![[sex and science]](http://www.sunclipse.org/downloads/sexandscience3.png)
I know several people, both in real life and on the Intergrid, who have suffered through National Novel Writing Month. Chronologically speaking, that month is wrapping up; the terminator of those projects is sweeping around the globe. But, when the writing is done, it's time for rewriting, and how do we know when to stop that? For that matter, where do you chop off the unfolding of a story, anyway? Lois Lowry, author of a multitude of beloved children's books, suggests the following:
Is there a rule that one can follow? Probably not. But there is, I think, a test against which the writer can measure his ending, his stopping place.When something more is going to take place, but the characters have been so fully drawn, and the preceding events so carefully shaped that the reader, on reflection, knows what more will happen, and is satisfied by it — then the book ends.
Yes, if you read The Giver (1993), you may well assert that in her most infamous book, Lowry failed to follow her own dictum. But consider: how many of the myriad arguments people have over the ending of The Giver could have happened if each reader were not individually convinced that they themselves knew what happened, and what would happen next?
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
I'll paraphrase from memory a Stuyvesant co-alumnus of mine who is considered one of the 3 or 4 top Screenwriting teachers in California. His students have, between them, written some $10^10 worth of blockbuster film hits. My wife and I took his course, despite the various minor TV and film credits that we already have, and 3,000+ other publications, presentations, and broadcasts.
(1) Always begin a screenplay as late as possible into the main action, and as late as possible after the ostensible causal beginning; i.e. when the stuff hits the fan, and not when the day dawns and the birds sing before the protagonist meets the love interest or antagonist;
(2) Always end a screenplay as soon as possible, i.e. at the point where the thinking audience members can extrapolate the resolution of a maximal number of subplots; and not after the last medal has been pinned on the last chest, and the last bad guy jailed, and the last romantic couple that "met cute" arriving for their honeymoon.
He demonstrated, by having people (paying people) submit acts of screenplays, and then he read out loud how much he was able to red-pencil out of several submissions. He also used the margin note acronym: "SIFTFN" -- which meant, again slightly paraphrased, "Save It For the Frigging Novel."
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | November 30, 2008 7:54 PM
There are always those, of course, who really ought to end the screenplay before they start it....
Posted by: Ian | December 1, 2008 1:14 PM
Everyone knows, or ought to, that there's only one ending any writer needs: "Suddenly everyone was run over by a truck."
Posted by: Brian | December 3, 2008 11:15 PM
There's also the "And then Indians rampaged through and killed everybody" strategy. A friend tells me that this is exactly how Demi Moore's adaptation of The Scarlet Letter ends. Thinking back to when I had to read that book in tenth grade, I'm not so sure they didn't all deserve it.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 4, 2008 4:21 PM
In the interest of full disclosure, I confess that I've participated in Nanowrimo several times now, and I have yet to end one of my creations with "Suddenly everyone was run over by a truck." (Though there were one or two that probably would have been improved by such an ending.)
Posted by: Brian | December 5, 2008 9:17 PM