The collected musings of Ryan Elder

Fuck an ending. Add another ten thousand pages and ten more books.

Joking.

I say try writing it out with all the endings you can come up with. Compare and contrast and pick the one that feels right. If you're doing another book after it, consider how it will effect your plot in the next novel.

 

I kind of like two endings equally and not sure. Can I ask people on here? I know this is not the whole story but it's a brief outline of two endings.

It's a thriller story, of cops vs. a group of villains. The cops have had enough of the villains committing crimes, after a cop is killed. It's the last straw for a group of other cops. The other cops form a vengeful mob, or 'death squad', if you will and go after the villains with the means of killing them, after being pushed this point.

What the cops do not know is, is that the fallen officer, which they are avenging, was actually a corrupt mole, working for the villains. The villains killed him by accident, in a scuffle, to keep the mole from turning on them, since they suspected he was going to turn on them.

So the cops are out to avenge a fallen officer, not knowing he was working for the villain's in both endings. Here are the two differences between the endings:

1. The leader of the gang of villains decides that will a death squad of cops after them all, that has lost, and there is nothing more he can do to save the gang or himself. He decides to turn himself in to the honest police and take the blame for the crimes, saying that it was him who got the gang to commit all his crimes, and that it was all his fault, that the cop died, as well as the prior crimes before.

The leader decides to communicate with the death squad of cops somehow, to come to a truce, asking that if him turning himself in, will be enough to stop any more blood shed on the cops part, since it the cop's death was his fault. The rogue cops consider this and allow him to take the blame for everything as part a of truce.

However, the fellow gang members, do not trust the leader turning himself in and taking all the blame, trusting him not to eventually cave and cut a deal. It does not sit well with them so they go after the leader and attempt to take him out. The death squad of cops, have to decide if they should protect the leader, and allow him to turn himself in, since he is a crook willing to surrender, and you do not get that often. Or they can decide if they should just let the other gang members kill him. But the gang members end up shooting at the cops to try to kill their leader, and the cops end up shooting and fighting back. Most of the gang dies as well as a lot of the police, accept for the main character cop, who regrets forming the death squad.

The gang leader also regrets turning himself in as it got most of his men killed. He can now refute his surrender, telling the honest police, that he did no such thing and surrender and it will be the rogue cop's word against his. So he feels that his surrender accomplished nothing, since it didn't save his fellow gang member's lives, but got them killed. That is the first ending, here is the second:


2. The gang is desperate and knows that the rogue cops are after them, and feel they have to do something to save themselves. In this ending though, the gang does evidence on the dead corrupt cop. They were using it as leverage on the cop, should he decide to turn. But they still have it, and have it hidden somewhere, just in case they needed it, and haven't gotten rid of it yet.

So the gang decides to turn over the leverage evidence to the police, knowing that the rogue cops who are after them, will come across it. They will then see that their fellow officer friend, who they are trying to avenge, was one of 'them', all along, and they therefore, will be disgusted and not want to avenge their friend anymore. The gang turning over this evidence on the dead cop, will deter the vengeful cops' course of action and take away their revenge motive.

However, what happens is, it that before the gang can turn over the evidence to the honest police, the rogue cops find the gang, as they are preparing the evidence to be delivered. They kill the gang out of revenge, but legally make it look like a police sting operation gone bad, and make it look like police self defense. But a lot of the rogue cops are killed as well in the revenge quest. During this violent shootout and fight, the villain tries to plea with the cops saying he will turn himself in as well to save the rest of his men, but it's too late, and he cannot save them in time, and regrets, having gotten them all killed, which was not his attention, similar to the first ending.

As the remaining rogue cops that are alive, along with the honest police who arrive after, go through the evidence recovered from the investigation of the sting gone bad, the police find out that their friend they were avenging, was one of the gang all along, and then regret that the revenge, thinking it wasn't worth it to get men killed, when their friend was a mole. This is different from the original ending, where they wouldn't get any proof that their friend was a mole from the villains.

But in both endings, the gang leader, who is the main villain, tries to save the gang and, but ends up getting them killed, and regrets it in both, after surviving in both.

So which ending do you think sounds better? I thought about combining both but I don't know if I can since the villain's motivation is different. Turning himself to save his me and taking all the blame is not something he would do, if he had evidence on the dead cop, to deter the rogue cops from taking revenge in the first place, right?

So maybe I have to pick between the two then. What do you think?

 

#2 hands down. #1 barely makes sense. He's willing to sacrifice himself for loyalty to his gang and they turn on him. Not the gang dynamic for that scenario to make any sense. Option #2 makes a lot more sense.

 

Okay thanks. Maybe the gang doesn't turn on him in 1 though, I am not sure yet. But why does it not make sense for him to turn himself in, if he cares about the lives of his fellow members and does not want to see them get hurt by the rogue cops? It's unusual for a villain to go to jail to save others, but is that the part that doesn't make sense?

The villain also does the same thing in the second ending, he just attempts to do it, when it becomes too late, as oppose to having more time. So since the villain does the same thing in both, how does it make less sense in ending 1, if I may ask?

Or is it the gang turning on the leader that does not make sense? I was told by others when writing it, that if a gang leader was willing to turn himself in, his men would not trust that he wouldn't cut a deal, and his men would turn on him to stop him from doing so.

That is what I was told how the gang would react though, but do you not think so?

 

It's not about how either are acting individually, but together.

It's understandable for a leader of a tight knit crew to sacrifice himself. If they turn on him that easily, obviously that's not the dynamic. Would be a more everyman for himself attitude.

It's understandable for the gang to act that way, but then not for the leader to willingly sacrifice himself for them.

 

Oh okay. I thought that the gang might be thinking "Well it's very nice for you to sacrifice yourself and take all the heat for us sir, but we don't think you can handle a life in prison, without eventually cracking, and turning us in to cut a deal, and we cannot let you do this".

What if I wrote it so that the leader sacrifices himself but the gang doesn't turn on him then. Is that better? The thing is is that I wanted for the gang to all in the same place at the same time for my ending, so the cops can get them all in one shot. But if they do not all agree as a majority, then they do not have a reason. So I could try to come up with a different reason for them to be.

Or I could write it so that the gang thinks that their boss will eventually crack and cannot take prison, but instead of killing him, they attempt to shoot at the rogue cops to stop the rogue cops from possibly taking him away?

 

I'll tell you what, I will help you with any questions you have anytime you want if you want to start a conversation.

The answer to your question is yes. It's also fine if one, or a small group depending on the size of the gang, turned on him. The only issue is it's unbelievable for the entire gang doing so. A small percentage, yes. 1-5% of the gang turning, sure.

I need to sleep. I was hoping to have someone read and respond to my 2nd draft (almost entirely different) of my horror short story "The Cold Ones," but it's way too late to keep waiting.

If you have questions on your WIP, want a beta read, want a red pen slasher (editor), or a critique send it to me in a conversation and I'll always respond when I have a chance. Send as many conversations as you like.

 

Whenever I find myself trying to choose between writing one of two options, I always try to find a way to do both

Maybe most of the gang try to help the leader (scenario 2), but a few of them don't trust him (scenario 1) and the group splinters into a shootout just as the cowboy cops arrive?

 

Okay thanks. I was thinking of combining both but hard a time doing so, cause they seem to contradict each other.

I need a reason for the rogue cops to arrive in the first place though. If a shoot out breaks up and the rogue cops arrive and get involved, they still need an explanation as to why they all went there originally, since their intention was to go there for revenge, right?

 

I have so many different variations of beginnings it sends my head spinning.

I've already written the "book" once but I wasn't happy with so many elements I decided to re-write. However I've been stuck on getting the right beginning for so long that I can't even write anything else in the book. I know the advice is to write something else in the book but I can't when I don't know how it begins as I feel it's too integral to the story.

I know how the story goes and I know how it ends but I just can't seem to find the beginning but I don't know what to do about it? I am so fed up of being stuck - I WANT to write this but every single beginning I write is not satisfactory.

Any help?

 

The beginning is so prone to change that it's not something you should be too hung up on. Decide which are the integral factors for your story, and make sure those exist, and just start writing. In later rewrites and second drafts, the beginning is the most likely to change, as the story evolved the most from there. Your vision is going to change, and certain elements will change in importance. It sucks to not be entirely happy about something what you've written, but it's hard to write the perfect beginning without knowing where it goes, anyways.

 

A famous author (Walter Moers) gave this advice: "Sit down, take up your pen, and write 'And here the story begins...' "

I don't know how your mind works, but the beginning should be before the story starts, should engage the reader, giving him a vested interest in the MC (hint: small scale character inconsistencies are your friend there, they hint at backstory so that the reader will want to find out more *aehm, and I'll stop preaching*), show that there is some problem on the horizon plotwise.

Only you can answer these questions, but think back to where you find tension, before the large-scale conflict starts.

 

Look to your third act. Make note of the MC's circumstances, attitudes, relationships, etc.

The beginning should be like a mirror image of all those things, the reverse of circumstances, negative attitudes that are cleaned up by the end, relationships that don't work at first that begin to work as the story reaches an end.

I know that's not a lot to go on and you might feel you need more in-depth guidance. I'd suggest starting by reading up on endings and how they relate to beginnings. Something like Save the Cat! might be quite helpful.

Of course, you'll want to leave a few of these threads dangling because making too neat a package at the end can seem a bit too on-the-nose.

 

I have to disagree that the beginning comes before the story starts. The story should start with the story. That's what I believe, anyway.

If you are having a hard time with the beginning, maybe you aren't starting the story in the right place. I would look at your options there and see if you can't come up with something you like.

 

Yep, sorry I mixed up my words. I completely concur with your statement, sorry

 

Actually I was looking it over. Do you think that in ending #2, the cops get too lucky? First they go off to get revenge and kill the villains, but the villains, in order to prevent from being killed out or revenge, just so happen to lead the cops to evidence that can be used against them, such as the evidence of the dead cop being in collusion with them. This gives the vengeful cops a reason to arrest the villains, so they don't have to take revenge now. There is like a 1 out of 20 chances that would happen, and the story goes for that 1 out of 20, so is that too much luck falling into the main character cop's lap?

 

This is just my experience so far, so I may be wrong. But in my writing I tend to come up with the 'all is lost moment' first, when structuring the plot. This moment comes somewhere between the middle of the story, and the second act climax, in a lot of three act structure theories. This seems to be the most pivotal moment, cause after all is lost, you have to decide how the main character can get out of it and resolve it. The all is lost moment not only determines how you will end the story, but it also determines how to begin it, in order to build into the all is lost moment and how.

So if you haven't come up with the all is lost moment first, or you have but are not satisfied with it, perhaps you need to change that before knowing how to begin? But that is just my writing theory.

 

I had this same problem with one of my WsIP. So what I suggest to you is to go backwards.

Pick the first part of your story that you know needs to happen, and keep moving backwards until you arrive at a comfortable beginning.

For me, it was my character going to a certain location. She needed to be there... So how did she end up there? She went there voluntarily, looking for something. But her father would never let her go if she'd told him. So she had to sneak out. But what made her go at that time, on that day? She must've gotten into a fight with her dad and decided to go out of spite. So what would he have said to make her so angry?

And so on and so forth. It might not work for everyone, but it worked for me. Start with what you know and go from there. The rest will eventually fill in.

 

That's an excellent suggestion.

 

Get a bunch of books and spend an afternoon studying beginnings.

 

When and where does the first thing happen that is an integral part of your plot?
Who has to be there?
How do they get there?
Why did they go there?
The 'What did they do to get there" may well form the beginning of your book.

Damn. Just scrolled back and read @Lea`Brooks' contribution. She said it all far better than me.

 

THIS^!

I would add that "moving backwards" means filling in what logically would have had to happen just before your point of reference.

 

All of the above suggestions are really helpful I think, because I had problems with beginnings too and I invested in every single one of them. I studied my favorite books beginnings, I went backwards - forwards and re-winded again and again with my story, made some outlines, etc. And all this really helped but! After a while, I realized something completely different. What I had a problem with, was not the structure of the plot or my characters. This was the easy part. So easy, that I could use any of my beginnings and make them work. Non the less, I had no problem getting back to them and rearranging them if I saw fit. (I mean, cut the first paragraph off, start with the second, paste the original first as a second, completely erase third, etc). What I really had a problem with, was with the "voice". It had to be one. It had to be consistent throughout the whole book and this is a big commitment. It is unnerving.

I have such a diverse influence of writers and voices, and on top of that I want to be able to be heard through mine. So, which is my voice? What am I going for in this story? Is it going to be dramatic? Melancholic? Is it going to be light-hearted? Maybe, I want to have some humor inside to break the ice from time to time. How do I balance all of the emotions I want to express in a single piece that is going to be so long?

In case that this is part of your problem with beginnings, I got some suggestions that helped me out.
1) First, think of your main character and his psychology overall. Is he a rough person? If yes, then probably your voice should not be mellow at least. If he is melancholic, then maybe the description of the environment should be like a dead nature painting.
2) Think about why you want to introduce him this way. Why is it important for you that he/she is introduced that way? The plot can always change, but the character grows. He doesn't change. How "grown" do you want him to be from the point that you start narrating his story? Is it going to be the calm before the storm or the middle of the maelstrom?
3) What is the conclusion of the story? Maybe you haven't figured that out yet, but at least figure out the conclusion of your first chapter. Why is it there? Where do you want it to lead? Is it a statement? Is it about injustice? Is it about misfortune? Is it about a chance? Maybe it's about expressing existential angst and it ends with a question mark. (Not literally).
4) Now, this will sound kind of experimental and difficult, but I think that it also clears things up a bit. You said that you overall know how your story ends. Then go from the end straight to the start. Leave the in between chapters out. What "satisfaction" did you get from the ending. In order to get that "satisfaction" that you were building the whole story through, then the key should maybe lie somewhere in the beginning. I'm not speaking about the plot necessarily. I'm speaking about an emotion. The redemption. It's not only about what your character achieved, but it is also "why" he achieved it. What was his inner motivation? For example, Harry Potter is introduced lonely, neglected and weak (bullied). He ended up with a bunch of good friends, became famous and won the battle with the strongest wizard there was. Start - End. He felt good. I don't mean necessarily that there should be a happy ending. But that there is a more immediate connection between the beginning and the end than meets the eye.
5) Put your ass down and get to work! (Probably the most important part). In case you can't decide but have some ideas, write them down. Still not satisfied? Write other ones down. Get them out of your head before they drive you nuts. Until you write them down, they will just keep on repeating in your head making you more nervous and confused. When you write them down, a big weight is lifted off of your chest and your mind clears up and you are more prone to be more critical about your work, because it's right there in front of you. Your mind gets unblocked and moves on to the next parts.

Hope this helps!

 

This!

In my fantasy WIP, I had a completely different beginning in my first draft than in my second draft. The original was a fine beginning, but it wasn't good. And the reason for this was that I hadn't properly fleshed out my character. I thought she was a Mary Sue who grew into a stronger woman, when it was really the other way around. She was irrational and hot-headed who grows into some more stable. So my beginning was very weak because it gave the reader no reason to keep reading. Who cares about a Mary Sue coming into her own? Not many people. But an unlikable character growing into someone likable? More people will read that.

So the "feeling" of the character can be just as important, if not more so, than the scene.

 

I like what @Malisky said about voice. Yes, that's tricky, and it's something that can certainly change as you write. As @Lea`Brooks suggested, sometimes it's because the person hasn't evolved yet. If the story is about their evolution, fair enough. If you want them more evolved at the start, though, that can be a problem.

One trick I've discovered is to start your writing in the middle of your story, in a scene where the POV character is in full flow. Never mind how they got there, etc. Just write them as they are behaving, just then. I think you're more likely to discover their voice in a situation like that, than at the beginning. Beginnings nearly always need major overhauls during the editing process anyway, and often this is why. The character changes. Unless the character changing is the point of your story, you'll need to go back and change them—so why not start with the way they'll end up? If that makes sense.