It's Wednesday, so it's Jo again. My but the weeks go by past these days.
I was thinking about endings. Of books, you know. Or other things.
In the book STUMBLING UPON HAPPINESS, by Daniel Gilbert, he addresses the fact that the end can shape the memory of an experience. We've all experienced this. A good book can be ruined for us not necessarily by a sad ending, but by an ending that feels wrong. It can be the same with a movie. He cites Schindler's List, which he says was spoiled for him by the epilogue of real people. I can think of a film called OCTOBER SKY, which I loved, which was made special for me by the tidbits at the end on the real people whose story the movie told.
Gilbert cites an experiment in which people put their hands in 57 degree water for a minute, recording how painful it is. Experiments are full of that sort of stuff, and at least the human participants are usually volunteers. Then they were asked to put their hands in the same water for 90 seconds. Without their knowledge the water was warmed a bit during the last 30 secs. Afterward, they reported that the second experience had been less painful. Their hands had been in the colder water for the same length of time, and then in water that was still cold for even longer, but the slight warming seemed to color the whole experience.
Apparently in general, we tend to remember things at the end of a sequence rather than those at the beginning. A great end of a trip makes us forget all those snarl ups at the beginning. The bitter breakdown of a marriage trumps all the earlier good times.
This is why endings are so crucial, and endings are hard to write. We want to give our story exactly the right ending, but everything about endings is complicated. When does a story end? In a romance novel it could be said to end when the couple happily commit to a future together, but to stop there feels abrupt. The reader needs more time to savor it, so she wants to read on. There may be minor details to be tidied up, which is useful, but sometimes there isn't much, but still the book needs that little bit more. Then there are epilogues, but I won't even go there. At least, not today.
The sweet romances could often end with a kiss. Georgette Heyer often did. When they hadn't kissed, it was a significant event and a sign of commitment and often did feel right. So I think it's something to do with the sexier romances. The kiss didn't signal the end. Nor did sex. There were other practical and emotional barriers to overcome, but that ending point, that "Ah, Bisto!" (mostly for the UK readers here) is much harder to pin down.
We all have our own attitudes toward the right ending. I have a problem with any romance that ends without giving the couple a stable, desirable home. No wandering souls for me, please. No couples heading off to settle the wilderness, noble though that is. No dangling threads that suggest that their community will be hostile. And enough money to be comfortable, please.
What are your requiriments for a good ending for a romance novel? For one that satisfies?
Going back to movies, one good movie that was lessened by the ending for me was SERENITY. The movie from Josh Whedon's aborted TV series, FIREFLY? BTW, he shouldn't have called it SERENITY even though it has meaning. How could the SF action/adventure crowd get into that? Perhaps we need to blog on titles. I liked Firefly to an extent. I enjoyed the movie. Lots of great lines. But he blew it at the end.
Warning, warning! Incoming spoiler!!!!!!!!!!!
He killed Wash. That wasn't the real problem. It was an out-of-the-blue and pretty meaningless death. But then he made it all worse by having the rest of the team do the happy ending thing. Hello? Someone just died, you know. Perhaps you could put off bravely facing the future and finally having sex for just a while?
Content and pacing, both off. And I doubt I'll ever watch it again. Otherwise, I probably would have.
So, anything been made or ruined by an ending? Enquiring cabbage patch kids want to know.
Jo
