- it has to be coherent with the rest of the story (ie deliver on the implicit promise you made at the beginning, be consistent with your world and characters, etc.)
- but it has to be somewhat unexpected, while not leaving the reader scratching his head in perplexity
- it has to stick in the reader's mind

I know that. I can't (yet) put it into practice consciously. My endings come out of the blue of my unconscious, or my beginnings are left aside because I can't think of a sufficiently good ending.

Any thoughts/advice?

What an ending should do is deliver on the main conflict(s) in the story. To me a good ending is dependent on a good start and middle. If you don't build the story properly the ending won't work well. There has to be that rise in tension and conflict so the ending is a true culmination and not just a petering away.

I would guess that you write your stories without planning. Therefore, you plan as you write, figuring things out as you go. The ending might be surprising even to yourself, but since you haven't known that ending all along, you feel it might be inadequate.

Let me add that the "twist ending" is in vogue at the moment but I believe this will be a relatively short-lived trend in literary histories, but one that will inevitably cycle in and out of popularity.

Meanwhile, while a good twist ending will stick in your guts at the moment of reading, I find that very few create lasting memories.

Now, let's distinguish the twist ending from the surprise ending from thesaitsfying ending from the predictable ending.

Predictable: If I read your first chapter and can tell you how the story will go from there without bothering to read it, then you have a predictable ending. This is a waste of time.

Satisfying: A satisfying ending may even be something I suspect will happen, but I cannot *know* it for sure. Also, the beginning and the middle have to be compelling enough that it sweeps me through to the end in a way that I scarcely even notice that I'm at the end until the next page in the book is blank. A good satisfying ending is, in my opinion, the best. These tend to be memorable. They also tend to leave me sitting there, thinking and even dreaming about the book for hours after.

Surprise ending: When you didn't see the ending itself happen, it's a surprise. These can be complete bunk. Let's say you were reading a horror book and in the end you find out that it was all some elaborate prank and no one really died. This is a surprise ending. It's not, IMHO, a twist ending because, more than likely, it was not laid out in such a way that we could have guessed. Bad mysteries often have surprise endings. Like the episode of CSI when I found out in the last two minutes that the suspect had a twin and she did it. Come one!

Twist ending: A good twist ending is potentially predictable. If there's no way to see it coming, it's a surprise ending and it's a cheat. (A surprise ending might work in comedy or a few other times, BTW). You have to leave yourself open to having your twist ending discovered in order for it to be satisfying. But a good writer knows how to make the clues subtle and really elicit that, "Wow, I should have known!" moment. Twist endings are fun. I do enjoy them. I just wish people didn't think ALL stories had to end that way.

Now, for some other unsatisfying endings:

No end: Heimlein has no end to his stories. Thehy just sort of stop.

Anti-climax: The end culminates with the climax. If your climax is weak or nonexistent then you've got a bad ending.

So you really only have to choices. Does your character get what he wants? Or does he not get what he wants? Whether the ending is satisfying depends on everything that comes before it.

I like my writing to flow with the fluid ease of water. Each word has a meaning and the words when put together should follow a rhythm. For me my words have to be like electricity and follow the path of least resistance. Endings, like beginnings should come naturally, they should not be forced into place or coerced. If the story calls for a twist in the end then it should be in it. If the story calls for everyone to live happily ever after then so bit. But the events as told by the writer has to logically lead up to the end. The reader should be able to reflect on the events leading to end and say, “Yeah, that’s right,” not “Oh come on!”

When I set out writing, naturally, I have a story idea. However, all that I really have is a beginning and an end and a coupla ideas for some kick booty scenes in the middle. How I get from the beginning to the end is determined as I start writing.

Should endings should always surprise or comfort us? Maybe some endings take us out of our comfort zone. Not all crimes have to be solved, not all problems are clearly resolved , the bad guys don’t always have to get caught, not all sexual tensions have to end with friends and partners sleeping with each other. Endings such as this, usually set the stage for another story.

Really though, not all endings have to be a surprise. Many of my favorite books ended exactly the way I would have guessed had I thought about it, only I usually didn't because the story was so engaging. It's the boring, badly written books that usually leave me thinking to myself, "I wonder how this is going to end? Maybe he'll win. Maybe he'll die. Maybe I'll make salmon for dinner tonight..." as I read them. The good books, as was also said before, are the ones that you totally forget that there will be an ending until you realize that you just finished the last page.

If anyone's watched "The Princess Bride," there's a point where the little boy who's being read to says, "Who's going to kill Humperdink?" And the Grandfather replies something like, "What do you mean? Humperdink doesn't have to die." "Yes, he does," says the little boy. "Who does it?"

To me, this illustrates a lot about endings. Sometimes you pretty much know how it's going to end: the good guys will win, the badguy die, and peace restored. The real question, then, is -- how are these guys going to pull that off, and who's going to be alive at the end to celebrate? Lord of the Rings is like this. I expected the ring to get destroyed and Sauron to fall. But, I certainly didn't know how that was all going to happen. I think these are often the most satisfying endings.

I think the plot is workable. It's the reluctant hero/underdog sort of thing.

In real life these stories become mythic. We see them in the cases of war heroes, people who win the Congressional Medal of Honor or the Victorian Cross. The guy who never wanted to be a hero but, through fate, winds up saving his entire platoon by taking out a machine gun nest. I have no idead what the book was like, I imagine it was pretty much the same, but the movie version of Kingdom of Heaven was like that.

I do think that if the MC dies, then his death would have to spur the others on to victory, almost like his death becoming a battle cry.

Peace,
Scott

So in Andy's suggested story, the reader doesn't need to know what happens after the hero demonstrates that he's willing to go all the way, even if it costs him his life.

All the same, you have to be careful. Just because you told yourself that one thing was the major dramatic tension in the story, that doesn't mean that the audience will agree. You need to take a look at where your story began before you can know where it ought to end.

Take Lord of the Rings. What if the story ended after Gollum fell into Orodruin and the mountain started blowing up? Why wouldn't that work?

Because we didn't start the story with the creation of the Ring (leaving aside the movies, which didn't do this either), we started it with Frodo et al living happily in the Shire. While the story contains an epic struggle between good and evil, the real dramatic tension, page by page, is supplied by the question of whether any of the heroes are going home again. The whole war is just something getting in the way of their quest to get home.

At least, it's that way for some readers. The point is that those readers have a justification for thinking that way, because of where Tolkien chose to start his story.

I'm afraid to admit it, but I'm one of the many who hate endings that jerk my emotions around without giving me time to recover. As an example...

*** WARNING: SPOILER ALERT FOR MOVIE "SERENITY" ***

At the end of the movie "Serenity" one of my favorite characters is suddenly killed. Bam! No foreshadowing, and worse - no real emotional impact shown on the other characters. And the movie ended shortly after, giving me no time to recover from this emotional upset and to come to grips with the character's death and how that would affect the others.

I left the theater unhappy. The only reason to kill the character was to show that war sucks. But by killing the character and not showing the emotional fall-out of that loss in the other character's lives, the death, as a plot device, backfired for me as a viewer.

This moved the story from something where I would have bought the DVD and watched it several more times, to leaving me like I don't care if I see it again. The ending ruined the story for me.

I would have preferred for the writers to not kill the character, but even if they left that part in, they could have made the ending more satisfactory if the other characters didn't react with such stoicism to the death, if they showed their emotions and discussed how it was going to change their lives.

****** more Serenity spoilers belew, don't read if you haven't seen it!!! *************

He was a very likable character and though I wouldn't have considered him one of my favorites, I was sad to see him go. But I think the very intense and immediate impact his death had on Zoe was very vividly seen. She was all but committing suicide trying to stand up to the reavers several minutes later, very gung-ho about getting revenge, and not paying much attention to her own life. I think the only reason the other characters didn't seem to react very much was that they were, themselves, in a life a death situation, and it wasn't really a time to mourn, nor would the reality of the situation really have hit them yet.

I know I would (and have) reacted that way when a friend has suddenly died and I learn the news, not with immediate grief, but a blank lack of understanding. Until the reality of the situation really sinks in, which it hadn't yet, I think their reaction was right on cue.

Would I have preferred he stay alive? Yes. But honestly I like the fact that some characters died. I think it's a personal thing of mine, but I get tired of the idea of a "group of ragtag heros going up against the universe" and always coming out unscathed. Even if the good guys still win, the fact that not everyone makes it out alive makes the plot more "realistic" in my mind, and makes the sacrifice of those who died all the more noble, and the actions of those who had to continue on even when a friend has just died even more heroic.

I think that killing off Walsh wasn't too big of a change. He was a very likable character, but he wasn't too important. He piloted the ship and whined a lot. He was mainly comic relief. There was no real point to the death except to heighten tension. It allowed the audience to wonder: "If Walsh died, is everyone else going to survive?" All bets were off once the spike went through his chest, yanno? And the characters did respond to the death, mainly Zoe. She went off the deep end. Mal responded by steeling himself even more to succeed. That victory was for Walsh and Book and everyone that had died because of him.
(Spoiler over! Safe waters ahead!)