, which in turn, also wraps up the plot of the first book, if that made any sense. So it could be considered a "hook", an event that leads to the events of the next book. The "something big" that happens would be concluded at the end of the the book though, but what comes out of it happens in the next one. Would that work?

 

[TWErvin2]

It's more like...because something happens to the main character that the focus of the plot changes, which in turn, also wraps up the plot of the first book, if that made any sense. So it could be considered a "hook", an event that leads to the events of the next book. The "something big" that happens would be concluded at the end of the the book though, but what comes out of it happens in the next one. Would that work?

Maybe, maybe not.

Write the novel. See what your beta readers say once they can read the entire novel and consider the cliffhanger device in the context of the ending, or not ending. Since it's something that you're putting at the end, something unexpected and dramatic, it can easily be removed (without affecting what came before/ripple effect) if it doesn't work.

 

[MystiqueRain]

It's already written, though probably not as well as I'd like it at the moment. xD We're trying to edit it through before we ask people to read the whole thing because it's so choppy at the first draft stage right now. I'll see how it works though, thanks for the advice

 

[Zero Angel]

Can I just reassert that I do not think it is a good idea to have a cliffhanger at the end?

I want to walk away from each book I read feeling satisfied.

If you feel satisfied with it (the book, story and resolution as it stands at the end of the story), then it might be OK, but I am guessing from the fact that the thread exists that you are second-guessing yourself.

 

[MystiqueRain]

I'm just getting opinions on cliffhangers. You can't walk away from a book in a series (besides the last one) without completely feeling satisfied, in my opinion. After all, there wouldn't be a need for the next books if all the questions and conflicts were resolved in the first one, would there? That's why they're written in a series in the first place. But there are certain degrees of cliffhangers, like the literal "stop before you fall off a cliff" example to the "many questions left unanswered because it's a series" example.

Personally, I feel satisfied with my ending right now because there really isn't no way good way to end it that I can think of at the moment. Perhaps, from this thread, I could find something that would be better. That's my take at least.

 

[BWFoster78]

Can I just reassert that I do not think it is a good idea to have a cliffhanger at the end?

I want to walk away from each book I read feeling satisfied.

If you feel satisfied with it (the book, story and resolution as it stands at the end of the story), then it might be OK, but I am guessing from the fact that the thread exists that you are second-guessing yourself.

I think it's easy to find others with the opposite opinion.

The cliffhanger is a technique. If you use it well, it can be quite effective.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't mind cliffhangers at the end of novels. But, in most cases I won't start reading a new series until all of the books are out, because I had just had it with the likes of Robert Jordan and GRRM. Once all the books are out, a cliffhanger at the end of a book isn't a real problem.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

After all, there wouldn't be a need for the next books if all the questions and conflicts were resolved in the first one, would there?

I don't think anyone's suggesting that absolutely everything be resolved; as was pointed out, there's a difference between a cliffhanger and an ending with loose threads. Star Wars ends with the heroes winning the day, destroying the Death Star, etc. But there's one explicit loose thread (Vader escapes) and one major implicit thread (destroying the Death Star did not destroy the Empire or kill the Emperor). No cliffhanger, but plenty to build on.

Some people enjoy (or simply don't mind) cliffhangers at the end of a novel (let's call them group A); some people hate them (let's call them group B). I would submit that virtually nobody would hate a book just because it didn't have a cliffhanger at the end.

If your book ends in a cliffhanger, you please group A and annoy group B. If your book doesn't end in a cliffhanger, you please both groups A and B. (This is assuming that your book is otherwise pleasing.) So whether you write a cliffhanger depends on the size of groups A and B (and keeping in mind that not everyone in group B is equally annoyed by cliffhangers; some might be a little annoyed, some might throw your book across the room and hunt you down like a dog) and about how much you care about putting people off.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I don't mind cliffhangers at the end of novels. But, in most cases I won't start reading a new series until all of the books are out, because I had just had it with the likes of Robert Jordan and GRRM. Once all the books are out, a cliffhanger at the end of a book isn't a real problem.

I'm more or less in the same place, although I obviously already fell into Jordan and GRRM's trap. I do the same thing with TV now, too. For most shows, I'm happy to wait until it's over and then catch up. I'm really looking forward to watching Breaking Bad next year.

 

[Androxine Vortex]

What about the LOTR novels? Yes, they were originally all one book but you get the point. Would you consider that a cliffhanger ending between the three?

And I hate to ask again (nobody responded) but could you take a look at my example in page one? I have a question about my novel's ending (It is the first novel in a series)

EDIT: I would say my novel is set up like the LOTR. The series is a journey (of sorts) and like LOTR it will have epic parts and conflicts in it. To me, a cliffhanger ending is there is a climactic build up and right before resolution, it ends. I wouldn't say that that is the ending to my first book.

 

[MystiqueRain]

I don't think it would be a bad ending; after all, it seems to wrap up what the first book is about. The second book would focus on what happens after his banishment, would it not?

I find my novel series to be similar in that "large story split into multiple parts" sort of way. The only reasons why they're separated are that 1) it would be way too long if I didn't and 2) each book focuses on one particular weapon and side plots that lead up to that. Sure, it would work as one big book, but it would be a heck of a loooong book.

I was trying to avoid spoilers, but seeing as I don't have much of a choice if I want opinions...

*SPOILER?*--Read at your own risk.

At the end of my first book, one of the main characters is kidnapped by one of her teammates--actually an antagonist in disguise. Since the focus weapon of the first book is with her, the plot cannot be centered around that weapon anymore. The main character actually doesn't come back until the end of the second book, so for most of the second book the team is trying to find her and save her, also with the goal of finding the second focus weapon.

Right now I'm fine with how it ends, with the team's realization that the main character is truly gone. The impact on her love interest is particularly hard and it carries through the next book. But I also think it could go both ways as a cliffhanger. Sure, the main plot is mostly wrapped up but the question of where the main character is is left a mystery. Good or bad?

 

[Zero Angel]

Some people enjoy (or simply don't mind) cliffhangers at the end of a novel (let's call them group A); some people hate them (let's call them group B). I would submit that virtually nobody would hate a book just because it didn't have a cliffhanger at the end.

If your book ends in a cliffhanger, you please group A and annoy group B. If your book doesn't end in a cliffhanger, you please both groups A and B. (This is assuming that your book is otherwise pleasing.) So whether you write a cliffhanger depends on the size of groups A and B (and keeping in mind that not everyone in group B is equally annoyed by cliffhangers; some might be a little annoyed, some might throw your book across the room and hunt you down like a dog) and about how much you care about putting people off.

Oh my god! You're using mathematics! I'm so enthused =]

I agree that this is the case, although there is also the group C (that is contained in both A and B) that will not pick up the NEXT book in the series unless there is a cliffhanger...but I think they are a minority and I personally don't think you should write to sell.

 

[Penpilot]

To me, if a book doesn't give me a satisfying ending, not necessarily a complete ending, like say the first LOTR movie, it isn't a complete book. It's just a book/story someone chopped in two. If I get cliffhangered and there isn't some sort of fair warning that this would/could happen, I kind of feel tricked.

 

[TWErvin2]

I don't mind cliffhangers at the end of novels. But, in most cases I won't start reading a new series until all of the books are out, because I had just had it with the likes of Robert Jordan and GRRM. Once all the books are out, a cliffhanger at the end of a book isn't a real problem.

Which could be a problem, especially if the first novel is published through a traditional publisher. Will the second novel in a series be published if it doesn’t sell well? Even self-published, if the first novel garners little to no interest, might it not be better to move on to a new project?

Some people enjoy (or simply don't mind) cliffhangers at the end of a novel (let's call them group A); some people hate them (let's call them group B). I would submit that virtually nobody would hate a book just because it didn't have a cliffhanger at the end.

If your book ends in a cliffhanger, you please group A and annoy group B. If your book doesn't end in a cliffhanger, you please both groups A and B. (This is assuming that your book is otherwise pleasing.) So whether you write a cliffhanger depends on the size of groups A and B (and keeping in mind that not everyone in group B is equally annoyed by cliffhangers; some might be a little annoyed, some might throw your book across the room and hunt you down like a dog) and about how much you care about putting people off.

A logical way to assess. If only one could put a proper weight in numbers to Group A, and Group B.

Oh my god! You're using mathematics! I'm so enthused =]

I agree that this is the case, although there is also the group C (that is contained in both A and B) that will not pick up the NEXT book in the series unless there is a cliffhanger...but I think they are a minority and I personally don't think you should write to sell.

A little off topic but: If we're discussing no cliffhanger vs. cliffhanger, and part of the conversation is how readers will perceive and react to the novel--whether they'd enjoy, recommend, pick up the next one, etc,, isn't what's being considered writing what will better sell--unless the novel/series is going to be posted or downloaded for free?

 

[Steerpike]

If your book ends in a cliffhanger, you please group A and annoy group B. If your book doesn't end in a cliffhanger, you please both groups A and B. (This is assuming that your book is otherwise pleasing.)

This is also another good reason not to have to have prologues. Some people hate them, but I don't know of anyone who is put off by the lack of them

 

[MystiqueRain]

This is also another good reason not to have to have prologues. Some people hate them, but I don't know of anyone who is put off by the lack of them

In the end, it's up the reader's opinion. But yes, avoiding the situation altogether is a foolproof way to satisfy most readers.

 

[Steerpike]

Which could be a problem, especially if the first novel is published through a traditional publisher. Will the second novel in a series be published if it doesn’t sell well? Even self-published, if the first novel garners little to no interest, might it not be better to move on to a new project?

Yes, and I've thought of that. I suppose it comes down to where you want to shift the burden. If I never read the first book and the next novel in the series never comes out, I'm no worse off (if it would have been an awesome series I would have read eventually, I guess I'm potentially worse off). On the other hand, if I read the first one and the sequels are never published due to lack of interest, or the author makes me wait five or six years for the next installment, then that bothers me as a reader. So I do like to pick up a series once it is complete.

Which brings me to a practice of book stores that I hate. Book 3 in a series comes out. Bookstore has a dozen copies of it on the shelf, and no copies of the first two in the series.

 

[MystiqueRain]

Oh I absolutely hate when that happens, especially when I haven't read that book two. I still laugh at myself for picking up Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets before I read the first one--no wonder nothing made sense to me then.

It's best when the author does have a set release date, even if it might be "month, year". That way I know that they haven't given up on the series. I guess that means I could be lucky; we're writing and editing at the same time so we're already up to book three and continuing. Putting it in a legible, organized, novel format is the only thing we need to do.

 

[Kit]

Which brings me to a practice of book stores that I hate. Book 3 in a series comes out. Bookstore has a dozen copies of it on the shelf, and no copies of the first two in the series.

LOL. I picked up book 3 of a series in a used book store. I loved it and went looking for the first two. I went to about six bookstores one after another- with increasing irritation- and could only find book 2. I had to buy book 2 and order book 1 online. So I ended up reading the entire series in reverse order.

Which brings up another thing.... if you're writing a series, **PLEASE** make it so that each book can stand alone. I don't like it when I *have* to read the entire series- or read it on order- to make sense of what is happening.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

This is also another good reason not to have to have prologues. Some people hate them, but I don't know of anyone who is put off by the lack of them

*snerk* Well played.