How to end a story without reaching a new status quo?

A popular writing theory states that any story worth telling describes the movement from one status quo to another, and that major uncertainties in the inception and conclusion should be avoided.

Uncertainties "should" be avoided because as human beings we long for a satisfying conclusion. Up to a point, we expect to be told if the main character gets to live happily ever after. But that, per se, doesn't make the story more worth telling. It makes it easier for us reading it.

So, back to our question, other users already mentioned formats (like slice of life fiction) where a new status quo is not necessarily required.

Another example of this may be thrillers, when they are episodic in nature. We may have a detective dealing with a particular killer in the course of the book. When the book ends, you may say that the status quo is re-established when the killer gets caught. But this isn't always a new status quo: it's just a problem that gets solved in the arc of the novel.

Take for instance Jo Nesbø's character Harry Hole. When he solves the case, he's still pretty much the same Harry Hole that we had at the start. He will be more scarred, sure, he may have solved some of his personal issues and opened new ones, but he'll still be the character we know in the next book. At large, the setting will be the same as well: colleagues, general worldbuilding, and so on.

Lastly there are books that deal specifically with this. In King's The Dark Tower series, at the end of the seventh book, we discover that

literaly nothing changes. The main character is stuck in a loop, and goes back to the start of book one with only a minor item under his belt that may (or may not) help him in the next iteration.

King himself breaks the fourth wall in the book and discourages the reader from reading the true ending in more than a paragraph. He is aware that it will be not satisfactory for most readers, and it does leave a bitter aftertaste, but it's a pretty relevant example for our discussion, since "The Dark Tower" had huge success and it's widely considered King's magnum opus.

Notice that, while no new status quo is estabilished, the whole story remains worthwhile. Roland's struggles are still interesting to read, even if his journey is somewhat doomed from the start.

I think that Murakami's books can be an example of this, also. While he does provide endings to his stories, it's often unclear what happens to his main characters, and I'd say that most questions remain unanswered.

A clear example of this is Kafka on the shore, whose ending is almost completely open to interpretation, and a similar case could be made for Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World. Leaving things open to interpretation means that there is no clear-cut on what happened. It can be frustrating, of course, but it can be done; and maybe one of the main virtues of those books is not forcing an happy ending where there ought not to be one.

So, to sum up:

As readers and humans, we enjoy the feeling of closure. But that is not a sufficient, nor necessary condition to tell a good story.

Stories with a clear path from condition A to condition B are indeed common, but this doesn't mean that they are the only stories that can be told.

I imagine that the popular writing theory that you refer to says that as an over generalization to help aspiring writers. It's easier to stick to the basic plot of well-known structures (think about the three-act structure or the Hero's Journey), that are also well-known to the audience too. In general, giving closure (and a new status quo in some genres) is much more likely to make a story feel more complete, more satisfying.

But - as writers - we need to remember that, even if it may be more difficult, we are allowed to leave questions opened, and characters unfinished, to prove a point or evoke certain feelings in the audience.

posted almost 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Liquid‭

770 reputation 44 140 116 3

Slice of life describes the depiction of mundane experiences in art and entertainment. In theater it refers to naturalism, while in literary parlance it is a narrative technique in which a seemingly arbitrary sequence of events in a character's life is presented, often lacking plot development, conflict and exposition, and often having an open ending. (ref)

Slice of Life is an old genre (despite the popularity of the term now in anime/manga) but is one way to do as you suggest.

Many other novels use other methods to avoid tying up their loose ends. Sometimes the primary plot point is resolved, but not always.

posted almost 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Cyn‭

1130 reputation 25 439 215 0

Any story that has an open-ended ending essentially does this. Star Wars is a great example. At the end of the first movie, most of the personal plotpoints are fairly well wrapped up, but some are left to sequels. Yes, the rebels won this battle, but what about the rest of the war? What happened to Luke's parents? What will Darth Vader be up to? Clearly, Star Wars; Episode 4: A New Hope does not end with a new status quo.

Lord of the Rings does something similar. Yes, the Ring gets destroyed, Sauron gets defeated, but Middle Earth still has a lot of problems. The Entwives are still missing, orcs still exist and still hate everything, Melkor is still out there somewhere trying to corrupt things, and the elves are still fading away. Again, not a status quo.

So basically, the key is to not wrap up every plot thread. Just wrap up a handful of major plot threads.

posted almost 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Ryan_L‭

40 reputation 0 6 8 0

The mold you want to break away from has - in my point of view - two distinct but collaborating aspects:

A. A change in Status Quo and
B. Avoiding Uncertainties at start and finish

Now I like to apply mathematical logic to most things and if that theory states that a story worth telling consists of both (say: A AND B), breaking away from this mold means telling a story worth telling that does not apply to this rule.
This means any story that is not an "A AND B"-story that is worth telling would break away from this mold.

"Not(A AND B)" is actually a logical expression which resolves to "Not A OR Not B", so logic tells us that breaking the mold means having one of two things:

1. No movement from one status quo to another
2. Major uncertainties in the inception and conclusion of the story

1. Status Quo

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines status quo as the existing state of affairs.

Now that is a definition that can be interpreted in a very broad manner. I think it means the state of things as they are at a certain moment of time.
If we now consider two moments of time: The start and the end of a given story we see that we cannot escape moving from one status quo to another unless nothing happens or the story loops.

Now I think we can agree on the first of these two options being rather boring but we actually see the second one happening, e.g. in stories about time travel. The stories end where they started and even though it seems that nothing has happened, the stories are worth telling. They stimulate discussion and thought towards the subject.

2. Uncertainties

There is some ways to do this. Most popular ways are the "slice of life" story or the "cliffhanger" (there's not always a sequel)

• the "slice of life"-approach tells only some of the story of a given set of protagonists leaving an open beginning and an open end. The reader is abruptly thrown into their world and sometimes sucked out of it as abruptly. Still, since the stories mostly focus around one major plot point, they often are worth telling.
• "cliffhangers" leave the reader with an open ending ... everyone can finish the story for himself and the author has no intention of tying up loose ends

Conclusion

In conclusion I think it is possible to break away from this mold but it could prove hard to be successful going this way. Open ends, infinite loops or the feeling of being tossed into a story sometimes give an impression that the author did not know what he/she was doing, even though it might be intended.

posted almost 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

kleinsinus‭

5 reputation 0 1 1 0

Breaking a particular formula just for the sake of braking a particular formula seems pretty self-obsessed to me.

If you have a story, tell it.

posted almost 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Peter Woolley‭

15 reputation 0 3 3 0

Many books follow a hero that does not really change; consider detective novels going back to Sherlock Holmes.

What is essential for a story to be entertaining is that the book is spent on a hero solving a difficult problem; but doing this does not have to upset the status quo, or change the hero, or change the world at all.

In the course of the story, Sherlock begins in his study, gets a visitor, finds the killer and then returns to his study, and the case never needs to be mentioned again.

And that's true for all the other investigators, mystery solvers, secret-agent stories and most "exploration" stories, like Star Trek. For modern series there is usually some long-running arcs for characters, but not always. Many follow the model of Captain Kirk and his buddies encountering something new, getting into trouble, getting out of trouble by wits and derring do, and then laughing about it on the bridge as they move on to the next adventure: Status quo undisturbed.

You don't have to create a new status quo at all.

As for wrapping up uncertainties; you cannot leave plot uncertainties unresolved; but others you can. By plot uncertainties I mean events or decisions that the plot turns on. If Mary gets a mystery note that makes her visit the brewery and that is where she sees a murder, or that is where she sees something new that lets her solve the crime, then you must explain where the mystery note came from. Otherwise you have a deus ex machina; a too lucky coincidence in the reader's mind, and that is not a satisfying story. Because protagonists are not supposed to crack the case by luck or coincidence, they are supposed to use their wits and skills.

That said, if one of the complications in the story is Mary dealing with a chatty new neighbor, as long as the new neighbor doesn't have anything to do with her case, we don't have to explain why she has a new neighbor; that is just something that can happen to all of us. And although many writers might be tempted to solve the new neighbor problem by the end of the book, it could equally be left unsolved to provide for a humorous ending.

posted almost 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Amadeus‭

3156 reputation 2 1399 613 37