The ending of a book...

[Radier]

Hallo everyone. I need your help. I am writing a fantasybook an have a long time been troubled about the ending. A good and happy ending is so common and not original at all, but what if the dark side win... Do you think that would ruin the book? Would the reader be disappointed?

Regards. Radier

[The_Doctor]

You could leave it open for a sequel.

[Radier]

It must end somewhere. Two books are planned for now. As a said, the problem is how to end the second book... Which side shall win? Good, bad, noone?

[JimBob]

Heroic defeat in the face of adversity can make good reading. So long as the bad guys get a licking on the way to victory and the good guys don't roll over and do the whole heroic last stand thing it works. Honestly I've always enjoyed movies and books where the cavalry arrives late, or gets stopped. There's something that appeals to some tragic view of heroism

[Rodion Romanovich]

You have the exact opposite problem I have... I know the entire book I want to write, except the beginning. It's supposed to be about the reign of Trajan from the first Dacian war to the end of the disastrous Parthian campaign, told from the perspective of a cavalry captain (or someone with at least some abilities to command troops in different areas. I haven't found a suitable known historical figure (would be great if I could), but it's not entirely necessary, I think. Anyway, how would such a novel start? But I'm also considering to scrap the entire idea and search for another historical scenario that would be easier to write about, for instance anything Medieval-related...

In reply to your question, Radier, I'd like it if the evil side wins for once. It would make a nice change from the ordinary. It would be even cooler to do that if it's the type of fantasy novel which tries to look like it COULD be something that happened a while back in history, and conclude with something along the lines of "that's why today things are so and so..." Otherwise, an epic ending battle against an enemy of superior strength is perhaps the most traditional ending that always works... Another thought that has crossed my mind would be to let the evil in the end, after being defeated, turn out to not be as evil as depicted by the "good", who are the real evil side, and who wins.

[Radier]

Thanx for the input guys. Lets role up the options:

* Good side wins.
* Good side loose (glorious defeat).
* Good side loose (tragic and sad defeat, maybe due to treachery).
* Good side wins, but turns out to be the evil ones (cool thought Legio!).
* Neither of the side wins. (Destroy eatchothers)

Or maybee a cool mixture of these options. Ah it´s so hard! The end is one of the most important things...

Legio: What about a former captain waking up, realizing he has lost his memory or something like that, and is expected to lead soldiers in battle the very same day... Noone else know he has lost his memory and he plays along. Everything he meet will be a new experience for him and that statisfy the reader. I hope you understand what I mean...
A book is allways better if the main person gets more experienced for every day and not just awesome allready from the start.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I'll move this to the mead hall, seeing as it's about writing.

[Radier]

Oh, sorry...

[AntiochusIII]

Ah, I would like to request some background information in the hopes of narrowing the choices and consider the plausibility, but a fantasy book with happy endings, if well done, is good and all; unfortunately, many fantasy books end so gloriously that they become laughable.

The bad side wins doesn't really make much satisfaction in a conventional story; readers will be naturally disappointed. Though the glorious defeat kind of ending can reduce the bitter taste of defeat for the heroes. However, in an unconventional plotline it might pull off nicely, giving your book(s) a certain uniqueness.

On the other hand, the bad side wins, but turns out to be just "human," could put in an interesting message, rare in the fantasy genre; the bad side often needs to lose before showing its human side in many books. Why don't they win for once?

Good side wins but turn evil sounds like Star Wars. But I'd prefer "good side" wins with the fact that the good side is too complex to be called just "good" a.k.a. like in the first book of the Dune series. Who can say fully that Paul Atreides is saintly, considering the bloodshed he has unleashed into the universe? I believe this kind of ending gives a certain panache to your story if done right.

Neither side wins needs to be done right to prevent the apocalyptic ending, in which readers of a fantasy genre hate ("What the!? I've read this far only to realize everybody's dead? That doesn't make any sense!"). After all, they've invested themselves into this new world; why would they want to see it destroyed? Probably survivors on both sides...then again, survivors on both sides reconciling is a blatant cliche. Survivors on both sides continuing the conflict is not really what you're looking for. Survivors on one side means that side is victorious (ah...perhaps you can let the bad side survives?--if your book carries enough of the bad side's perspective to round up and fully realize the bad side characters beforehand, you can carry this out and give them some sort of revelation to conclude your story.)

On the other hand, neither sides win, not destroyed, but lost something truly great and stop fighting (the main protagonist and antagonist could be sacrificed for the purpose ) a.k.a. Romeo and Juliet could be interesting.

I guess it's up to the characteristics of your story to decide which choice is the best.

[Kraxis]

You could have a case of 'Good side seemingly wins', and thus let the reader imagine who really won.

Also, heroism doesn't need to include for the heroes dishing out serious damage. Personally I'm looking forawrd to the day when a movie come out that some warrior (any timeperiod) speaks those heroic lines we all know, when he and his friends are in dire straits. Then he rushes out like a lion... And here it changes the pace from the usual heroics of him getting to where he want to (sometimes they do die). In my vision he dies horribly almost at once. A sort of shocking and dispairing situation.

I once read a book called The Ten Thousand (no not Xenophon) about an American Armoured Corps that is forced to fight its way through Germany, where an old Hitler Jugend has assumed democratic power (timeperiod is around mid 90s).
Anyway a company of Rangers under the command of a Russian (long story) are at one point supposed to take a specific base, but their cover is blown and they end up in ditch under fire from a bunker. They are deep in the crap, but then we follow the thoughts of the Russian and he correctly deducts that they need to assault that bunker to make it out alive. So he makes a short speech then jumps up and is struck down by bullets at once, sprawling him on his back on the other side of the ditch, the sergeant then gets all worked up and rushes out and is similarly cut down, before the entire unit storms out and wins.
The way he presented the situation made it a gutwrenching scene... I felt it deep in my stomach when the Russian fell, as he wa sort of the hero and one of the main characters. It was superbly done.

[Reverend Joe]

Not a bad idea. Personally, though I would go for a real "Wild Bunch" approach. One of the reasons I love this movie is that noone is really good- they are all bad, it's just that we follow one side all the way to the end. This would also be a real break from tradition, to eliminate the "good and noble" side that I find really ruins a very good genre. Just give it a try- you may find it really loosens up your options.

Also, about the Star Wars reference- I don't get it. Isn't Star Wars the ultimate example of the good-vs-bad, with good winning, story? (As well as being a terrible series of movies... "Alien" blew all of them away.) Then again, I have had no urge to see the new ones whatsoever... I just don't frickin' care.

[Reverend Joe]

Another thought that has crossed my mind would be to let the evil in the end, after being defeated, turn out to not be as evil as depicted by the "good", who are the real evil side, and who wins.

I have actually been juggling an idea like that in my mind for some time- a "Lord of the Rings" book, written from the point-of-view of the Haradrim. It would be dramatically different. The basic idea would be that of a noble Haradic king, who is tricked by Sauron- none of this "servants of the dark lord" crap- and who is destroyed fighting the arrogant Elves and western men.

Plus, it would give me a chance to write in the style of Gilgamesh and the old sumerian tales. I've always wanted to do that.

Edit: sorry about the double post... I just got worked up.

[AntiochusIII]

Not a bad idea. Personally, though I would go for a real "Wild Bunch" approach. One of the reasons I love this movie is that noone is really good- they are all bad, it's just that we follow one side all the way to the end. This would also be a real break from tradition, to eliminate the "good and noble" side that I find really ruins a very good genre. Just give it a try- you may find it really loosens up your options.

He didn't state it clearly (so most likely I'm giving a rather baseless assumption here), but I believe he's choosing to have a good side vs bad side.

Also, about the Star Wars reference- I don't get it. Isn't Star Wars the ultimate example of the good-vs-bad, with good winning, story? (As well as being a terrible series of movies... "Alien" blew all of them away.) Then again, I have had no urge to see the new ones whatsoever... I just don't frickin' care.

My mistake. I should've been more specific; the Star Wars I'm talking about is the latest one, as in the development and release, in which Anakin turns evil. The third episode.

[Reverend Joe]

My mistake. I should've been more specific; the Star Wars I'm talking about is the latest one, as in the development and release, in which Anakin turns evil.

Ooooh, okay. Yeah, the most I have seen of the first three was the first half of the first one, when it came out in theatres- it was so awful I had to leave.

[GoreBag]

I can't tell you. Only you know, as an author, what is most appropriate for your ending. Think on it for a while - maybe listen to music you don't even normally like, or watch a shocking movie, if you need inspiration...the decision, however, must be yours.

[Geoffrey S]

Perhaps you could have the good guys win, but in such a way that it has a bitter taste to the victory. Basically having noble protagonists dying for their cause leaving behind weaker, less likeable good-guys to pick up the pieces. Or even having a victory at such a high cost that it'll take many years for something good to come from the victory.

[Geoffrey S]

It's supposed to be about the reign of Trajan from the first Dacian war to the end of the disastrous Parthian campaign, told from the perspective of a cavalry captain (or someone with at least some abilities to command troops in different areas. I haven't found a suitable known historical figure (would be great if I could), but it's not entirely necessary, I think.

Perhaps Hadrian? He would have held some sort of command during the Dacian war, but wasn't directly involved with the Parthian campaign.

I once read a book called The Ten Thousand (no not Xenophon) about an American Armoured Corps that is forced to fight its way through Germany, where an old Hitler Jugend has assumed democratic power (timeperiod is around mid 90s).

Is it a good book? The sequence you mentioned sounds interesting.

[Radier]

Thanks guys for your input. All the ideas are really welcome and I shall think about them all. Making a good ending is much harder than I thought.

One thing is for sure though, the book won´t end with everything being fine and the good side wins and everyone is happy. It must be something original to that point it isn´t too strange.

Again, may thanks, and wish me good luck!

[Kraxis]

Is it a good book? The sequence you mentioned sounds interesting.

Ohh yes... It is really good. It is highly convincing in that the Abrams and Leopard IIs are evenly matched and it is generally down to the individual commander and the situation for a victory.
It is written by a former tank commander (I believe) so he has the right info on most stuff. Such as a Bradley commander taking a small bucket-shower in the infantry compartment and the equipment of the American forces from all branches (though the armoured components recieve the most attention).
The central figure is the commander of an armoured Battalion, and a close confident of the Corps commander.

He has also written a similar book called Team Yankee about a hot Nato-Warsaw Pact war at the end of the 80s. But unlike The Ten Thousand it is centered around a company sized team (Team Yankee) and its commander.

Both are well worth the read for people who want to feel what complicated warfare in Europe could possible be like.

Oh yeah, his name is Harold Coyle.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Perhaps Hadrian? He would have held some sort of command during the Dacian war, but wasn't directly involved with the Parthian campaign.

I've done a lot of research for the book actually, and it turns out Hadrian commanded some peripheral operation against the Chatii or some other group during the Dacian war, and didn't take part in the parthian war (he was governor somewhere in Asia minor, I got which province it was somewhere in my papers...) Some other possibilities would have been:
- a certain Laberius Maximus, who took part in the Dacian wars but then fell in disfavor and was exiled on an island
- the possibly gallic or germanic auxilia cavalry captain Maximus, who captured Decebalus the Dacian leader
- the moorish auxilia cavalry captain Lusius Quietus, who might have taken part in the Dacian war and did take part in the Parthian war.

...but none of those really suit my needs...

Another possibility would be to let the main character be part of the praetorian guard or something, because they apparently took part in both wars. I'm still considering the different possibilities... It's likely I'll just choose to invent someone, who is in a lesser command position and therefore won't be contrary to historical known facts and not unlikely...

[master of the puppets]

i say go with the apocolyptic ending, good guys lose but somehow decieve enemy into destroying themsselves, all life gone burning ashes of a world blah,blah,blah and suddenly a seed sprout pops out of the ash to signify the beggining of the reemergence of life.

[Aenarion]

How about a mysterious ending? U know, u let the reader decide the faith of the book....make it that u don't say who wins at the very very end of the book; they'll imagine for themselves what might have happened in the end.

Don't know if it's good...

Thanks,
Aenarion

[JimBob]

^Ever seen Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, they mighta made it past the army.


On MOTP idea. How about the good guys are loosing see that, and in desperation destroy everything to 'save' it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions kinda thing.