The Rowling Effect

There's a tendency among writers today to make a sudden jump at the end of their book. Maybe they take us forward 20 years or all the way to the death of the protagonist.

Unfortunately, these generally ruin the book. The book likely should end before this jump occurs.

I call it the "Rowling effect" because that is what J. K. Rowling did in the last Harry Potter book of the series. Fans will recall that she ends the book and then has a final chapter that explains how Harry and friends grew up, married, had children, etc.

Blah. It was an excruciating chapter that should have been left out of the story.

The last book I read that did this was When the Crawdads Sing, by Delia Owens. It wasn't a bad book - until the very end.

Then it jumped ahead about 35 years to the death of the protagonist and a relatively unbelievable revelation that the reader had figured out long before.

I see this more now than I used to, and I think Rowling's the reason. She made it okay to ruin a book's ending. She made it fine for an author not to figure out where the story really should be completed.

But it is not fine. A good ending can make a bad book better, but a bad ending can not help anything. At best, it makes a great book a little less great.

The ending should do no more than wrap up a few loose ends and show the ending of that portion of the protagonist's journey. If the rest of the protagonist's life is one big bore, we don't need to know that.

Wrapping up a book - or a TV series - with a bad ending is like putting a match to a stick. It was a good stick until you lit the match. Now you have a good stick that is burned and not so good anymore.

I could argue that Game of Thrones fits this scenario, too, with it's not-so-great final episode, but it did wrap up loose ends, and it ended the journey of its protagonists. In that show, it was the Stark children who ultimately were the protagonists, but in a show with so many characters it was never clear who the protagonist was. As people died off one by one and the story continued, one had to determine that the protagonist was someone left alive, or else conventional story techniques had been waylaid and perhaps the land itself was the protagonist, in which case anything goes, I suppose. In the end, though, we are left with several protagonists, all beginning new quests. Jon goes to live with the Free Folk, Sansa becomes Queen of the North, Bran the Broken is King of the Six Realms, and Arya sails off to the edge of the map. Their journey's aren't over. So this was, by my standards, a good ending because I didn't see the protagonists years later, dying or old or whatever their ultimate destinies may be. I can still think about them, maybe consider a day when the siblings are reunited - or not.

Big Bang Theory is a TV series that ended well. It wrapped up most loose ends - but not quite all - but still gave the viewer a reason to wonder about the characters. When you have something else to think about - will Raj ever marry, for example - then you have a good ending. These folks will go on with their lives, eating pizza on specific nights and doing their jobs. They may end up destitute or homeless or they may go on to do very great things (which most them already had done anyway). This part of their journey was done, though. The audience didn't need to know more.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is that when a book ends, there shouldn't be an absolute end. If the protagonist dies at the end, there's nothing left to think about. The journey is over. I'm not sure books should end in that fashion. I like to think of more journey's ahead, more adventures, more growth of character.

Endings can mess up a book, but that's because the book isn't about the ending. The book is about the story. It's about the getting to the end, much like life is about its journey, not the final breath. If the ending messes up the story, then it's not the right place to end.

And that's the end of all I have to say about that. For now.