« a penny from Cheryll: authors, editors, commas & such | Main | Cheryll's second penny »
Rule 3: Conflicts and the Happy Ending
The other things first: note that Cheryll dropped by yesterday and has some interesting things to say. My personal favorite:
the style and preference of the author must be respected. It is the editor's job to make the author's life easier. It is most definitely not the author's responsibility to make the editor's life easier.
This reminds me of something else. Once you get to the stage of pre-publication -- which means that you've bested the odds by finding an agent and selling your novel -- you have a distinct but seldom mentioned advantage. The publishing house is a business, looking to make a profit. If they could do that without authors -- without you -- they would. It would certainly increase their profit margins. But they can't do without good authors who have stories to tell. That's you. Everybody at that publishing house has a job that depends on you and people like you. So it's in their best interest to support you, and it's in your best interest to let them do their jobs.
end of homily
So the next of the seven rules:
Rule 3A satisfying story will set up various conflicts, some large, some small, and then step by step it will move toward resolution, but resolution doesn't necessarily mean making every character happy and fixing everything that's wrong. Resolution can mean disaster, disappointment, resignation. It can mean that the bad guy gets what he wants and the good guy gets killed, though to pull that off successfully you have to have other things going on as well.Resolving Conflict does not (necessarily) mean a Happy Ending
Not every question raised has to be answered. In fact, I personally prefer stories that leave me to figure some things out for myself. Joyce Carol Oates' short story "Where are you going, where have you been?" is a classic specifically because it doesn't answer questions, and leaves the reader in a state of uncertainty. It would have been a far less powerful story if it had ended with a one paragraph police report that tells us exactly what happened to Connie.
Finally, let's say this straight out: there is nothing wrong with a happy resolution. I am a huge fan of Jane Austen, and Jane Austen wrote happily ever after stories. In this day and age the literati tend to sneer at anything that doesn't fall within the culture of ugly, but that's a fad like any other, and it will, eventually, pass (and then, eventually, come back again). One of my favorite all time novels, A.S. Byatt's Possession, plays it both ways, and beautifully. There are two sets of major characters -- one in the Victorian era, one in the present day. For one of these sets of characters the endings are melancholy, even tragic; for the other, the resolutions are decidedly optimistic, even happy.
The story is done when you've resolved major conflicts while (1) staying true to the characters; and (2) leaving something for the reader to do.
I'll end this rule with a widely-told writer's joke.
Aspiring author comes into a publisher's office. He's carrying a huge manuscript wrapped in brown paper and tied with string. He staggers up the stairs and into the publisher's office and drops it to the floor with a thud.The guy says, "Mr. Publisher, how long is your average novel?"
The publisher considers. "I'd say around 100,000 words."
"Oh good," says the guy. "I'm finished."
October 17, 2005 08:57 AM