Authors end a fictional novel in two ways. One is the typical happy-go-lucky ending, where all questions are answered and all characters are happy and are either recovered or in the positive process of recovering from the horrible event that happened during the climax. The other seems to be emerging in our generation. The more “realistic” one, as pessimistic people might like to put it. The one where the characters don’t get their way, where some strings are left untied, where the reader is left to imagine what would happen next if the novel continued. Which, of course it wouldn’t, because a novel is a novel and after the novel ends the characters disappear until another reader reads the beautiful words on the page again. The one where the climactic event is completely unrecoverable and there is no other sequel to make things better.
I know I’m about to categorize people, but it makes explaining easier. Which is why so many people fancy doing it (sorry, just finished reading an English book). If you have a counter argument, I’ll simply say it belongs to a category. If you managed to think of an example that doesn’t belong to any, I’ll simply say it’s an exception. There are often, as you may have realized already, exceptions.
People tend to read a (fictional) novel for a happy ending. If they wanted a realistic ending, they should have picked up something historical or biographical. Fiction and fantasy are our ways to escape the “real” world and have the chance to live a million lives we would never actually be able to live, given that the author being read is skilled.
It feels as if authors tend to do this modern style of writing, leaving the reader heartbroken and unsatisfied at the end (i.e. Tris’s death in Divergent, still kind of like, wtf Ross?!), because it makes them “special” and “unique”, because those descriptions from qualified, professional, experienced, judgment-giving people, gets their books sold. But maybe authors should be writing like this because in this day and age, too many people are getting their way in life. Brilliant technology is making life easier for all of us, and an easier life is essentially a synonym to getting your way in more things. I’m not saying that new technology is virulent, I just think that we should take the relatively “small” things, such as a book ending, to make life a bit more interesting and difficult. Because although an easy life might mean a happy life, it would also mean it would be very uninteresting. It would be a life with only ups, and you would never get the experience of a down. Of course, this is all theoretical, but imagine if your ups in life drastically outweighed your downs. Wouldn’t that just be extremely uninteresting?
A heartbreaking novel ending, if written correctly, can and should get the reader into a “state” for several days. It should get the reader thinking about it all the time, in which they cannot concentrate on anything else except to think about the unanswered questions and answer them themselves.
Wouldn’t that be quite something to remember?
It seems stupid, sophomoric even, to suggest someone to purposely create a negative in your life. But the satisfaction and content that comes from turning that negative into a positive is indescribable.
With this declaration, there’s often a sub-script. That’s often not read. And that often leads to miscommunications and that often leads to a lot of anger and hate. But I deem it necessary to write it out anyways, no matter how many people like to skip over it.
Novels with a negative or “realistic” ending (I put realistic in quotations because not all reality is negative) are meant to be read for the story, because the ending is, to be frank, not much to look forward to. That said, the author has to be talented. However you may want to define talented, that’s up to you. But I think we can all agree on a general place where the line ends. And anything under that blurry line with a “realistic” ending should not be published (i.e. Divergent, where the writing was mediocre and the plot was ordinary and the ending was not worth it. Still cannot believe I read three average books to get to that ending).
This is harsh, but I think it’s justified.
Although I believe writers write for themselves, they also, by publishing a book for everybody to read, have to commit to some degree to make sure they do not waste the reader’s time. And this commitment should be made by the very first word on the very first page. A reader’s time is always precious. By picking up your book, they deem your writing worth their time (and, not to mention, money). They are making a commitment to your novel. And therefore, you also have to make a commitment to their time. Do not waste it. Many people say not to judge a book by its cover, but life is so short that one needs at least some way to quickly decide what is worth spending time on and what is not.
And also, these novels have to be special. We can’t have all the books in the world with a negative ending. Fantasy and fiction are still meant to be for escaping whatever you might need to escape in reality. But sometimes, it’s nice to have a little negative. Kind of bittersweet, I guess. But it has to be special to make it bittersweet. You know?
(Written from A Nony Mouse)
