Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/41278
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/41278
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

> 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.

Original score: 5