# Cliffhangers and Unfinished Series?



## Andrea Pearson (Jun 25, 2011)

Note:
For writers, I've posted the same topic in the Writer's Cafe. (See it here.)

I've seen several comments across the board about ending a book with a cliffhanger, or having to wait up to even a couple of years between books in a series. The comments have been generally negative. (Not liking cliffhangers, hating the waiting.)

Because of all this, when I saw that Wm Henry Morris posted an article concerning cliffhangers/unfinished series, it interested me. Here's the gist of what he says (to read the full article, go here):

Stop whining about cliffhangers and unfinished series, because:
1.It dampens enthusiasm (other readers, the writer, etc.) and lowers dedication to finishing the series (on both ends).
2.It shows ignorance about the writing process. Writers have to take time to make sure their series is completed well. (Andrea's note: unless they've finished all the books before putting them out.).
3.It's good for us to have to wait. Even if only a couple of days-instant gratification is all the rage now. Back in the day, books were serialized. That's a heck of a lot more waiting.
4.Fiction is a risk. It's a risk to write, to publish and to read.

Again, if you'd like to read his complete article, go here.

Do you agree with him? Are you for or against cliffhangers and/or having to wait for the next book in the series? How does it influence your decision to read the next book (if there is one)?


----------



## Seleya (Feb 25, 2011)

Starting from the bottom:

_Fiction is a risk. It's a risk to write, to publish and to read_

Yes and no, I mean, I don't see why it should apply only to fiction.

_It's good for us to have to wait. Even if only a couple of days-instant gratification is all the rage now. Back in the day, books were serialized. That's a heck of a lot more waiting._

Agree on the instant gratification thing, disagree on the 'more waiting' since in serialized works the reader knows s/he will have is or her 'fix' each week or each month, it's not like waiting years for the next instalment.

_It shows ignorance about the writing process. Writers have to take time to make sure their series is completed well. (Andrea's note: unless they've finished all the books before putting them out.)_

Again yes and no, it depends on the complaint. if one keeps blathering about such and such author needing to write 24/7 (or some such) and 'get the darn thing out' then yes. but I've read some well articulated complaints that fully took into account the writing process.

_It dampens enthusiasm (other readers, the writer, etc.) and lowers dedication to finishing the series (on both ends)_

So the disappointed reader should shut up and let the poor writer work or be responsible for dire consequences?
Sorry, I don't buy it. There is measure and there is reason in voicing one's feelings about a delayed book or an unfinished series but readers have every right of making their opinion known, just as writers have.

Some readers have big entitlement issues, true, but I also think a writer has some sort of obligation (to his/her editor at least if there is one), it may be because I share my life with an illustrator, but to me blowing deadlines, barring some serius illness or _force majeure_ is the ultimate sin for a professional.


----------



## Andrea Pearson (Jun 25, 2011)

Seleya said:


> Starting from the bottom...


All excellent points.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, the question should be answered by READERS -- if you're a writer, take off the writer hat. . . . .posts about what you do as writers will be deleted. . . .Andrea linked to a thread in the Cafe where you can discuss that side of things.


----------



## Andrea Pearson (Jun 25, 2011)

My husband and I recently read the Hunger Games together. I'd read them all at that point, and when going through them on my own, felt they ended with serious cliffhangers. My husband disagreed.  I think we differ in our opinions.  The wait between books nearly killed me, but it made me hyper aware of when book two would be released.


----------



## LaraAmber (Feb 24, 2009)

I think the complaint is

1. Book 3 comes out in April 2011 and it's announced that Book 4 will be out in December 2012, and then in July it's pushed back to June 2013, and in December now it's January 2015.  Publishers and authors should not announce release dates unless the next volume is far enough along to actually announce a publishing date.  It needs to be written and on the editors desk, not "well I did the outline, I'll start writing after the Sugar Bowl I promise".  

2. Author becomes a name and suddenly stops work on the next volume to start developing the "property" and now we have RPG games, young adult versions, video games, HBO series, etc. but not the next book!  (Jordan, Martin)

3. Author abandons series to work on other books and doesn't come back to the series for decades.  (I'm looking at you Stephen King.)

People understand illnesses, depression, and other real life events can throw off writing, which is why no one is giving Melanie Rawn grief for unfinished series.  

At the very least the author should have the series outline sketched and book two in detailed outline at time of publishing book one if they are attempting to launch a series.

I don't mind waiting a year or more to get the next installment of a series, I realize they need to stagger hardback and paperback sales before releasing the next volume.  I don't even mind when a trilogy becomes four volumes (and I do think the English language needs a word that means four volume trilogy).  I do think that for some authors they've written themselves into a corner and are procrastinating on trying to unsnarl the world they created.

People want to know "yes, I have an idea where I'm going with this" and "I won't leave you in a lurch when you've made an emotional investment in my characters and world."


----------



## Seleya (Feb 25, 2011)

About #2, most often authors aren't that directly involved in developing "the property". For instance in the "A Game of Thrones" card game GRR Marin is shown the images for the main characters and can ask for changes if needed but that's all (most of the time the answer is just 'approved').

Robert Jordan got cardiac amyloidosis, hardly his fault, and kept writing and outlining to the last so that someone else could have enough material to finish his work.



> I do think the English language needs a word that means four volume trilogy


A four-volume series is a tetralogy.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

My list, 
An incomplete book is not a cliffhanger. 
Putting the first chapter/s of the next book as the final chapter/s of the previous book is not a cliffhanger.
A book without ANY resolution whatsoever, is not a cliffhanger.

MOST people Don't really like cliffhangers. Think about it. How annoying is it when you are watching a TV show and it's 2 or even 3 parter? A story does NOT have to end in a cliffhanger just to have a second or third COMPLETE book with it.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Andrea Pearson said:


> Note:
> Stop whining about cliffhangers and unfinished series, because:
> 1.It dampens enthusiasm (other readers, the writer, etc.) and lowers dedication to finishing the series (on both ends).


Actually, I think my "whining" warns other people who might not want to read a cliffhanger. And hopefully, it kicks the author in the tush to get the whole thing finished. 


Andrea Pearson said:


> 2.It shows ignorance about the writing process. Writers have to take time to make sure their series is completed well. (Andrea's note: unless they've finished all the books before putting them out.).


I'm a READER. I care about reading, not about the "writing process". So, I want to read a finished product. It's like telling me that I should be satisified with unfrosted cupcakes, because the baker has to be sure of the icing. I'm contracting for a story, I want the whole thing.



Andrea Pearson said:


> 3.It's good for us to have to wait. Even if only a couple of days, instant gratification is all the rage now. Back in the day, books were serialized. That's a heck of a lot more waiting.


sorry, but i've been burned by never finished things, so now i want to know it's complete before starting. oh, and having someone tell me that something is good for me just irritates me. i may not have that many days to wait for your finished product.



Andrea Pearson said:


> 4.Fiction is a risk. It's a risk to write, to publish and to read.


So? All life is a risk, what does this have to do with wanting a complete product.

Going back to the "old days" comment. Things were serialized (books and movies) and people knew what they were getting going into it. There was even a TV series based on the premise. Which didn't do too well.

As BTackitt said, you don't have to end in a cliffhanger to do a series.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I read a lot of books that are series. . . .in the sense that it's many of the same characters.  There may be some ongoing back story, but each book is a complete story.

I read the first Fire and Ice book. . . .it was o.k. . . .decently written, but there were so many strands to follow -- some about people I didn't particularly care for -- that I didn't have any urge to go any farther.  Even the few threads about characters I did like weren't enough to make me want to get invested . . . especially as I knew it was an unfinished series and, best as I could tell, would likely stay that way.

I never watched soap operas either.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Andrea Pearson said:


> Stop whining about cliffhangers and unfinished series, because:
> 1.It dampens enthusiasm (other readers, the writer, etc.) and lowers dedication to finishing the series (on both ends).


It is not our job as readers to gush uncritically. If readers find cliffhangers dissatisfying, why shouldn't they express dissatisfaction? I think that each book in a series should have an ending. It doesn't have to have everything wrapped up and can _include_ a cliffhanger, but each book should be readable on its own.



> 2.It shows ignorance about the writing process. Writers have to take time to make sure their series is completed well. (Andrea's note: unless they've finished all the books before putting them out.).


A cliffhanger doesn't give any indication that a series will be completed well. And there is no guarantee that there will even be a next book. If I am reading a series and it ends on a cliffhanger and there is no next book, I feel cheated. I paid for a story. Calling readers ignorant can't to an author any good, that just makes people more inclined to read someone else's books.



> 3.It's good for us to have to wait. Even if only a couple of days-instant gratification is all the rage now. Back in the day, books were serialized. That's a heck of a lot more waiting.


Yes, books were serialized. You got the next part in the series in the next week or the next month. You didn't wait a year for the next one, crossing your fingers that it would even be published. And I will decide for myself what is good for me.



> 4.Fiction is a risk. It's a risk to write, to publish and to read.


I don't see what risk has to do with anything. I'll choose what risks I take. Those choices might leave me buying someone else's book. There are many authors to choose from.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

With the exception of the HP series, I don't read series until they are all written and released, so I can read them on my own schedule. If I forget about them before then, then I saved myself the time and money buying something I was only lukewarm on. If they are good, they'll be around.

If each book isn't able to stand alone, I don't want to bother with it. The HP series was perfect this way, in my opinion - a grand story arch across all the books, but each installment had a specific little quest that had a beginning, middle and an end. 

Though, I am not a huge fan of series, and I admit I don't go out of my way to buy/read them.


----------



## LaraAmber (Feb 24, 2009)

Seleya said:


> A four-volume series is a tetralogy.


That's a four volume series. I want a word that means a "four volume trilogy". It would only apply to series where it was meant to be a trilogy but ended up being four volumes.


----------



## theraven (Dec 30, 2009)

_1.It dampens enthusiasm (other readers, the writer, etc.) and lowers dedication to finishing the series (on both ends)._

If other readers like cliff-hangers, I don't see how someone mentioning their dislike will stop someone from reading a book containing elements that they do like. I don't like cliff-hangers, especially ones where book 1 is ended in a way to force me to buy book 2 so I can know what happens with the main plot, I no longer care and feel 'cheated' and as if sales and not the story is the main focus of the book. Dedication for finishing the series has to come from within the writer. Yes, there will be events that make it harder for time and energy to be devoted to the book, but the desire has to come from the writer wanting to write it not from readers having to only say positive things because of the fear a writer won't finish the series.

_2.It shows ignorance about the writing process. Writers have to take time to make sure their series is completed well. (Andrea's note: unless they've finished all the books before putting them out.)._

Readers read. Writers write. Readers don't have to know about the process to read a book and enjoy it. Heck, I've had my views on some clubs and organizations, and even the fun in a few hobbies, ruined once I knew about or took into consideration the 'process' when I was trying to just enjoy.

_3.It's good for us to have to wait. Even if only a couple of days-instant gratification is all the rage now. Back in the day, books were serialized. That's a heck of a lot more waiting.

When books were serialized, readers usually knew the story would be finished. I don't know if a writer is going to finish a series, or if enough people will buy the book for the publisher to continue with the series. And with a book, we're usually not talking a couple of days but months or even a year.

4.Fiction is a risk. It's a risk to write, to publish and to read.

Exactly, it's a risk. The writer is taking a risk that readers will enjoy and appreciate a cliff-hanger ending. If a writer is okay with that then write the cliff-hanger, just because a certain tecnhique is used in a book doesn't mean the reader has to enjoy it ... or be quiet about it if they don't._


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Reading involves a significant investment of time. As a reader, once I'm invested in the storyline, I'm willing to spend hours, days reading a series because I love the characters and want to see what happens to them. So I'm usually willing to wait a few years between books in a series. That said, I wish more authors regarded their multivolume works as JRR Tolkien regarded _The Lord of the Rings_. He saw it as an ongoing story that wasn't complete until the final page of the last book was written. He initially wanted to publish the whole thing as one book--his publisher is the one who split it into three volumes.

I've given up on Game of Thrones. I really enjoyed the first three books but it seems to me George RR Martin has lost interest in the story himself, and that's deadly to a series--I don't care how good a writer someone is. If the story is no longer entertaining to the writer, how can that writer expect to entertain readers?

In regards to _1.It dampens enthusiasm (other readers, the writer, etc.) and lowers dedication to finishing the series (on both ends)._

I don't get how a writer's enthusiasm for finishing a series can be dampened if the readers want more at the end of the first, second, third, etc book. I've noticed that some writers who are feeling defensive about not finishing a series resort to whining about how readers are just too demanding and just don't understand how difficult good writing is. Hogwash. If you really enjoy doing something, whether it's writing or knitting or playing water polo, you want to do it on a consistent basis. And you don't whine about how difficult it is or how people just don't understand how hard you're trying. Those are silly excuses, IMHO.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

What are we considering a cliffhanger? 

Door A) Not all of the threads of the book are tied up, and the overarching story theme is left unanswered

or

Door B) Jim Butcher's Changes


----------



## Andrea Pearson (Jun 25, 2011)

We've got some very diverse tastes on these boards! Thanks everyone, for sharing! 

As for me - I don't mind waiting in between books. As long as I know the series will be finished, I'm content. And most of the time, I only read series that are already doing well--the author won't give up half-way through.

Having been burned out before, I understand why some writers need to take time and focus on other things for a while. Just so long as they get back, I'm happy. I'll read something else.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Andrea, I once met Terry Brooks* and he said if he didn't do other things in between Shannara, he'd go postal. 


*I'm totally name dropping.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Andrea Pearson said:


> As for me - I don't mind waiting in between books. As long as I know the series will be finished, I'm content. And most of the time, I only read series that are already doing well--the author won't give up half-way through.


See, this is my issue. I have been burned before and so I no longer have faith that a series WILL be finished. So I am hesitant about spending my time on something that may never come.


----------



## Andrea Pearson (Jun 25, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Andrea, I once met Terry Brooks* and he said if he didn't do other things in between Shannara, he'd go postal.
> 
> *I'm totally name dropping.


Ha ha! Yay for name dropping.  So, the other day I was chatting with Brandon Mull and Brandon Sanderson . . . and . . .

Okay, my name dropping didn't really go anywhere.  I've met lots of small-time authors, and a few big time authors. But they're not like Terry Brooks.  And some of the authors I've met lurk these boards (*Andrea waves hi*) so I don't want to say their names. Ha ha. 



scarlet said:


> See, this is my issue. I have been burned before and so I no longer have faith that a series WILL be finished. So I am hesitant about spending my time on something that may never come.


When I say well known, I mean _really_ well known. I refused to read Harry Potter until years after the first had come out - started book one and didn't like that first chapter. It threw me and didn't catch my attention. At all. I read Percy Jackson after all but the last had come out, and it was only a month or so away from release. Mistborn - didn't start it until last year, and just finished it a month ago. Twilight is the only book I read before the rest were finished, and I read it a month after it was published, before it got big.

I guess it's how I protect myself - I don't trust a series until it's proven trustworthy.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Andrea Pearson said:


> Note:
> For writers, I've posted the same topic in the Writer's Cafe. (See it here.)
> 
> I've seen several comments across the board about ending a book with a cliffhanger, or having to wait up to even a couple of years between books in a series. The comments have been generally negative. (Not liking cliffhangers, hating the waiting.)
> ...


Heh, NO. I do not agree with him. I dont care what is good for the writer or the writing process and dont tell me what's 'good for me.' There are plenty of books I can read that accommodate my reading style...thanks.

I do take some risks, but author beware...keep me hanging unnecessarily once and go find yourself some other readers, lol.

What an ego!


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Andrea Pearson said:


> My husband and I recently read the Hunger Games together. I'd read them all at that point, and when going through them on my own, felt they ended with serious cliffhangers. My husband disagreed.  I think we differ in our opinions.  The wait between books nearly killed me, but it made me hyper aware of when book two would be released.


Interesting. I didnt feel like the first was a cliffhanger. At all. It had a reasonable conclusion.

But it was also nice to find that there was a continuing story. Just IMO.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

anne_holly said:


> With the exception of the HP series, I don't read series until they are all written and released, so I can read them on my own schedule. If I forget about them before then, then I saved myself the time and money buying something I was only lukewarm on. If they are good, they'll be around.
> 
> If each book isn't able to stand alone, I don't want to bother with it. The HP series was perfect this way, in my opinion - a grand story arch across all the books, but each installment had a specific little quest that had a beginning, middle and an end.
> 
> Though, I am not a huge fan of series, and I admit I don't go out of my way to buy/read them.


I think more along these lines. I do not like cliffhangers. But I will take on something that reaches a decent conclusion on it's own. And will also take on something where much of the series is already completed.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I don't mind cliffhangers, but I tend to wait until series are finished more often than not so I can just read through it all.


----------



## sarahsbloke (Sep 24, 2011)

After reading this thread can I just say, I find it strange so many adults are reading children's books!

IMHO every published book should work as a single book.
Series that require the previous/next book are just so lame.

As for "Game of Thrones", I felt the last published book was completely and utterly dull & worthless.

And finally (mini-rant)
I read books, I don't care about the writing process, or what an author thinks his readers should do.
I'm guessing only amateur authors would have such feelings, professional authors would just think "thanks for buying my book, buy more"
One of todays problems is that anyone can write a piece of trash, publish themselves, and claim to be an author.
Real authors have contracts from publishers and get paid advances for their work.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

The wait between books doesn't bother me - if each book is complete. The anticipation often makes it more fun.

Sometimes, of course, the promised next book is a disappointment. In particular, after reading _The Clan of the Cave Bear_, I recall waiting and watching for Jean Auel's next book in her Earth's Children series. Fortunately, the later books didn't diminish the first. I re-read _The Clan of the Cave Bear_ recently and enjoyed it all over again.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

sarahsbloke said:


> Real authors have contracts from publishers and get paid advances for their work.


This is an oversimplification. I've read, over the last 3½ years since I got my first Kindle, a LOT of books by authors whose work was rejected by big publishing houses. Some of it has been only o.k., and, honestly, some was pure crap. I found myself thinking, "gee, I hope this person didn't quite their day job."

But some of it has been quite good and, in my opinion, the houses that rejected them made a mistake. I think it's not fair to say that an author who doesn't have a 'contract from a publisher' or get 'paid an advance' is not a 'real author'.

Be that as it may: the discussion here is meant to be about whether a person does or doesn't like 'cliffhanger' endings . . . from a _reader's_ point of view. 



Jeff said:


> The wait between books doesn't bother me - if each book is complete. The anticipation often makes it more fun.


I agree. . .with the Harry Potter Series, I didn't actually start reading them until at least the 3rd book was already out. I found them to be good stories -- not 'cliffhangers' but you knew there were questions still to be answered. There wasn't any doubt that she'd finish the series -- and she'd already said there was a defined END -- so the debate and discussion about things like "Who is the Half-Blood Prince?", "Who is RB?", "Whose side is Snape on?" made the waiting quite fun.

OTOH, with the Fire and Ice series. . . . .there was so much left hanging at the end of the first book, which I read just last year to see what all the excitement was about . . . .and no real guarantee that the story would ever end. . . .that I just decided I wasn't going to invest any more time.


----------



## deckard (Jan 13, 2011)

sarahsbloke said:


> And finally (mini-rant)...
> Real authors have contracts from publishers and get paid advances for their work.


I have to disagree with this. With this statement you are discounting independent authors. Maybe not authors in the traditional sense but authors---and published authors---none the less. Some quite popular and would like more people to buy their books.

If a person writes a book then submits it to a publisher, who then decides it is "worthy" of publication, does that make the person an real author only after the publishing house decides to publish the book?

Consider this situation. An independent author becomes popular and has a number of books that have sold well and catches the eye of a publishing house who then offers to put the person under a contract. Were they not a "real author" before they received a contract from the publishing house?

</my rant>

Deckard


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Ann in Arlington said:


> This is an oversimplification. I've read, over the last 3½ years since I got my first Kindle, a LOT of books by authors whose work was rejected by big publishing houses. Some of it has been only o.k., and, honestly, some was pure crap. I found myself thinking, "gee, I hope this person didn't quite their day job."


And, in the course of my reading life, I've read a LOT of books by authors whose works was accepted by big publishing houses. Some of it has been only o.k., and, honestly, some was pure crap (IMO). I found myself thinking, "gee, this person got accepted by [insert publishing house here]."

Granted the good:crap ratio might be different, but crap happens.... 

For me, I like series but dislike cliffhangers. (And I don't see them the same. In the Venn diagram, Cliffhangers circle is inside the Series circle.) There was one popular series (one of Amanda Hockings? can't remember) that ended with a cliff hanger each time. I couldn't be bothered. What I hate about them is that the author is requiring you to buy the next book to find out what happened to the character you've invested so much time in already. Don't blackmail me into buying your next book.

My .02 worth.

Betsy


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

sarahsbloke said:


> One of todays problems is that anyone can write a piece of trash, publish themselves, and claim to be an author.
> Real authors have contracts from publishers and get paid advances for their work.


Interestingly enough, the one time I got burned by an author not finishing something was from a "real author" (by your definition of real).


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> And, in the course of my reading life, I've read a LOT of books by authors whose works was accepted by big publishing houses. Some of it has been only o.k., and, honestly, some was pure crap (IMO). I found myself thinking, "gee, this person got accepted by [insert publishing house here]."
> 
> Granted the good:crap ratio might be different, but crap happens....


Good Point! I've read a few of those too! 



> For me, I like series but dislike cliffhangers. (And I don't see them the same. In the Venn diagram, Cliffhangers circle is inside the Series circle.) There was one popular series (one of Amanda Hockings? can't remember) that ended with a cliff hanger each time. I couldn't be bothered. What I hate about them is that the author is requiring you to buy the next book to find out what happened to the character you've invested so much time in already. Don't blackmail me into buying your next book.
> 
> My .02 worth.
> 
> Betsy


Agreed. . . . I don't mind some carry over back story. . .but I want each book to come to an end about most things. Many of the series I read are that way -- same characters, but there's not this "oh my gosh what happens next" at the end of every book. The specific main issues are resolved. . . . life goes on and subsequent volumes may refer back, but you could, if you wanted, read later books without having read earlier books and not have missed anything critical to the plot development. Though I know that for some people even the thought of reading out of order gives them hives!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Ann in Arlington said:


> The specific main issues are resolved. . . . life goes on and subsequent volumes may refer back, but you could, if you wanted, read later books without having read earlier books and not have missed anything critical to the plot development. Though I know that for some people even the thought of reading out of order gives them hives!


Exactly. Will these two people's relationship evolve? Will they become a couple? Not "will this person survive the attack by the slavering werewolf that has her in its grasp."

The first works for me, not the second. The Hunger Games trilogy worked as, although there was the overarching story of whether the regime would be overthrown, the stories themselves were pretty complete. Which leads me to think of them as "episodic."

Betsy


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

When I was a boy there was no television but there was radio, and every night there was an endless string of serials, and every episode ended with a cliffhanger.

One of my favorites was _Jack Armstrong, The All American Boy_. One evening, as the program came to an end, Jack Armstrong fell into a tiger pit. After it was over I tried to think of a way out for poor Jack. I couldn't. And neither could the writers. The next episode began with "When Jack got out of the pit..."


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Jeff said:


> When I was a boy there was no television but there was radio, and every night there was an endless string of serials, and every episode ended with a cliffhanger.
> 
> One of my favorites was _Jack Armstrong, The All American Boy_. One evening, as the program came to an end, Jack Armstrong fell into a tiger pit. After it was over I tried to think of a way out for poor Jack. I couldn't. And neither could the writers. The next episode began with "When Jack got out of the pit..."


LOL!

In the first Stargate series, there's a weapon called a "Zat" gun. . . a shot from it stuns you kind of like a taser. Later on in the series, we learned that a second shot within a short amount of time, will kill you. O.K. Good to know. Several seasons in, they needed to make a body essentially disappear as it would have alerted the enemies that there were spies in their midst. So the writers thought, "well, what if a _third_ shot" disintegrates the body. Never mind that up until then logic kind of applied. Anyway, they went with that, and in subsequent episodes realized they had to be really careful with who got shot with a Zat gun so that they didn't inadvertently disintegrate one of their main characters!


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

LOL I remember those. Ramar of the Jungle re-runs on TV, ER Burroughs novels, etc. Sometimes they would write themselves into such a corner a ten year old would end up laughing at the escape.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> What I hate about them is that the author is requiring you to buy the next book to find out what happened to the character you've invested so much time in already. Don't blackmail me into buying your next book.


Agreed. I remember being infuriated by the absolutely pointless cliffhanger in a Lee Child book several years ago. And the lame explanation of the escape the next book that took up only a few sentences.

I haven't bought one of his books since then.

And don't get me started on Dean Koontz. I was waiting on the third Moonlight Bay novel for 12 years, then gave up. I used to buy all his books, now I don't bother, so in my case there is some backlash involved.

Mike


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

sarahsbloke said:


> After reading this thread can I just say, I find it strange so many adults are reading children's books!


That occurs to me often as well, however I didnt know The Hunger Games was a YA book when I read it and didnt find it to be written to a kid's level (or kid-theme-related). The dystopian world was very well fleshed out and that is the reason I read post-apoc. fiction anyway. The violence and concepts were not YA at all IMO and only the sexual references were minimized.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I don't agree with the notion that all books should stand on their own.  I love series where one story keeps going personally, as you get longer and more involved stories that way.  

That said, super cliffhangers aren't needed to do that.  The main plot can be unresolved without having some major cliffhanger at the end of a book involving things like whether a main character survived something or not etc.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

I don't find it odd to read "children's books." A good book is a good book, and I'd be an *ss to disregard something because I felt "above" the target audience. _Yertle the Turtle_ is a classic, and Seuss managed it in just a few spare lines. That's art. The Harry Potter series is wonderful, no matter what your age. I can name a dozen "mature books" without half the detail, intelligence and charm.

I hope my soul never withers to the point where I'm too "sophisticated" to read widely and freely.

On the subject of cliffhangers - I simply can't handle a book without some conclusion. Otherwise, it feels like the writer/pub is trying to scam readers by splitting one long novel into pieces for extra cover charge.


----------



## Sean Patrick Fox (Dec 3, 2011)

I don't like massive cliffhangers at the end of books, such as what George R.R. Martin did with Dance of Dragons (I won't say anymore so as not to spoil it). That I find kind of annoying, but overall it doesn't bother me too much. As far as having to wait for the next book in a series, I have a love/hate relationship.

I hate it because I want to watch the story unfold and the characters develop, but I love it because I don't consume the book(s) all at once. Nothing is better than reading a great book for the first time, and as many times as you may read it, it's never as good as the first time.


----------



## Andrea Pearson (Jun 25, 2011)

Sean Patrick Fox said:


> I don't like massive cliffhangers at the end of books, such as what George R.R. Martin did with Dance of Dragons (I won't say anymore so as not to spoil it). That I find kind of annoying, but overall it doesn't bother me too much. As far as having to wait for the next book in a series, I have a love/hate relationship.
> 
> I hate it because I want to watch the story unfold and the characters develop, but I love it because I don't consume the book(s) all at once. Nothing is better than reading a great book for the first time, and as many times as you may read it, it's never as good as the first time.


I have to say I really agree with this. Sometimes it's disappointing to find out a book I dearly loved, but hadn't read for a few years, wasn't as good as I remembered it to be. On the other hand, sometimes they're better than I remember them to be. 

I agree with the sentiments about Harry Potter - it doesn't matter your age. I've met people in every situation who've absolutely loved it.


----------



## Darlene Jones (Nov 1, 2011)

I think Mr. Morris is pretty much spot on. Don't publish a cliff hanger unless you have the end to the story in a trilogy or series and it really doesn't hurt us to have to wait (as long as it's not too long of a wait).


----------

