posted
I seem to have a persistant problem with endings.
I can build an interesting universe, put some cool ideas and adequate characters into it, and even set the plot going in some direction, but I can never seem to bring things to a close. Part of the problem is that I often choose 'big' conflicts that I don't want either side to win, but I don't think that's the whole thing. Whenever I write, every cause seems to lead to two effects. My plotlines grow exponentially and consume all of my resources! I'm typically left abandoning my stories in the middle.
posted
Why should it matter who you want to win? Write the story and the side who wins, wins. Writing fiction isn't about getting your way, it's about writing a story. I think it was Alfred Bester (The Stars My Destination, The Demolished Man) who used to say: "The book is boss."
You're not in control of your material, your material is in control of you.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited May 29, 2003).]
quote:Whenever I write, every cause seems to lead to two effects. My plotlines grow exponentially and consume all of my resources! I'm typically left abandoning my stories in the middle.
Narvi, I get the feeling that you're leaving yourself too many loose ends. As your story progresses through plot twist after plot twist you open new story questions in your reader's mind, but you put off answering those questions. When you reach the end of the story you're overwhelmed!
If this is the case, you need to start tying up loose ends throughout the story. Give your reader a satisfying moment now and then when you reveal the answer to a minor mystery, or the good guy wins a small victory.
If I'm wrong, then I've misunderstood your situation. In that case, could you post a brief example of the problem?
posted
I'd say the reason I don't want either side to win is that I often write pseudo-heroic motifs -- a weak sympathetic character against a strong unsympathetic one. I don't want to leave good utterly rushed, but to supply good with a true victory feals contrived within the scale of my stories (I don't want to span 20 years of plot). Besides, in real life, the big struggles continue through ages uncounted, and realism counts for something.
I guess I ought to look for some level of sub-plot to tie up, but I can never seem to do that.
quote:I'd say the reason I don't want either side to win is that I often write pseudo-heroic motifs -- a weak sympathetic character against a strong unsympathetic one.
Here's your first problem: you're not creating characters that matter. In human history, there is no such thing as pure-good and pure-evil. (Yes, Mother Teresas and Hilters do exist, but even Mother Teresa was a sinner and Hitler at least loved someone at sometime.) You need to create characters that embody complicated good and complicated evil. Take THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Frodo is one of the "good guys," but that doesn't mean that he's impervious to the evil of the ring. And Gollum is one of the "bad guys," but we do feel pity for him and see that he does have some good in him.
quote:Besides, in real life, the big struggles continue through ages uncounted, and realism counts for something.
Here's your second problem. A story isn't about an epic struggle between nations. It's about a character or two. The epic struggle between nations is merely the backstory. So instead of focusing on the "cosmic story" or the "epic story," start focusing on your characters' stories, on their fears, loves, goals, etc.
Hope this helps.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited May 29, 2003).]
posted
My advice is similar to Balthasar’s. The way I see stories is that a story begins when the main character starts trying to achieve a goal. He may or may not realize what that goal is at the time, but once he starts, the story starts.
And so, when the main character either achieves the goal or stops trying to achieve the goal, the story ends. The tension is gone, and all you have left to do is wrap up loose ends.
So I would suggest to go back to the beginning of your stories and figure out what the main character is trying to achieve. Defeat the powerful villain? Fine; it won’t be over until he defeats him or finds another victory he will be satisfied with. If he can’t defeat the villain, perhaps he saves a town from the villain. Perhaps he saves a single person. Perhaps he weakens the villain so that the next hero can take him out. Not all victories are complete.
Also, switching from the initial goal to another goal can be a very good thing. John Voorhous in his book “The Comic Toolbox” provides a story structure designed to change the character’s goal. The character has an initial goal that starts the story, but after some success, discovers that another goal is more important to him. The conflict of the story then centers around which goal will win out. And the result of the new goal winning out is that the character himself grows and changes.
Stories are not about people changing the world. Stories are about people changing themselves. Go back to your stories, figure out what your main character wants to achieve, then figure out what he really needs to achieve. What is his flaw; what is he doing wrong; what is he missing. What does he need to learn. Once you figure out that, then you will know what other goal he will be satisfied with. Or if he still needs to defeat the villain, you can use that as the key that allows him to do so—make the thing he needs to learn also be the villain’s weakness, so that once he learns it, he is able to defeat the villain.
As Balthasar said, focus on the character, not the quest.
posted
Narvi, you don't have to span 20 years of plot. Consider the very realistic plot of Saving Private Ryan. Many of the main characters die, including the POV character. But in the end they do save Private Ryan. It's a tiny victory in a gigantic war. To make the victory feel better, Spielberg gives us a flash fifty years into the future, so we can see that Ryan did good things in his life.
It was very realistic, but also dramatic and human at the same time.