On the endings of Stephen King's novels

[D_Davis]

Oh come on, this is just a silly thing to say. So it doesn't matter if an ending is mediocre or bad, as long as the rest of the book was good?

Exactly. Endings only happen once, the journey happens the entire rest of the time.

It's like death. Death is the end of life, but all it is is the end. What matters in life is the journey - the rest of it. Sure, a tragic death can be a sad ending to a life, but if the journey of the life is great that is what will be remembered and cherished by those still living.

That's how King feels as well. That's why there are two endings to the Dark Tower. Roland is concerned with the ending, and thus he is doomed to repeat everything until he learns to be more like Susanna, Jake and Edward - they realize that it is the journey that is more important.

I choose to focus on the bulk of the narrative - the journey. The ending just happens to be where I stop.

So it is actually not a very silly thing to say.

It's more of an eastern way of viewing things.

 

[D_Davis]

In my experience, if the ending is so bad as to render the entire journey insufferable, than the journey probably wasn't worth all that much to begin with.

There are bad endings - yes. And King probably has more than many authors do. He's even admitted that he's not good at endings. However, I've never read a King ending that made me dislike the book.

In trying to recall a thing that the ending completely ruined, the only thing I can think of off hand is the film High Tension. But the reason wasn't the twist itself, it is that the twist actually breaks the logic of the entire film. So it wasn't that the end was bad, but that the entire thing was hinged on an ending that broke the narrative's logic. Therefor, the entire thing was garbage, including the ending.

As another example, one of my favorite films of all time, The Ninth Configuration (which is also one of my favorite books), has a tacked on ending that is not good at all. The last minute of the movie is rather silly, and totally unnecessary. However, I'm not about to let that ruin for me what is quite simply one of the all time great films. 99% of the movie is mind blowingly awesome. Why let the 1% ruin that?

 

[mtzGr]

Exactly. Endings only happen once, the journey happens the entire rest of the time.

It's like death. Death is the end of life, but all it is is the end. What matters in life is the journey - the rest of it. Sure, a tragic death can be a sad ending to a life, but if the journey of the life is great that is what will be remembered and cherished by those still living.

Death does not invalidate life, nor is it necessarily bad. Life is not hinged on its ending, while stories are.

 

[Jake Reynolds]

Neither is correct. If I read the first and last ten pages of a novel, I should be happy if they're well written, and not bother reading the middle? Similarly, should I be satisfied if a novel was great and then the ending left me feeling short-changed? Neither is really true or false, as everything depends on perspective and personal feeling.

There are a number of considerations to take into account with the end of a novel. First and foremost is whether or not the promises have been fulfilled. If Roland sets out for the dark tower, the promise is simply that he will eventually reach it, not that what happens there will necessarily be fulfilling. If Dorothy Gale is trying to get back to Kansas, the promise is that she will make it. If Indiana Jones goes after the Ark, the promise is that he'll find it. The one ring needs to be destroyed, so the promise is that it will be by the end of the trilogy.

However, in all of the above, though the promise is fulfilled, it is not fulfilled exactly. The Ark is buried in a government warehouse (Area 51 as it turns out, quite excretably), the wonderful Land of Oz was all a dream and, though the ring was destroyed, it was not Frodo that saved the day.

Endings need only fulfil the promise the writer makes at the start of the novel, and that is all. 'Good' or 'bad' is only a matter of perspective vs expectation.

 

[D_Davis]

If a story hinges upon its ending, it is not a good story.

 

[Jake Reynolds]

If a story hinges upon its ending, it is not a good story.

Wow. Have to disagree there. That isn't to say that all good stories must have good endings (obviously not true), but the above statement does kind of accuse every murder mystery of being a bad story.

 

[mtzGr]

Endings need only fulfil the promise the writer makes at the start of the novel, and that is all. 'Good' or 'bad' is only a matter of perspective vs expectation.

I was not trying to suggest that the middle of a story is not important, but I agree with the distinction you've drawn. I don't particularly care for the way DT ended, but I still love the series.

 

[Christopher Lee]

Personally, I enjoy reading through the book and experiencing it as it progresses. The ending can go in any direction for me, so long as the journey to the ending has been enjoyable.

The Stand, in my opinion, had a terrible ending. But it is my all time favorite book. Because the journey to the horrible, final 200 pages was one of the most entertaining that I've ever read.

As in all things, it rides upon personal preference. No one is right or wrong if they believe in what they're saying.

Back on topic, the DT books are not nearly as much fun as his early stuff. Carrie, Salem's Lot, The Shining, really good stuff. Contrary to popular belief, I thought Rose Madder was good as well. Hearts in Atlantis has to be one of my favorites; with a good ending!

 

[D_Davis]

Wow. Have to disagree there. That isn't to say that all good stories must have good endings (obviously not true), but the above statement does kind of accuse every murder mystery of being a bad story.

If a murder mystery is only good based on the puzzle being solved at the end, then what's the point of reading the entire thing? Just read the end and save yourself a whole heck of a lot of time.

It is the journey that matters. It is the characters the detectives meets during his or her case, the situations that he or she gets into. Often times, the murder mystery is simply a macguffin used to tell a great story about the detective or some other theme.

But we're talking in circles.

 

[D_Davis]

There are a number of considerations to take into account with the end of a novel. First and foremost is whether or not the promises have been fulfilled. If Roland sets out for the dark tower, the promise is simply that he will eventually reach it, not that what happens there will necessarily be fulfilling. If Dorothy Gale is trying to get back to Kansas, the promise is that she will make it. If Indiana Jones goes after the Ark, the promise is that he'll find it. The one ring needs to be destroyed, so the promise is that it will be by the end of the trilogy.

...

Endings need only fulfil the promise the writer makes at the start of the novel, and that is all. 'Good' or 'bad' is only a matter of perspective vs expectation.

An author owes a reader nothing, except to tell a good story. There is no promise of anything. To expect something is bound to lead to disappointments, which is why this thread was started in the first place.

Fans of things often think they are owed something, which is why fans are so often disappointed by endings, and then go on to create petitions and fanfic telling the author how they should have ended it.

 

[mtzGr]

You missed his point.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

It seems to me that if we dismiss the importance of the ending, then we fail to view the story as an artistic whole -- rather than as a series of events.

If a story hinges upon its ending, it is not a good story.

I'd take the opposite view. If the ending is a bad piece of writing, something has gone wrong with the story somewhere along the way. A story doesn't suddenly become bad at the end. The author has lost the plot and doesn't know how to recover it, so either muddles on to the end, or tacks on a conclusion that doesn't really fit, just to be done with it.

 

[D_Davis]

Like I've said before, I am usually drastically out of step with fandom, as is evident here.

 

[D_Davis]

It seems to me that if we dismiss the importance of the ending, then we fail to view the story as an artistic whole -- rather than as a series of events.

When you focus on the ending, you are missing the forest for the trees. The journey is infinitely more important than the destination.

Often times, I feel totally satisfied with a journey without even reading the end. I have very little use for endings.

Sometimes I'll just get in my car and drive, without a destination in mind. The place I end up is never as eventful or as important as trip getting there. It just happens to be the place where I've decided to stop.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

When you focus on the ending, you are missing the forest for the trees.

But surely it's the opposite? The book as a unified whole (beginning, middle, and end) is the forest. If you focus only on the parts that you like, you're looking, selectively, at some of the trees and not seeing a forest at all. Besides, I'm not talking about focusing on just one part. I'm saying that you need to look at the whole book.

The journey is infinitely more important than the destination.

The last few miles are part of the journey. If they aren't meaningful, either the book stopped too early or not soon enough.

 

[Christopher Lee]

It's personal preference why we like or dislike our endings. Why dispute it? Let's all be friends.

 

[Jake Reynolds]

As usual, Teresa is spot on in my view.

 

[Dave]

I also happen to think endings are very important. If you take someone on a journey then you need to arrive at a destination (even if it is back where you started.)

I've just been reading The Bachman Books, which for obvious reasons have slightly darker endings than King's other books. The collection includes The Long Walk, Roadwork and The Running Man. It used to include Rage aka Getting It On but King removed and let it fall out of print because of it's similarities to American school shootings.

My own take is that his ending to The Running Man is a much more acute premonition of another event that is forever etched into American history. To say more would be to spoil it but the ending does allow the protagonist some kind of hollow victory.

The ending of Roadwork is predictable after such a chronicle of a man's deteriorating mental health, but it also allows him to go out with a bang!

The ending of The Long Walk could fit the thread OP model though. It was as if he couldn't allow anyone to win. I found that disappointing. It jars with my sense of justice, even though in the real world Life is not really fair.

 

[Lilmizflashythang]

Um, I'm confused. If Stephen King is bad about almost always using depressing endings, then why bother reading him? If most of the endings are 'Life stinks' I think it's another reason to ignore the author. That and a family member likes some of his movies; I can live without it myself.