z

Young Writers Society


How Open Ended Can an Ending Be?



User avatar
53 Reviews



Gender: Female
Points: 210
Reviews: 53
Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:39 am
jumpingsheep says...



I'm currently working on a novel project which I am planning as a one and done deal; I don't plan to write any sequels. In the final act of the book, the main character has a final confrontation with the antagonist and her brother. The MC nearly dies but is able to get herself rescued and to safety.

She and her friends all live for another day... but so do the antagonists, even though the MC's actions (and the fact that they achieved the goal that they set out to do) deal a harsh blow to the antagonists' organization as a whole.

So... does this ending tie up the loose ends enough? Or do the baddies really need to be totally annihilated for this to work? The characters do mention that they plan to continue the fight, now that they have won the first battle.

Thanks in advance!
hello there
  





User avatar
1220 Reviews



Gender: None specified
Points: 72525
Reviews: 1220
Sat Feb 20, 2016 4:14 am
Kale says...



It's hard to say with how little we know about your story, but since you're not planning on a sequel, I'd recommend making the defeat decisive, so that it's clear that the antagonists are no longer a threat. Basically, there shouldn't need to be future battles, and ending with just the first defeat is a standard signal that there will be a sequel.
Secretly a Kyllorac, sometimes a Murtle.
There are no chickens in Hyrule.
Princessence: A LMS Project
WRFF | KotGR
  





User avatar
53 Reviews



Gender: Female
Points: 210
Reviews: 53
Sat Feb 20, 2016 3:02 pm
jumpingsheep says...



Ok! That makes sense. Is indicating that the antagonists full downfall is imminent enough or do you think this final defeat needs to play out on the page?
The main characters didn't set out to topple the antagonists regime, so they had already accomplished their goal of defeating this one specific facet of the regime, if that makes sense.
hello there
  





User avatar
1272 Reviews



Gender: Other
Points: 89625
Reviews: 1272
Sat Feb 20, 2016 3:09 pm
Rosendorn says...



I would try to get as close to the final defeat on the stage as possible.

Little "they're nearly there let's stop"s are prime sequel bait, with how people even use the "final" battle as an excuse to simply bring in an even larger villain. So if you don't play out the last blow on the page, people will likely always think it was never finished.
A writer is a world trapped in a person— Victor Hugo

Ink is blood. Paper is bandages. The wounded press books to their heart to know they're not alone.
  





User avatar
472 Reviews



Gender: Male
Points: 25
Reviews: 472
Sat Feb 20, 2016 4:08 pm
Lightsong says...



Personally, the only form of an open ending I can totally accept is the ambiguous one—the one that you can't tell whether it's going to lead to a hppy ending or a sad ending. There are just too many scenarios playing in your mind that you can't just decide what exactly happen after that ending.

Your proposed ending doesn't fit that. It still gives us hope that things would get better eventually, and readers would love it if they can confirm what they think would happen. They would like it if the villain can be defeated once and for all if there is any hint that could happen, no matter how small or big that hint is.

I would also like to get a clearer view of your ending. Right now, I'm not sure if the protagonist's goal is just to cause a severe damage to the antagonists regime, or if she wants to defeat a specific antagonist, or a specific bunch of antagonists?
"Writing, though, belongs first to the writer, and then to the reader, to the world.

The subject is a catalyst, a character, but our responsibility is, has to be, to the work."

- David L. Ulin
  





User avatar
1220 Reviews



Gender: None specified
Points: 72525
Reviews: 1220
Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:29 pm
Kale says...



Ok! That makes sense. Is indicating that the antagonists full downfall is imminent enough or do you think this final defeat needs to play out on the page?

It really depends on the execution. Depending on how you go about it, you might need to show the final defeat in its full glory. Sometimes though, showing the full defeat feels superfluous because the implications are already clear enough, so having the full defeat shown comes across as padding rather than a meaningful conclusion.

The main characters didn't set out to topple the antagonists regime, so they had already accomplished their goal of defeating this one specific facet of the regime, if that makes sense.

It's a very common story progression for the initial goal to be smaller and more immediate (defeating one facet) with the goal expanding as the characters learn more about the situation (defeating the whole regime), and I think that leaving things at that one facet would just lead readers to expect a sequel or other continuation of the story.
Secretly a Kyllorac, sometimes a Murtle.
There are no chickens in Hyrule.
Princessence: A LMS Project
WRFF | KotGR
  





User avatar
117 Reviews



Gender: nonbinary
Points: 4007
Reviews: 117
Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:52 am
View Likes
crossroads says...



Resting advocate of opposing opinion reporting for duty.

There's nothing wrong with leaving the ending open the way you describe in your first post, Jump. The key part is what you say here:

they achieved the goal that they set out to do


When you write your novel (or, rather, before you write it), you need to keep in mind a few simple things (which will later help you if you want to pitch your novel to anyone, by the way).
Basically, it comes down to who your MC is/are, what are their goals, what's standing in their way/what must they overcome to reach their goals, and what's at stake if they do/don't reach those goals.

From what I understand from your posts (although, I agree, without knowing more about your novel it's hard to judge with complete certainty), you have most - probably all - of those things down.
The main goal of the character(s) doesn't always have to be to nihilate the antagonist. In fact, many stories and novels end on a completely unrealistic note with the MC taking down a much more powerful enemy, and different kinds of endings can be perceived as a breath of fresh air. The point that matters, in my opinion, is that the character fulfills the goal/s they've been working towards throughout the novel. Maybe that doesn't do extremely much, and the villains' organisation remains, but the readers will still be satisfied, because the MC they related and got close to managed to do what they set out to do.
¨
What I think is important is to show that the MC's actions really hurt the antagonist's efforts, and that they are likely to lead to eventual downfall of the entire regime. If you hint that the villains are just gonna lick their wounds and recover completely, the readers might feel cheated -- but if you show that the MC fulfilling their goals really mattered for the big picture and in the long run, it will leave them optimistic and hopefully satisfied.
So, a couple of loose ends are perfectly fine, even likely to help your novel be more realistic. And hey, if you ever decide to write it a sequel.... ;)
• previously ChildOfNowhere
- they/them -
literary fantasy with a fairytale flavour
  








A thing of beauty is a joy forever; its loveliness increases...
— John Keats