[Bardos]

(I was ispired to write this by the GRRMartin thread.)

What works best for you, in a part of a series: a cliffhanger or a rushed ending, so the book may be "complete"

Personaly, I prefer the story to progrees normaly (i.e., not-rushed), even if it ends in a cliffhanger. I hate it when the story seems rushed, so it comes to an "epic climax".

[Alucard]

My favorite style is when each book is a story within itself. I'm not big on cliffhangers. I don't mind if there's a few issues unresolved and left for the next installment, but I like to feel that I have started and finished a story, even if I know that there is more.

But I hate it when a book ends with..."The knife came plummetting towards the (insert heroes name) AND..." The End.

With endings like these, I almost expect the old batman t.v. series announcer to call me up and say..."Will the hero live? Will he save the damsel in distress? Will I ever stop asking rhetorical questions? Tune in next week (or 2 years later, more like it) to find out!"

Hate those endings. Too long between books for endings like that. It's just cruel.

[Qin]

I've never been a big fan of self-contained stories. At least not in the fantasy genre. I've spent so much time reading multi-volume epics that anything smaller seems unsual.

I blame Jordan and Tolkien and that Martin guy http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

[jbcohen]

I'm with you bardos, rushed ending are terrible in my oppinion.

[matthewajg]

Rushed endings do tend to tarnish the book/series as a whole...I remember reading the EYE OF THE WORLD for the first time and thinking at the end, "Where the hell did this come from? The book plodded along at a snails pace then explodes into a high action ending ala DIE HARD!" On the other hand, some epic fantasy series to seem to languish in details and plot twists to the point at which I want to pull my hair out by the fistful! Rushed endings ruin a book, but there is also something to be said for brevity!

[JohnH]

Asking if someone prefers a 'rushed ending' is rather a loaded question. That seems a bit like asking if anyone likes a badly written book, imo.

I certainly don't like anything 'rushed'. To me that is inherently bad. I do like multi-volume works, some of which can have a cliffhanger and many which really don't. The ongoing plot should be enough to maintain my interest to read the next book. Certainly if all there is is the 'gripping' closure of uncertainty, I doubt I will be reading the next book. I would say that rushing the ending is not nearly so annoying as the buy the next book cliffhanger. And former not being nearly so common or overused as the latter.

Stand alone novels, increasingly rare, tend to be above the normal standard. Guy Gavriel Kay, Patricia McKillip, Robin Mckinley and Lisa Goldstein are all incredibly good authors. In fact I know few authors today whose work I don't lik, who write standlone novels in fantasy.

[Stark Direwolf]

Darkness at Sethanon, now THAT was a rushed ending...

[Bardos]

Asking if someone prefers a 'rushed ending' is rather a loaded question. That seems a bit like asking if anyone likes a badly written book, imo.

But, appearently, some people prefer a badly written book, from what it seems...

Actually, a writer who writers a BIG story (i.e., epic fantasy, like Martin's, Jordan's, Tolkien's, etc) and respects himself is impossible not to end up in a cliffhanger. It simply is not possible to tie all plots nicely in one book, if you don't rush them. See what Tolkien does: he writes a long story, but cuts it in pieces, where in each piece there is some conclusion. To have each book ending all nicely is just marketing, not good writing, or art for that matter. (Art? What does that word mean today?)

[JohnH]

Perhaps our definition of a cliffhanger is different then. The first six books of WoT did not end on a cliffhanger. Janny Wurts did not end all of her installments with cliffhangers. Katharine Kerr did not for the first Deverry series. Katya Reimann, Jane Routley, Judith Tarr, Jacqueline Carey (so far), David Gemmell, Tanith Lee just to name a few off the top of my head have all written excellent series that did not have a single bridging cliffhanger. I think all have a healthy respect for themselves but not having sat in on their therapy sessions, cannot say for sure. I do know I have a healthy respect for them as writers.

But then again I do not consider a cliffhanger a loose end. A cliffhanger is something that ends in a highly suspenseful manner. Wanting to find out what comes next is not neceesarily a cliffhanger imo, but rather the writer's talent to cpativate and tell a story well. Much in the same manner that I would want to read that peson's work regardless of whether it is a continuation or not of a particular series.

As for saying that a book ending neatly is marketing? I definitely disagree with that. Too many times I think the silly forced and contrived cliffhangers are the real marketing tool in an effort to maintain interest in mediocre work or flat plotting.

[Bardos]

I think it's marketing because a rushed ending provides a quick satisfaction for "rushy" people, who want to see a "big battle" at the end.
And to give example: WoT book's, mostly fluff, have rushed endings, while aSoInF never has, and its cliffhanger don't mean weak plot.

About what "cliffhanger" is: Yea, I don't think it's only the knife in the throat stuff, but a plot not reaching an end.