I have a book…that has two tails — two ends to one question. And my question is, do I end it chilled hope or with chilled terror? That’s the conundrum.
I’m leaning…well, more than leaning…toward ending with chilled hope where the protagonist wins with the antagonist under her control, alive. On the other hand, we have the protagonist winning, but the antagonist dead…but still a viable force in the protagonists life.
The last one sounds off the wall, right? It isn’t. Think of a person who has died, but continues to hold influence over you. Not a hero or heroine you look up to, but, if you’ve ever been a victim to a crime — your house broken into, yourself badly beaten by someone, raped, perhaps, or maybe just taunted on the playground by a bully and his or her pals. These leave scars on our psyche. Now ratchet that up to extreme.
You never get over the sense of violation of having your house broken into, or being badly beaten by someone. Women never get over having been raped. Bullied children never trust authority and rules to protect them, and forever are measuring the territory for potential aggressors.
Aggression leaves scars upon its victims. So, even if the original perpetrator is dead, a sound or an incident or situation similar to those experienced during trauma will immediately set off a reaction and an awareness heightening — fear, or, in the warrior, preparedness for immediate action and defense — in spontaneous anticipation of a similar trauma about to happen. And the association between the reaction to potential danger and the person of the original perpetrator is very, very strong, if sublimated over time. And what if, just possibly, there was a twin…or even just a very similar personality who entered the protagonists sphere of awareness?
That would be the second of two tails — the above elaboration.
However, I am about cemented in my decision on the first. Not quite. I’m still toying. I’ve written both, and it would only be a matter of tweaking the manuscript to attach the second end instead of the first.
I pose the question, the consideration, because it is one of the delights of writing — the decisions an author makes. And why he or she makes them.
Why would I choose the second over the first? *smile* Because it has such a fine kick in the head when, in an epilogue, the nightmare begins again. (Cliche.)
So we go with the first, and that means I might have to write a sequel if anyone was really all that interested, and I’m not sure I want to do that. Of course, the end stands as it is, but, then, so does the question.
Recently:
- Moving is Tough on Writing Novels
- Move complete & back online…when the DSL doesn’t falter
- Offline for a week.
- The ‘I’ Proposition
- No, I didn’t get eaten by my novel.
- Scott Heim reads We Disappear at last reading at Chelsea
- Hunger in the World
- What a Beta Reader Can & Cannot Do
- A Gift for Eternity Finds a Home
- Today’s Giggle: SE vs Employee, the Benefits — Not.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
