Urban Fantasy discussion

I know that cliffhanger endings for me are very much a "hot button" for personal reasons. I grew up in a rural area where I only got to the Saturday matinee moves occasionally and the serials always shown then were never 'continued' for me ... I never got to see the beginning or the end of anything and it was annoying.

Add to that the fact that the first sci-fi/fantasy serial I started was originally, I think, supposed to be just one book. It had an 'ending' although 8 years later the author took up the threads and wrote a sequel which had a cliffhanger ending. He died 25 years later, never having finished the series and I'm still annoyed!

I ended up irritated with cliffhanger endings again, just now, having read a free novella, liked it very well and immediately bought the first full length book in the series. Not as good, slower, but characters were still good ... until the ending ... which wasn't an ending at all but a cliffhanger. Nope, sorry, not going there again.

So, rant over ... how about other readers? Do you tolerate or hate cliffhanger endings?

I hate them. No if, ands, or buts.

However, I don't mind series where each story is complete in itself.

My sis gets mad with cliffhangers and has refused to read those going beyond book 3.

It doesn't matter to me. If it's a good cliffhanger, I'm hooked; a bad cliffhanger, I stop.

They typically drive me insane - there are a few exceptions BUT I usually won't read a series that has a reputation for cliffhangers. If the series has truly great reviews - despite the cliffhangers - then I wait and read them after there are 3 or more published at a time.

Cliffhangers are definitely a pet peeve!

I ended my first book with a cliffhanger, solely because I'd spent six years writing it. I saw a point where I could end the story and get it out. If I hadn't I'd still be writing it.

If I'd had more confidence in myself I would have tried to wrap it up more conclusively. This is still very much a learning game, and hopefully I'm improving with each new release.

Neil wrote: "I ended my first book with a cliffhanger, solely because I'd spent six years writing it. I saw a point where I could end the story and get it out. If I hadn't I'd still be writing it.
"

You know, I hadn't thought about this from a writer's point of view and I guess I can see where that could happen.

I will admit I do read some *continuing* series but I very rarely start a series by a 'new to me' author that isn't completed. I still cannot deal with the ones that seem to never have a final ending and the individual books keep ending with a cliffhanger. I know that first author that never bothered to finish his trilogy did me a lot of damage! :)

Most of the books I read are part of a longer running series. With that in mind, I don't mind the occasional cliffhanger ending but if every book ends that way it starts to become bothersome. I prefer each book to tie off the immediate issues of that book though leaving the longer arc stuff still unresolved is fine.

I also hate them. You can make a series of books where the main storyline of that specific novel is wrapped up, while having other things readers want to read on about in the next books. You can do this without cheesy cliffhangers that everyone hates.

Take Ilona Andrews Kate Daniel series and Kim Harrison's The Hollows series. Both will have a plot for that book that is wrapped up satisfactorily by the time the book is done, with a good wrap-up, but there is always a major storyline floating around that makes you want to read the next book.

I wish TV shows didnt do cut off season finales as well. It's just mean. I stay interested in a TV show with small arcs in the season finale, I get annoyed if it's a huge finale I can't stand waiting a year to see progress.

I follow several detective/mystery series. They seem to work well with an ongoing cast of characters but a new mystery for each book. A bit more difficult with the sci-fi/fantasy, though military sci-fi works well with wars/battles and a couple of my fantasy series have worked storylines with mystery/investigation threads. That works better for me, with a wrapped-up storyline than the "stop just as the horns blow for the final battle" endings.

It depends, for me. I think that the first book in a series should be self-contained, because there's no guarantee that enough people will read it and enjoy it to warrant a second book. Look at Harry Potter and Star Wars. They both ended on a note that could have led into more books/movies (and they did), but could also be a satisfying ending itself. If you get a second book, make that one self-contained too, because it's still iffy as to whether you'll get a third book. By the third book, if you're still going strong, you can end it with a cliffhanger because if your readers were willing to follow you through three books, chances are they'll keep following you so a cliffhanger would actually help dray them into book 4. Just don't end the series with a cliffhanger- that's a big no no. The actual ending should not only wrap up the book, but the entire story you've been telling.

Adam wrote: "It depends, for me. I think that the first book in a series should be self-contained, because there's no guarantee that enough people will read it and enjoy it to warrant a second book. Look at H..."

This is an excellent point I hadn't considered before.

Just say No.

No, no, no a thousand times no...

I'm not keen on them. I still remember my first -- one of David Eddings' Pawn of Prophecy series, where the characters were literally falling off a cliff as the book ended. It was so blatant! Having to wait a year or more to find out what happened really cheesed me off.

And of course, as someone said up-thread, sometimes the series gets cancelled and there never is a next book. Very frustrating. If I know there are going to be cliffhangers I'll wait till the series is done before I start reading.

Opinion only but no no no. I detest cliffhangers I've read then where they have really worked and were they haven't and still hated them.
Again just personal opinion.

I don't mind a cliffhanger. I think they help keep people interested in a book series. There's always the option to write/read fan fiction or find another book series to keep someone occupied while you wait for the next book. Plus I find it fun to speculate about what may happen next.

I agree with Marina.

If a series is unfinished, and I read somewhere that the released book(s) end(s) on a cliffhanger, I probably won't pick up that series until it's done.

I don't mind cliffhangers if the series is complete or the author writes quickly. It isn't much of a cliffhanger because I just go onto the next book. I absolutely hate it when authors end on a cliffhanger then take 3 years to get the next book out. I lose interest in the ending, the characters and I get "over it" pretty quickly.

I think cliffhangers are overused as a plot element and can sometimes disguise poor writing or an inability to wrap up a story in a timely and comprehensive way.

I don't mind cliffhanger endings if the next book is already available, however I have decided that I am going to avoid any series that is not finished yet, or where at least most of the books are out. I loved the first toe books The Daughter of Smoke and Bone Trilogy. I just started the third Dreams of Gods & Monsters but because it's been almost two years since I read Days of Blood & Starlight, I've forgotten so much!

I feel very strongly that full novels need full stories. They are just unsatisfying to me if not. It's okay to tease out little subplots or hint at future problems, but the main story arc needs to complete.

Domino wrote: "I feel very strongly that full novels need full stories. They are just unsatisfying to me if not. It's okay to tease out little subplots or hint at future problems, but the main story arc needs to ..."

Agree 100%. I prefer series where each book has a standalone plot of its own, but also links back to the main arc. Series books that end on cliff hangers frustrate me, especially when I know that the next instalment is going to be a year or more away! It seems unnecessarily cruel on the part of the writers... damn sadists. ;)

Also don't like cliffhangers,the main plot thread must reach a conclusion.

Domino wrote: "I feel very strongly that full novels need full stories. They are just unsatisfying to me if not. It's okay to tease out little subplots or hint at future problems, but the main story arc needs to ..."

This states my feelings perfectly. :)

I hate cliffhangers and usually will not read any more of that authors stories if they leave it on a huge cliffhanger. I really get annoyed if they don't at least warn you that the story ends on a cliffhanger. I think we have a right to know if the story ends on a cliffhanger.

The only exception I have with cliffhangers, is if I really enjoy the authors writing, and they only do it on occasion.

Nick wrote: "Domino wrote: "I feel very strongly that full novels need full stories. They are just unsatisfying to me if not. It's okay to tease out little subplots or hint at future problems, but the main stor..."

yup, all of that right there: tell me a complete story, and make the book good enough that i WANT to come back to this amazing world and these amazing people, not that i HAVE to just to find out the rest of the story. not only is any long wait annoying, but i find cliffhangers manipulative, as though the author doesn't trust me enough to come back of my own volition.

I hate cliff hangers. If the next book doesn't come out for a year or more, I may lose track of the details of the story by then. If I have bought the book, then I feel like I just paid full price for half a book.

I'm okay with cliff hangers within the series, but the final book better be wrapped up nice and neat, in a decisive, well-defined, unambiguous way. I can't stand it when an ending is implied rather than stated. I have spent days of my life reading the author's thoughts, opinions, interpretations and conclusions and want them to conclude in the same manner not decide to switch genres in the last 3 chapters and turn it into a "choose your own adventure/ending" kind of book.

Stupid Inception!

^^^^ What she said :)

What I really think of cliff-hanger endings is...



...TUNE IN NEXT WEEK TO FIND OUT

But, Nick! It's been more than a week! WHERE IS MY SEQUEL???

I hate cliffhangers. I've read so many series where I had to wait a year for the next book. But Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series was the worst. He had the audacity to die before he finished.

It's okay when each book has a logical ending, but cliffies? NO!

In my own series, I published the last book, then put it together as a bundle so people can buy the whole thing at once.

BR - you are an awesome person and author ( even though I've never read your stuff). You have no idea how many of my angry mutters and rants have been inspired by Robert Jordan and his death and the 20 years (and multiple rereads) I spent waiting for him to finish that series.

As an aside, I personally LOVE when a series is in one "cover".

I tend to not like them, but it depends on how they leave me hanging.

I can't imagine why anyone would like cliffhangers... They just kill me, especially when you have to wait a year or more for the next book to be published. This doesn't mean that no continuing plot threads are left unresolved, that's what you get when reading a series. But don't leave a character on death's doorstep, missing, etc., it's just cruel. :( I definitely prefer the specific plotline of the individual book to be neatly resolved.

I like cliffhangers but not in the typical fashion, as in a two-part story. I want one story "arc" finished and then in the final chapter or epilogue a tease or introduction of what is the next story. A little soap operatic but my machismo can take it.

Domino wrote: "I feel very strongly that full novels need full stories. They are just unsatisfying to me if not. It's okay to tease out little subplots or hint at future problems, but the main story arc needs to ..."

Definitely hit the nail on the head. I don't mind an over arc but the main plot and characters need a conclusion or its a half book. I actually have started a Cliffhangers_I_hate_this shelf after a particularly unsatisfying cliffhanger.

I will not read on in a series if the first book is a cliff unless it was excellent and the next books (ending) is out. I think Dreams of Gods & Monsters really broke me as the ending, in the end, was not worth the two books ahead of it. I think it bad writing or bad plot, trying to hook the reader. It just turns me off of the writer.

How about the mini series that authors are now putting out in installments like Meljean Brooks Iron Seas The Kraken King It was put out in bits and pieces, argh... 12! Well in the end she put it together into one book. They don't interest me at all. I want a finished story. I want to feel satisfied at the end.

At least with the mini series you know what you're getting. Having to wait a year after reading an entire novel is not awesome. I don't like this recent trend in movies, either (The Hunger Games Part 3 (Part 1), or The Hobbit Part 4). I'd rather wait until all the movies are on Netflix and watch them there.

It depends on the type of cliffhanger. I agree with those who've said full novels should have a complete story, but I'm also fine with smaller cliffhangers that relate to the longer arc of the series. A good example would be Paul Cornell's Shadow Police series, if anyone else has read it. He wraps up the main plot, but then takes a minor plot point and expands on that and leaves that as the hook to read the next book.

I don't mind them as long as I have the next book in front of me.

Complete story is important. After all, the author (implicitly) promised to tell us a story, and if the story doesn't get told in one volume, he needs to finish it.

There are, however, considerations of salability. And technology. The Lord of the Rings could not have sold as a single volume originally, binding technology couldn't work with a book that thick then.

I don't mind if the books in a series end in cliff hangers as long as the last book has an actual ending. The only problem in that case is if the next book hasn't been written yet, I work myself up so much after I finish that a year later when the next book comes out, I sort of forget and don't care as much anymore.

Works for Star Wars.

But even though I love cliff hangers, it's nice to have at least the majority of the story tied up nice and neatly, even if a thread is left dangling to tantalize us about the future, such as many horror films successfully do.

Myself, I usually don't do cliffhangers except for chapters of my works.

The problem with me is that almost every book or series has some kind of loose end to them like what happens with their relationship or what happens with that and this. But I love series and sequels they are just great if I had a choice I would read a book that never ends that just keep going.

Penumbra wrote: "I hate them. No if, ands, or buts.

However, I don't mind series where each story is complete in itself."

I totally agree, 100%..... I D-E-T-E-S-T cliffhangers, but enjoy series where each book is a stand-alone.

In general I don't care for them but there are series I am willing to continue for awhile. I usually wait till many books are out in a series so I can read them all at once because I can't stand waiting for the next book. But if a series ends that way & no more books are planned it will drive me nuts!

I feel like if you leave a cliffhanger, you have a moral duty to finish what you started. I don't care if you lose your publishing deal and your writing hand, you owe us! ;-)

I also feel that cliffhangers are sort of cheap, sometimes. They can fabricate interest through unresolved tension. I'm not opposed to them, but using them instead of having a satisfying, logical ending is a cop out in my book. (Sorry, fellow authors, I know, the Struggle is real!)

If, however, they make sense within the story AND the author has the moral fiber to release us from that Hell in short order? You can put that book right here, and I will devour all of it, and also the next one.

Wow!

Almost every good thing I read these days is a cliff hanger. The Dresden series never totally resolves any issue in just one book. The Rot and Ruin series always leaves you gasping for breath. I remember the old Margaret Weisman series, hope I'm spelling that right, about dragons was always leading to the next one. I bought them all.

I've been testing the cliffhanger in my own Sherlock series and it seems to work, but short stories come out quicker, so that probably helps keep the reader on their toes until the next one.

I read a ton o books that end in cliffhangers, and I always go back for more.

The series Pendergast series by Preston and Child is to die for. In case you haven't sampled it, Pendergast is a Sherlock Holmes type of genius detective who happens to get involved in crimes that are quite strong in Urban Fantasy. He shelters a woman, who just might be a vampire and who's hundreds of years old. Great read.

So I feel there's plenty of room for cliffhangers, as a method to hook in readers and keep them coming, but also because it's exciting and fun like the old Columbia serials of the thirties and forties.

There's a difference between continuing plot threads and a cliffhanger. If Pauline is not hanging by her fingernails from the cliff, if she succeeded in escaping with the MacGuffin, it's not a cliff-hanger even if there will be many other adventures before she gets the MacGuffin to safety.

NO not the main plot line at least.

If the main plot line doesn't end, I call it a cliffhanger. If there are overarching plot lines to the series that will be continued, it is not so bad. I want the main thing they were doing to be wrapped up, though an over arch that is on going is fine. Sometimes there are several small plot lines going on at once. If I don't get some conclusion from your book, I'm not going to like it. "Hanging by your fingernails" is the extreme of cliffhangers. I want my books to have a conclusion, at least for most of it. Some unanswered questions, OK, not the main ones.

I have a shelf called "cliffhanger-hate-this" for those I think that left too many things, or the main idea in total flux. I almost always dock a star from my rating and frequently I do NOT read on. I feel I've read less than 1/2 a story and feel cheated so just drop it. If I know a trilogy is has cliffhangers at each end, I won't read the series until it is complete. I want a complete read, a complete story. That is me. I notice others are not so picky.

In Dresden, (I've only read the first 5 or 6), the main problem is resolved in each book. There may be question about how this will affect him or the others, but the main story lines (at least up to the point I've read), have a wrap up. I haven't put them under my Cliffhanger shelf... yet

My general approach: Write each book as if it will be the last in a series. A few dangling mysteries are fine, so long as the story itself comes to a satisfying conclusion---but unless you have a stone cold contracted "Ready for ARCs" lock on the next book, a cliffhanger at the end is a giant no-no.

Leave just enough unsaid/unexplored that you can come back to it if you so decide, but end the book with a satisfying conclusion so the reader doesn't feel cheated or, worse yet, angry.