Forum: Author Hangout

10/1/2019, 5:52:09 AM
Personally, I don't mind cliffhangers between chapters. They are annoying, especially if NOTHING open was resolved in the the chapter and you are just adding another cliff, but cliffhangers between books...

Those are NOT the same thing. For series, you have the sustained, underlying series conflict (ex: Batman' attempt to ultimately eradicate crime in Gotham), but each book in a series has its own 'primary conflict'. The cliffhangers at the end of books comes when the characters resolves the primary conflict of that book (ex: arresting the Riddler), before introducing the primary conflict of the next book (ex: the Joker starts causing trouble to). But ultimately, the underlying conflict (eliminating Gotham's crime), continues unabated (until Batman eventually comprehends that he's the problem, as his fame is motivating the continual rise of Supervillians, and he fades into the background, quietly fighting crime without the attention grabbing costume).

What you quote is from karactr, not me. I very much do mind cliffhangers

Sorry, that happens from time to time. :(

Please -- motivate us to keep reading with characters we care about. Don't just dump a load of stress on us and tell us to carry it for a week or a month!

First, if the reader doesn't care about the characters there is no stress. Why would there be stress if they don't care what happens to them? And if they don't care about the characters, that is very bad.

If the characters are going about without conflict there is no reason to read the story. It's the conflict that keeps the reader reading. Rooting for the protagonist and against the antagonist. Worrying about the hero. But only if the reader cares about him.

I think the adversity to cliffhangers here is due to the nature of posting chapters instead of a complete story. With a complete story, the reader has the option of going to the next chapter or not to find out what happens. I once read a quote that an author's job is to keep the reader up late at night so they have a hard time getting up the next morning to go to work (or something like that). Basically, the reader can't put the book down.

Cliffhangers originated for the exact reason you're talking about. To make the person urgently wait for the next installment (magazine issue, soap opera episode, etc.). But good literature uses it to create stress (for the character) and the reader if he cares about the character. To keep the reader turning pages.

That's your style, but it doesn't mean everyone has to write that way.

You could, for example, structure your story like many TV drama series - each episode (chapter) has its own conflict and resolution, but there's an overarching story arc, containing the major conflict of the series, that progresses with each episode.

AJ

The characters have to come out of the scene paying some cost or achieving some reward or the scene was just filler.

Not necessarily. Sometimes the purpose of the scene is pacing.

Let's say you have a fast-paced scene where the hero escapes from those trying to kill him. The next scene might be slow-paced with him recollecting what was happening or planning his next move. It gives the reader a time to catch their breath.

If it's Dr Who, it may be the third scene of four of the episode, in which no action happens but the actors do their gurning as they pretend to be sad or frightened.

AJ

Every chapter ends at the end of a scene.

Unless the POV character changes in the middle of a scene. Often you have a scene break within the chapter, but you can start a new chapter.

10/1/2019, 12:58:43 AM
I agree with Ernest, I do not usually read any incomplete story. If your chapters need a cliffhanger to keep the serial readers, then there may be something missing that will not make the transition to the next chapter either smooth or strong enough to create interest to continue.

The problem with multiple cliffhangers, is that it indicates the author has no clue how to maintain an ongoing conflict (i.e. there so busy worrying about the next chapter, they're unable to sustain multi-chapter conflicts. And monthly serials have which relied on sustained cliffhangers have never worked for long, as readers eventually get bored, and stop buying them. Quite simply, it's unsustainable.

But as Ernest points out, the worst thing about them is that they reveal the author's lack of confidence in his own writing, which will sink an authors work faster than anything else. It's why no one votes for political candidates who continually say "um ..." as it indicates a lack of conviction.

A better approach, is to concentrate on conflicts. You have sustained conflicts, and story and series conflicts, while also supporting multiple sub-plot conflicts. However, you need to resolve each mini-conflict to provide for reader satisfaction. If NOTHING is ever resolved, then WHY would anyone continue reading. Sustained conflict means you nurse and build the underlying conflict, which takes effort. So rather than a story which rapidly accelerates, only to pause, before rapidly accelerating towards an all new conflict, you vary pacing over the course of the story. Some chapters race by, while others are more detailed and introspective. This adds depth to otherwise simplistic stories.

And monthly serials have which relied on sustained cliffhangers have never worked for long, as readers eventually get bored, and stop buying them. Quite simply, it's unsustainable.

If that were true, people would stop watching TV soap operas and other TV series. They seem to end with a cliffhanger a lot. And the season ending one always ends with a cliffhanger (which is a bitch when the show is cancelled).

If that were true, people would stop watching TV soap operas and other TV series. They seem to end with a cliffhanger a lot. And the season ending one always ends with a cliffhanger (which is a bitch when the show is cancelled).

Ah, but the soap operas resolve it the next day, or Monday at the latest (Tuesday's if it's a holiday), while a season's ending is like introducing the theme/conflict of the next book in a series. It's not so much another cliffhanger as introducing the primary conflicts of the following season.

But, a never resolved season's cliffhanger is much less frustrating than the ever-maddening 'It was all a dream' when the writers realize they've lost touch with both the characters and viewers (and management too)!

To me, the use of "um" in speech is an indicator of confusion, not a lack of conviction.

That's the standard assumption, but actual studies of word usages indicate it's actually a temporary stalling tactic, used by a wide variety of tactic, to organize the rest of their sentence or the next. Thus few of us, in normal conversations, even notice it. But when someone is on camera, and you can review it in detail multiple times, those temporary pauses are deadly. :(

Just remember, people are good at knowing when something's wrong, and they're garbage at telling you how to fix it.

Excellent point, but it reinforces the notion that the author has a sustained problem with his current writing style.

If you start a scene in a chapter, that scene should be complete at the end of the chapter.

One situation where that's not true is if the POV character changes in the middle of the scene (in 3rd-person limited). You can put in a scene break or start a new chapter.

You guys should read bestselling thrillers. Sometimes they leave a cliffhanger at the end of a chapter and the next chapter doesn't resolve it. Something else happens in the next chapter with different characters and then a later chapter goes back to that cliffhanger.

You guys should read bestselling thrillers. Sometimes they leave a cliffhanger at the end of a chapter and the next chapter doesn't resolve it. Something else happens in the next chapter with different characters and then a later chapter goes back to that cliffhanger.

That makes sense, as it draws out the tension and heightens the suspense, while keeping the readers guessing about what's ultimately going to happen.

I'd try it, but my readers might scalp me (mixing genres a bit).

Personally, I consider those two separate scenes entirely. And a chapter break should not be used if it swaps POV with the fate of major characters hanging in the balance.

Ok, here's the end of a chapter in my first novel. Jeff and Elizabeth are in a porn theater. Jeff is blackmailing her and told her to suck his dick. The chapter from Jeff's POV ends with:

Elizabeth glanced at Jeff's face and then shifted in her seat toward him. One trembling hand fumbled with his belt and slid the leather strap through the pants loop. Then, with an injured kitten whimper, she yanked the belt free of the hook. She took a deep breath and released the air. She leaned forward and unsnapped his jeans using both hands, but then leaned back.

It was Jeff's turn to hold his breath. She had changed her mind. Now what? He would never rape her. He doubted he would even go through with the threat. It was one thing to destroy Pastor Hathaway, but Elizabeth had never hurt him.

That's how the chapter ends. Cliffhanger? Sure. The next chapter switches to Elizabeth's POV:

Elizabeth glowered in the dark theater. Determined not to look at Jeff's face, her eyes remained on his lap. A deep, drawn out sigh raised and lowered her shoulders before she leaned over the armrest to reach for his zipper. After picking at the shiny metal tab with her fingernail, attempting to touch nothing else, she pinched the cool metal between her thumb and forefinger and tugged it down.

The intake of air from Jeff caused Elizabeth to hesitate, but not look up. Her eyes darted from side to side as she sought a way out. She could beg. No! She had tried that. He was not a compassionate man like her husband. She had never met anyone like him. He was evil. A monster. He would show the photos, she was sure of that. Why had she been so stupid? This was her penance to atone for her sins.

Elizabeth folded open the top of Jeff's jeans. Her brow creased at the sight of his bright blue underwear. They were so different from Milford's white, baggy ones which she washed and folded on laundry day.

Not to me. I take a fairly narrow view of what is a cliffhanger based on the origin of the term. A character or character will live or die based on what happens in the next few minutes.

Google's definition: "an ending to an episode of a serial drama that leaves the audience in suspense." Change "episode" to "chapter" and you're leaving the reader in suspense. In my example, would she do it? And what does Jeff do if she doesn't?

Wikipedia's definition: "a plot device in fiction which features a main character in a precarious or difficult dilemma, or confronted with a shocking revelation at the end of an episode[1] of serialized fiction. A cliffhanger is hoped to incentivize the audience to return to see how the characters resolve the dilemma."

Leaving the reader in suspense. Having the character face a dilemma. The dilemma doesn't have to be life or death.

My readers often groan at me for ending a chapter that way, but I've only ended one chapter with a proper cliffhanger. The term came from the silver screen, where the hero would end up dangling from a cliff and you had to wait until the next episode to find out if he survived.

I normally try to keep each chapter to 30k words, so I just stop at a convenient point when I finish the final scene. For example, the cast plan and prepare for a battle, then I end it there before launching into the mission itself. That isn't a cliffhanger, but it does leave the reader excited to find out what happens next.

Again, the typical approach is to switch to 'episodic' chapters, where each chapter focuses on a specific event. Once that event is over (either a new girl, a fight, or a new town), the chapter ends as the mini-conflict is resolved (he decides he's not into the new girl, he survives the fight, or he finishes his business in that particular city). Authors fall into the cliffhanger trap, when they have difficulties figuring out where the next chapter is going, and makes it up on the fly. Again, it's typically a symptom of a lack of advance planning.

Many successful dead tree authors end some chapters on cliffhangers - James Patterson and David Baldacci for example. Personally I'm not a fan - I prefer chapters to end at quiet points - but so many authors do it and make a lot of money from their readers that claims it's a weakness reek of elitism.

AJ,

James Patterson and most other modern top story list authors are more a low level writing marketing system than anything else. Just remember these people appear on the same lists as stories like Lovely Bones etc.

As to examples of good authors, with the exceptions of those who wrote serials for newspapers and magazines, there are ten or more good authors who don't use cliffhangers than there are ones who do. Look at Heinlein, Asimov, Niven, Wells, Verne, Bradbury, Clarke, and every other classic or longstanding author.

Like you I prefer chapters with quiet end points as the action scenes in a chapter should finish within the chapter. The plot may carry through to later chapters, but the individual scenes should be finished within the chapter they occur. If the only way to keep people's interest is a cliffhanger then the rest of the story can't offer much of interest. While there are a few stories that are enthralling that have some cliffhangers, they are few and far between and they don't have a cliffhanger at the end of every chapter.

However, people have different tastes and some like the cliffhangers.

Ernest

To me that comes across as elitism. A good author is someone would makes their readers want to read more.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

(IIRC, Asimov and Wells used cliffhangers in some stories, although not at the end of every chapter.)

AJ

However, people have different tastes and some like the cliffhangers.

Cliffhangers work, but quickly become tiring if overused. Some are adept at keeping them fresh, but for most of us, it's best to use them judiciously, so they'll be effective when we most need them.

James Patterson and most other modern top story list authors are more a low level writing marketing system than anything else

Would you put Shakespeare in the category of low level writing?

William Shakespeare could not afford for his audience to be bored, and for this reason he uses a cliffhanger in Act 1, Scene 1 of his play The Tempest. The scene of a storm and shipwreck is depicted in a most vivid manner, but the audience is unsure if anybody on the ship has survived. The device is employed with the purpose that the audience will return to see the next act. Finally, the fate of the crew on board is revealed in Act 2, Scene 1 and the focus of the audience is ensured by that time.

Charles Dickens and Thomas Hardy used cliffhangers as well, although they were writing serials in magazines so maybe it doesn't count.

The term "cliffhanger" seems to get its name from the Thomas Hardy's novel A Pair of Blue Eyes, which was published in a magazine in a series format, with a chapter published every month. At the end of one of the episodes, Hardy left his main character, Henry Knight, hanging onto a cliff, staring at the stony eyes of a fossil embedded in rocks below. Since then, every abrupt end has been termed a "cliffhanger."

Let's go back further.

Cliffhanger has its roots in ancient oriental literature. One example is in the collection of stories known as One Thousand and One Nights, in which the king Shehreyar orders his queen Scheherzade to be hanged. She devises a plan to tell a story to the king every night, ending that story with a cliffhanger. The king postponed the order of execution every day to hear the rest of the story.

Of course overuse of any literary device is bad writing. But cliffhangers are valid literary devices.

By nature, man is a curious creature. Cliffhangers in any form of literature appeal to our curiosity. The main purpose of employing this device is to maintain suspense in the plot in order to ensure the interest and focus of the readers. It acts as bait to lead the readers from one part of the text to another with more interest than before.

Cliffhangers, undoubtedly, are enjoyable to read at the end of the chapters of novels. However, it can be very frustrating at the very end of a novel, as it leaves readers discontented after all the effort they put in to read the novel.

Would you put Shakespeare in the category of low level writing?

Yes.

Charles Dickens and Thomas Hardy used cliffhangers as well, although they were writing serials in magazines so maybe it doesn't count.

Correct.

Of course overuse of any literary device is bad writing. But cliffhangers are valid literary devices.

So is a Deus ex machina - but to use it is seen as poor writing and inartistic.

So is a Deus ex machina - but to use it is seen as poor writing and inartistic.

I agree that Deus ex machina is poor writing but cliffhangers are not in the same class.

I like occasional cliffhangers in things that I read, watch on TV and write. I agree with earlier comments that using them all the time is poor technique but it is a stretch to go from there to suggesting that any use of cliffhangers is bad.

An occasional, well-placed cliffhanger can be very good and some excellent writers have used them to good effect.

I do dislike cliffhangers in a series if the next installment is not either immediately available or is not reasonably expected within a short time frame.

It dates back to the 5th century.

[snip]

Anyone who produces an art form that survives sixteen centuries ought not to be charged with being a poor writer or inartistic.

5th BC, right? So 25 or 26 centuries?

although they were writing serials in magazines so maybe it doesn't count.

Why wouldn't it count? The medium (e.g. film, book, or magazine) in which a cliffhanger is used should have nothing to do with the break in presentation for suspense being a cliffhanger.

although they were writing serials in magazines so maybe it doesn't count.

Why wouldn't it count? The medium (e.g. film, book, or magazine) in which a cliffhanger is used should have nothing to do with the break in presentation for suspense being a cliffhanger.

When I googled cliffhanger, it was hard to even find it referenced in novels. It was all about screen and magazines. And the Dickens and Hardy examples were serials in magazines/newspapers to get people to buy the next issue.

With a novel, the reader already bought it so the motive is different. It's to keep the reader's interest. For him to keep reading. When it's at the end of the novel it's to get him to buy the next novel.

Personally I'm not a fan - I prefer chapters to end at quiet points - but so many authors do it and make a lot of money from their readers that claims it's a weakness reek of elitism.

As with most guidelines, it's not written in stone, it's just difficult to pull off successfully, and is best left to those with a knack for it. As for the game shows, the key is keeping the technique fresh by continually changing it up, so it doesn't become stale.

When it no longer works, everyone loses their jobs!

Once the posted story is complete, it can of course be read without pause just like a published book, but in the case of an online author who may post less frequently, a hook may well keep reads hungry enough to look out for the next posted chapter.

'Crept when life intervenes, and your regular posting schedule goes to hell. Then, readers get so frustrated, they'll abandon your work long before it gets yellow tagged.

There are other hooks to use besides cliffhangers.

One such hook is to give the secondary protagonists conflicting agendas. Then, during any slower sections, the verbal sparing between the various good guys help keep the tension going even during the slower sections, and the technique helps to develop the secondary characters more than you would normally.

However, it typically takes a lot of extra work setting up those types of stories. :( (I've only used it a couple of times.) Yes-men are easy to write.

First, shouldn't a book completed before posting treated same as a 'published book'?
Second, why should we distinguish between completed books posted all chapters together and those posted one chapter every other day?

Because, generally, they're written differently. Those completed beforehand are generally revised to ensure the story's consistency, and one tends to remove things like summary's and unnecessary cliffhangers, as well as eliminating an unsuccessful side plots.

Firstly, where did the 'every other day' come from?

Years ago I found out if you post a story with a new chapter every other day it has the story showing on the Home page almost all of the time you're posting the story and it means it's up for longer than posting the story every day or in one go. I complete the story before I start posting, so it's easy to set up such a schedule. When I post a new story I mention the schedule in my blog, and I've notice some other authors who complete the story first have also picked up using the every other day schedule.

In the bell curve of times between posted chapters it certainly isn't (yet) the median, or even close.

That's because the majority of people post their stories as either a single posting if completed, or they post each chapter as they write it. There are very few of us who post completed stories a chapter at a time over a period.

If there is no mortal danger to the main characters, is it just a foreshadowing of something interesting up ahead in the story? Most likely the interesting thing is in the next chapter.

A sudden switch of sides, or a character violating their morals, is a plot twist, not a cliffhanger, and generally, they're best served in the middle of the chapter, where they can be more fully explored than rushing for an unsatisfactory chapter ending surprise.

I have been experimenting. That's what I've found. If you write stories for the feedback, post it as short chapters with small cliffhangers.

I prefer plot-based pacing, rather than writing for the end of each chapter. I write towards the end of the book, so everything in the book moves the story to it's conclusion, but when you put that much emphasis on each individual chapter, then no chapter really stands out.

Just my opinion. Take it for what you will.

I write towards the end of the book

One of the changes I made to my first novel when I brought it up to my current standard was to change "towards" to "toward," "backwards" to "backward," etc because of what I've read. The following is from Grammarly:

Toward vs. Towards

The only difference between toward and towards is the s. Both spellings are correct, and they mean the same thing: in the direction of.

Toward is the preferred spelling in the United States and Canada. In other English-speaking countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, towards is the more common spelling. The Chicago Manual of Style notices this difference; The AP Stylebook recommends using the shorter spelling.

Both spellings of the word can be traced all the way back to Old English. Toward, as we know it now, evolved from toweard, which meant "in the direction of." Toweards was the Old English adverb derived from toweard by adding the adverbial genitive s.

I've been observing posts here (like what I quoted here), on wattpad, and other places. Everyone seems to use "towards" with the "s". Is Grammarly and everyone else wrong? It seems everyone uses it with the "s" even U.S. and Canada people. It's also my first inclination (at least it was before I read about the difference).

Since the ending is the same regardless of the loyalty of the reader, you cannot really claim, "that's what I get for being a loyal reader of this author."

I sometimes forget that humorous intent, sarcasm, and many other things that are perfectly clear in face to face real life interactions are often lost in plain text communication. Yes, I'm aggravated at the ending, but I'll wait for the next in series. This book is #6 in the series and the first to end with a cliffhanger.

the protagonist being arrested when he was just a few steps from freedom. The author plans more books in the series

I read a James Patterson novel this summer like that. I didn't know it was a series and jumped in in the middle of the series. That was okay, but it ended with the protagonist (a lady cop) going into prison. I'm sure there'll be another one that starts there.

But it's not a cliffhanger. She killed the bad guy and then was taken to prison for the laws she broke doing that. What happens after that is a different story.

Sometimes it makes a phrase easier to articulate. A hard 'd' ending makes an uncomfortable bedfellow to a word starting with a hard beginning, but a soft 's' in the middle makes it a lot easier.

Eg

'I'm going toward town' versus 'I'm going towards town'.

AJ

And there's those of us who simply say, "I'm going to town."

There's a difference between "to" and "toward."

"Toward" means in the direction of.

"To" is the destination.

hence advancing his career toward new heights of recognition.

My own usage seems broadly similar to DS's, so I would use 'towards' in that context to reflect movement.

AJ

I tend to ignore what the AP Style Guide has to say, because I'm not printing a newspaper. I'm pretty sure that the sole logic behind their recommendation to leave off the 's' is that it takes up fewer column-inches that way.

I agree that's often their motive, like not using the Oxford comma.

But this wasn't from AP or Chicago. It was from Grammarly.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with cliffhangers, though.

Well I for one am in suspense about how the life of this thread will be saved by by the next post! And the next! And the next!

The excerpt you posted cites both CMOS and AP, and it's only the AP citation that recommends not using the 's'.

Oh, I understand. This was the middle part of what I posted.

Toward is the preferred spelling in the United States and Canada. In other English-speaking countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, towards is the more common spelling. The Chicago Manual of Style notices this difference; The AP Stylebook recommends using the shorter spelling.

I was referencing the 1st two sentences, that the "s" wasn't used in the U.S and Canada, but was in the UK and Australia.

The way I interpreted what came after it was that Chicago "notices the differences" (that is, agrees) while the AP doesn't (never an "s").

Grammar Girl agrees with what Grammarly says:

"Toward" and "towards" are both correct and interchangeable: you can use either one because they mean the same thing. Many sources say the "s" is more common in Britain than in the United States, so you should take into account what the convention is in your country, and use "towards" in Britain and "toward" in the U.S.

And so does many other places I've seen it. However, I have to force myself not to use the "s" and, as I said, I keep seeing the "s" on posts from everyone, like the post I replied to.

So I wonder if what Grammarly and Grammar Girl and others are saying is old news and people everywhere are switching to using the "s".