Line #118 SoYouWantTo/WriteAnEnding


1	In TheNewTens there were a number of rather disappointing endings. This article is intended to help you avoid joining that semi-illustrious pile. Its focus is on analyzing some of those endings, cross-referencing Audience Reactions to same, and explaining how they got there.
2
3	Because we are going to analyze certain endings, this page contains unmarked spoilers for ''Series/HowIMetYourMother'', the ''Franchise/MassEffect'' trilogy, ''Series/GameOfThrones'', ''Literature/{{Carrie}}'', ''Film/FiveHundredDaysOfSummer'', ''Film/{{Inception}}'', and ''Franchise/HarryPotter''.
4
5	!'''Necessary Tropes'''
6	Well, this is about endings, so you'll need to have a story to end. Check out SoYouWantTo/WriteAStory for basic ideas. Consider also investigating the ThreeActStructure, TheHollywoodFormula and TheHerosJourney. For convenience, we will assume that you are looking solely for advice on how to handle your third act, but where applicable we will discuss the other two as well.
7
8	Do you have a MythArc? A lot of episodic television does not have this -- LongRunners like ''WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons'' are done with no continuity and sometimes even ''negative'' continuity in mind -- and you can do things this way, if you really want, but at some point your story is going to end, and at that point it helps to have an idea for what, specifically, needs to ''be'' ended. If you're writing a GrandFinale, the objective is to pay off as much of the previous material as possible -- to make the maximum quantity of preceding content feel like it was and is relevant to the ending. To do that, you'll want to have a clear memory of what you have already written.
9
10	!'''Choices, Choices'''
11	First, consider your tone. Are you writing AWorldHalfFull where a HappilyEverAfter is appropriate? Is it a CrapsackWorld where a DownerEnding would make more sense? Or are you somewhere in between, allowing you to employ the BittersweetEnding? All of them are viable, but only some of them will feel appropriate to the story you have written up until now.
12
13	Consider also your genre and its conventions, if it has any. If you are trying to SoYouWantTo/WriteALoveStory, for instance, you're almost forced into the Happily Ever After. Most genres do not really enforce an emotional tone, but they tend to lean in certain ways, and if you are planning to defy that tradition, you need to be sure you can pull it off.
14
15	How much do you want to set down in anticipation? It's a tricky question. If you don't plan out enough... well, the rest of the article will examine what happens then. But if you plan out ''too'' much, you get a stale, paint-by-numbers ClicheStorm where the audience sees every move coming from a mile away. One of the reasons WritingByTheSeatOfYourPants is so popular is that, if ''you'' don't know what's about to happen, there's no way the audience will know, or even ''can'' know. You could make the argument that an AssPull is only possible if you aren't planning ahead, and you might not be incorrect. But on the flip side, you could also argue that an Ass Pull -- a PlotTwist for the sake of a Plot Twist, with no foreshadowing or [[ChekhovsGun Chekhov's Guns]] planted -- is inherently bad writing; and this wiki does in fact make that argument. There is such thing as too much setup, but there's also such thing as too little.
16
17	So here's a secret: Plot out ''juuuust'' enough to know where you're going. Is there an important emotional beat here? A significant plot development there? Cool. Have those set in stone. ''Leave the rest up in the air''. You want to know where you're going, but you want to leave yourself as much freedom to improvise ''how'' you get there. We are talking about endings, but ItsTheJourneyThatCounts, and so plan out the ''journey'' as little as possible -- at least, assuming you stay within the bounds of your overall MythArc. This gives you a lot of freedom when it comes to individual characters, individual scenes, even entire chapters: you know you have certain specific goals to achieve, but how your characters achieve them is completely up in the air, giving you great spontaneity within a pre-determined framework.
18
19	The thing to keep in mind here is your role as an author. Some people will tell you that it's your job to outsmart The Reader -- and that outsmarting them is so important that, if necessary, you should withhold important information from them. "The Reader ''should not'' be able to figure out what will happen next!," these people exclaim... and they are wrong. Your job as an author is to ''inform'' The Reader, to draw their attention to important elements of your story, and to give them a chance to feel smart by correctly predicting where the story is going and how your characters are going to resolve a situation. The EurekaMoment is not just for your characters; in fact, if your readers aren't beating them to the punch, you're not doing a good job. (This is why {{Technobabble}} is considered such bad writing: it utilizes rules that the audience never learned because the rules don't exist. The characters feel smart, and hopefully your viewers care about that, but sharing vicarious triumph is very different from being right there with them. In comparison, consider SandersonsFirstLaw, which explicitly emphasizes the audience's ability to see things coming.) ''A good writer is predictable'', because they have signposted and foreshadowed their plot events. The events ''themselves'' can still be astonishing, but it should also be possible to see them coming. If readers guess your ending, that's not a bug -- it's a feature.
20
21	Finally, consider your CentralTheme and your [[AnAesop Aesop]]. The CentralTheme is the question of what the story is about -- for instance, ''Franchise/HarryPotter'' may be about a boy learning he's a wizard, but it's also about the larger question of how death and impermanence affects things like TrueLove and UndyingLoyalty. The Aesop is traditionally an answer to that larger question that is forced on the audience, which is why it is often avoided... but the thing to keep in mind is that, whether or not you are planning to ''force'' that answer on the audience, you will subconsciously ''include'' that answer in your story, because it's your opinion and you're only human. Therefore, it behooves you to know what your Central Theme, and especially your Aesop, are, and adjust your story to fit. If not, they'll stick out like a sore thumb. Because they're there, whether you wanted them to be or not.
22
23	!'''Pitfalls'''
24	Here's where we start doing some analysis. Each ending has a specific Aesop to teach us, and we will highlight those things specifically
25
26	!! Your Ending Should Match Your Story
27	''Series/HowIMetYourMother'' is a sitcom that aired from 2005 to 2014. Its FramingDevice is of a man named Ted, sitting down to tell his teenage kids the story of how he met their mother. Ted, TheGhost, narrates each episode of the show (voice of Creator/BobSaget, uncredited), which depicts his younger self (Creator/JoshRadnor) consistently dating the wrong women, particularly a WillTheyOrWontThey with fellow main character Robin Scherbatsky (Creator/CobieSmulders). The show uses its narration scheme to excellent advantage: the narrator segues into {{flashback}}s, helps set up jokes, is explicitly used as a SceneryCensor who provides {{Unusual Euphemism}}s for things Ted doesn't want to tell his kids about (sexual activities, illicit substances, etc), and generally holds the show together; the only other TV show, thus far, to follow the TropeCodifier of "Narrator As Glue" is ''Series/JaneTheVirgin'', but we should probably expect others to follow in its footsteps (particularly because ''[=JtV=]'' shows just how versatile the trope is, being not a sitcom but rather a romantic dramedy and DeconReconSwitch of the ''{{telenovela}}''). The last episode -- in fact, the entire last season -- takes place when Robin finally marries someone else; as he heads home from the wedding, now the only character of the FiveManBand who is still single, Ted runs into a woman named Tracy (Creator/CristinMilioti) -- the woman who will become his wife. The 90-second-long conversation involves the yellow umbrella, {{callback}}s to elements from all nine seasons, and the ''immense'' chemistry between Radnor and Milioti, instantly selling the idea that Ted has met his OneTrueLove.
28
29	The show was critically acclaimed throughout its run... and if it had stopped with that meeting, it probably would have gone down in history as a truly great sitcom. But the show went on for 150 more seconds, one last scene... which resulted in ''USA Today'' voting the finale [[https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2018/05/31/series-finales-10-best-and-five-worst-all-time-americans-breaking-bad-mash-lost-himym-newhart-cheers/636504002/ the worst of all time]].
30
31	First off: despite being essentially a romance, the show does not begin where most romances do -- with the BoyMeetsGirl. As a matter of fact, it ''ends'' with that trope, giving the impression that it has told the story backwards. "Why would you do this?" audiences might ask. "What's so interesting about Ted's love life prior to his meeting The Mother?" The answer is, Nothing, but the answer is also, Everything. Instead of showing Ted and Tracy falling in love, the show spends nine years setting up its ChekhovsArmory as concerns Ted's love life: this is what he wants, this is what he could live with if he had to, here are his absolute deal-breakers. The show is not about how Ted fell in love with Tracy, but rather ''why''. As such, when they finally meet in the last episode, we don't need to see them fall in love: we've spent so much time studying his personality that it's a ForegoneConclusion -- even if there weren't flash-forwards to their successful marriage, even if it wasn't the show's title. The Central Theme of the show, in other words, is not BoyMeetsGirl: it's ''CharacterDevelopment''. The Aesop of the show is spelled out in the third season: "Kids, there's more than one story of how I met your mother. You know the short version, the thing with your mom's yellow umbrella. But there's a bigger story, the story of how I became who I had to become before I could meet her." And, for Ted, one of the most important steps in that bigger story is giving up his hopeless infatuation with Robin, whom he made a LoveConfession to during the pilot episode, ''on the very first date''.
32
33	Therefore, fans were a little bit upset when those last 150 seconds of show, the coda after Ted says, "And that, kids, is [[TitleDrop how I met your mother]]," involves the kids replying, "No: This is a story about how you're totally in love with Aunt Robin." (That's not a paraphrase, that's a direct quotation.) And if Ted wants to go for it, they continue, he has their permission: after all, Mom was KilledOffForReal (offscreen, a mere ''67 seconds'' after the TitleDrop) and Ted is single now. "The point of this story is--" Ted begins to protest, and Penny cuts him off by saying, "Is that you ''totally'' totally have the hots for Aunt Robin." And Ted decides they're right. The very last shot of the series is of Ted standing at Robin's door, interested in giving it another try, holding up that [[MythologyGag blue french horn]].
34
35	It works!... as an ending to Ted and Robin's story. The problem is, the show isn't ''about'' Ted and Robin. It's about how Ted met ''Tracy'' -- at least, according to ''the title of the damn show''. And yet the show ends by declaring -- explicitly! -- that its own title is a lie. The CentralTheme of "''How I Met Your Mother''" is How I Want To Bang Your Aunt Robin.
36
37	The backlash was... significant.
38
39	Completely aside from the show having the wrong name, its finale gave the impression that, in the course of those 150 seconds, Ted has undone nine years of Character Development, reverting to that hopeless infatuation from the pilot episode. StatusQuoIsGod, to its most obvious conclusion: the entire series, literally from start to finish, was a ShaggyDogStory. (The fact that TheMourningAfter is not depicted or even ''alluded to'' does not help things.) While this development is arguably consonant with the theme of Character Development -- just as Robin was the person who prepared Ted to find a SecondLove with Tracy, so does Tracy prepare him for his ''Third'' Love with Robin -- the simple fact is that the first journey is dramatized over the course of nine years, while the second, well, doesn't actually occur onscreen. Also, the show has systematically ''refuted'' the idea of OneTrueLove: Tracy is definitely Ted's SecondLove, and additional episodes have established that Tracy lives in the specter of TheLostLenore; and the finale itself has the title DoubleMeaningTitle "Last Forever," alluding to how this is the one thing love will never do. A LastMinuteHookup is a good way to underline ''that'' Aesop... but the show doesn't actually spell it out that way. Both interpretations require FridgeLogic, which is ''not'' a good thing to base your finale on. At best, the ending feels like a WriterCopOut, a lazy way for the show to have its cake and eat it too. At worst, it feels like RunningTheAsylum, the writers proving that they had no clue what story they were even ''telling''.
40
41	How could this ending have been salvaged? With just one more set of flashbacks. After saying, "We approve of you dating Aunt Robin," Penny should have said, "And we think it'll work this time. You told us the story of how you did things wrong with Robin, like that one time you--" Some sort of flashback here, using stock footage of an older episode. "Well, when the same thing happened with Mom..." A second flashback, a scene filmed specifically for this episode, of Ted and Tracy being in the same situation and Ted acting differently. "Yeah," Luke chimes in, "and then you also talked about..." More paired flashbacks, contrasting the before-and-after. Do this a few times and you at least touch upon the idea that Ted has continued to have Character Development, even after meeting The Mother. There's still no way that 30 seconds of flashbacks can equal the weight of a 9-year long character arc, but at least those 30 seconds ''exist'' -- and ''[=HIMYM=]'' was so flashback-centric that viewers would've been willing to give this brief montage a lot more weight than it might carry in other shows. We're also more prepared to believe the "AndTheAdventureContinues" trope about Ted and Robin, because we've already seen it happen to Ted and Tracy. But again, this only works if you understand that the show is about Character Development, Ted's character development specifically, and bother to underline that theme.
42
43	And, of course, they could have just named the show correctly. But we're not going to go there.
44
45	Now, here we need to address something that doesn't always happen to novels, but will definitely happen anywhere else: Logistics. The show's Framing Device involves shots of two kids sitting on a couch. Consequently, their lines at the end -- "Go date Aunt Robin" -- were filmed in ''Season 2'' and just kept in a box somewhere, because waiting any longer to film them would have resulted in the child actors (David Henrie, 16, and Lyndsy Fonseca, 18) aging out of their roles. If you wanted to add to the scene, you'd ''immediately'' have to [[TheOtherDarrin recast]] the roles, or do computer work with de-aging and voice modification that is difficult now and may not actually have been feasible back in 2014. The point is, the creators of the show were locked into their ending as of Season 2; they ''could not'' change it, at least not very easily. You tend to have this problem more with episodic media... but the simple fact is, ''everything'' is episodic these days, because 1) it's easier to write in smaller pieces, 2) it's easier to ''consume'' in smaller pieces, 3) you can make ''[[MoneyDearBoy way more money]]'' from smaller pieces. So you should assume your story will be episodic, whether or not you want it to be.
46
47	And so here we have this problem. "We filmed an ending, but it's the wrong one, and we can't go back and add more." What do you do? The answer is, ''you take out the stuff that doesn't work''. Sure enough, when the ''[=HIMYM=]'' finale came out on DVD, it included an alternate ending which simply abandoned their original plans: it's just Ted {{recap}}ping the previous nine seasons and explaining his Character Arc, with no footage of the kids whatsoever. This had the side effect of turning certain lines in previous episodes, the ones concerning Tracy's demise, into {{Red Herring}}s... but this could also have been addressed by adding new content: since it's been foreshadowed that Tracy will not live to see Penny's wedding, have the show end with Ted saying, "I wanted to tell you all this because your mom's chemo isn't working as well as it used to. She wanted me to tell you the whole story of our lives, since she may not have a chance to do it herself." And then have Tracy come in -- looking ill, but still smiling. "Still, we'll get through this. We're a family. Right, honey?" AndTheAdventureContinues. And, lastly, you could just hedge your bets, as SpinOff series ''Series/HowIMetYourFather'' did, and have the narrator (Creator/KimKattrall) tell the story to her kids ''after'' they have reached puberty. (It's clear someone behind the scenes learned their lesson.)
48
49	This just underlines what we've said above: ''Know your Central Theme, and know your Aesop.'' You have to write the story accounting for the fact that you have to release it in pieces. This increases the importance of knowing where you're going.
50
51	!! Your ending should be predictable.
52	''VideoGame/MassEffect3'' is the final video game in a SpaceOpera trilogy. The PlayerCharacter is Cmdr. Shepard, a human soldier who discovers that [[BigBad The Reapers]], EldritchAbomination death god demon robots who live outside the Milky Way Galaxy, swing through every 50,000 years to kill all sentient life... and that the last time they did so was about 49,999 years ago. As Shepard, you become a MagneticHero rallying the species of the galaxy into a fighting force that will stop the Reapers... and doing {{Side Quest}}s with some of the most memorable {{Non Player Character}}s in the history of the medium. The trilogy, begun in 2007, concluded in 2012 with a suitably apocalyptic FinalBattle... but the denouement afterwards caused such a huge fan backlash that Creator/BioWare were ''sued''. What happened?
53
54	In this case, we can get back to the entire theme of the game: "Stop the Reapers." In the end, Shepard is given several choices: to do so, by blowing them away entirely; to ''control'' them, using them to better ends; or, if you've jumped through enough gameplay hoops, to do an ''AssimilationPlot'' on them, making them stop hating organics because now they ''are'' organics (gross oversimplification, but good enough for this article's purposes). It's a GainaxEnding, with very little foreshadowing; additionally, the "Blow up the Reapers" ending was saddled with additional baggage by requiring you to sacrifice at least one robot teammate in the process. This decision was characterized as being part of a RobotWar, at which point the sacrifice of the robot teammate starts to make sense. The only problem is, said Robot War was {{Ass Pull}}ed right there in that very scene; the Reapers' hatred of organic life is not contextualized as being a product of their syntheticity at any other time in 100 hours of gameplay. (It ''is'' {{retcon}}ned in using a DLC pack, but that was small consolation to anyone who played the game on launch.)
55
56	Even worse, the Robot War justification opens more {{Plot Hole}}s than it closes. The Reapers claim that their biocide is out of a sense of altruism: RobotWar is inevitable, and so the Reapers save organic species from being killed by robots by, you know, killing them with robots ''first''. (Apparently, there's also a side of AssimilationPlot, and each Reaper actually contains the genetic code of a prior sentient species, but that's small consolation to the former species in question.) In addition to being InsaneTrollLogic, the "Robot War is inevitable" premise is not supported by the text. True, the second-biggest plot in the trilogy, besides the Reapers themselves, is the Robot War between the quarians and their robotic "geth" servants, and inevitably Shepard must decide which of them wins the war... But, in the most complicated confrontation in the series, Shepard can ''TakeAThirdOption'' and get the two of them to cooperate. So not only is "{{Killer Robot}}s are inevitable" not supported by the text, it can be ''contradicted'' by the text. Shepard can fight the Reapers with a united force of organics and synthetics, one that has not only had a Robot War but is now having a Robot ''Peace''.
57
58	And, as a quick technical aside, the final choice was a MetaTwist, but not in a good way. [=BioWare's=] original plan for ''Mass Effect 1'' was a WideOpenSandbox using ProceduralGeneration to create explorable planets. This technology did not exist in 2004, when production began, and the game's focus was instead shifted to a roleplaying and narrative experience. Shepard makes choices through the Dialogue Wheel, which always presents things in a specific way: Shepard always has an option that allows them to be "Paragon" (TheCape, doing the most good for the most people), and another that allows them to be "Renegade" (TheCowl, choosing the path of expediency and efficiency_. Either choice, if selected, gives Shepard Paragon or Renegade Points on their KarmaMeter. This is important because the Dialogue Wheel always has two ''other'' options; they are always available, but will be greyed out and inaccessible unless Shepard has sufficient Paragon or Renegade points, at which point they become blue or orange. These unlockable choices allow Shepard to TakeAThirdOption. This system makes every choice in the game feel consequential: you not only know what you're missing, but you're encouraged to choose carefully even if only for MinMaxing. The ''entire trilogy'' was built around it... and it was scrapped for the final choice. There is no Dialogue Wheel, and Shepard doesn't get two default options; Shepard, depending on their previous choices, might have only one option (either "Destroy" or "Control"), might have two options (both), or might have a third ("Synthesis"), and the game is opaque about why those choices are or are not available.[[note]]This is partially because none of them ''are'' Paragon or Renegade. A Shepard who has done a good job knitting the galaxy together will get more options; if not, their choice between "Destroy" or "Control" is determined by a major decision they made at the end of the second game.[[/note]]
59
60	Almost none of this sounds like the conclusion of a video game where the CentralTheme is, "Stop the Reapers." You are not able to Stop the Reapers in two of three endings, and in the one where you do, there are extra consequences which you were not informed of.
61
62	Now, the {{Doylist}} explanation for ''this'' part is simple: Per WordOfGod, the CentralTheme of the game ''is not about stopping the Reapers.'' It's, "[[TheChainsOfCommanding You can't save everybody]]." And, in a (pseudo) RobotWar where all life hangs in the balance, that's a really great theme to have! The problem is that, once again, it's not in the text. You ''can'' save everybody -- for instance, you can settle the aforementioned RobotWar -- except for in certain cases where characters have very clear {{Plotline Death}}s that cannot be avoided[[note]]Thane and Legion won't get to the FinalBattle no matter what you do, and getting Mordin there requires jumping through some serious hoops[[/note]]. While these moments do have an emotional impact, they are somewhat defanged by a SadisticChoice in the first game: While Shepard and team are attacking the planet Virmire, two of your squadmates get pinned down on opposite sides of the enemy base and Shepard can only rescue one of them. The game is very explicit about this fact: you ''must'' commit a FailureToSaveMurder. And the game does in fact make you choose; you have to select the name you want to save and click a button and make a conscious decision to condemn the other to death. When compared to moments like that, characters who suffer ''mandatory'', non-optional deaths -- who only avoid dying in the third game by dying ''before'' the third game, who do not survive the trilogy under any circumstances -- simply cannot achieve the same impact.
63
64	There is, in short, a GoldenPath -- a set of choices you can make, spread out across all nine acts of the trilogy, that lead to an optimal ending with every (non-doomed) character present. You can in fact save everybody... At least until that ending. There is a GoldenPath but no GoldenEnding.
65
66	How do you end up this way in the first place? Simple: Because it didn't know its own Aesop.
67
68	Why did this ending come about? It's hard to say. We ''know'' it is not the original ending, because Drew Karpyshyn, who wrote the first two games, [[https://www.pcgamer.com/mass-effect-3-series-former-lead-writer-reveals-original-ending-ideas/ has gone public with his original plans]]. The motivation behind the revised ending has yet to be publicly discussed, but one very obvious answer is that someone figured it out. {{Fandom}} is so sprawling, so well-informed, that one person -- and therefore, all of Reddit -- and therefore, ''anyone who cared to find out'' -- deduced what the ending would be. (And that would have been pretty easy because Karpyshyn, who is a good writer, ''foreshadowed it,'' obfuscating it solely by [[HidingInPlainSight Hiding It In Plain Sight]] amongst a number of other dangling plot threads. See the linked article for details.) [=BioWare=], understandably, did not want to release a game where everyone could see the ending coming... but their alternative was to write an ending that no one ''could'' see coming, because -- similar to the ''[=HIMYM=]'' situation above -- it was the ending to a completely different story. And this, for good or ill, is what they chose.
69
70	How could this ending have been salvaged? Simple: '''You don't'''. As mentioned, if you are telling your story properly, people ''should'' be able to guess the ending. It's proof that Karpyshyn was telling the story correctly. And one of the things you have to put up with, in today's age of storytelling, is fans outsmarting you; there are more of them, they have more internet time than you, and they pay a ''lot'' of attention -- "fan" is short for "fanatic," remember. So if you don't want people to guess your ending, what are your options? One is to pull a Creator/JDSalinger and not let anyone read your stories. Another is to do what [=BioWare=] did and go all Shocking Swerve. And the third is to just shrug your shoulders and soldier on. After all, if people are engaged enough with your story that they're {{Wild Mass Guess}}ing your ending... Well, maybe that just means you're doing a good job?
71
72	But let's say -- for the sake of politeness -- that the "CTRL-ALT-DEL" ending (FanNickname, after the fact that you either [[YouAreInCommandNow control]], [[TheSingularity alter]] or delete the Reapers) was intentional from the start. How do we salvage ''that''? Well, we work its Central Theme into the story more thoroughly. From a programming standpoint, ''[=ME3=]'' an unenviable job: the franchise uses OldSaveBonus to import ''over 1000 player-chosen variables'' from game to game. The third game has to pay off all these variables in some way. The writers wanted to slim all of that down as much as possible, because writing one thousand different branches... Well, that's a recipe for disaster. So the writers trimmed some of the branches. But we can safely say that they went too far. There are literally no situations in which you, the player, must consciously choose who will live and who will die, because writing them would have been too complicated. Even though the conscious choice to let people die was the thematic heart of the game, it was not included ''in'' the game. Obviously, one should not hit people over the head with one's Aesop, but failing to include it at all is a problem too.
73
74	So, instead, we need to include it. Remember that SadisticChoice from the first game? We need ''more'' of them. Apparently, one such choice ''was'' originally in the game -- if DummiedOut for some reason ([[spoiler:It was to be on Thessia. Your mandatory squadmates were to be Liara and the Virmire Survivor, and you'd only have time to save one before the floor collapsed]]) -- suggesting that the writers had ''some'' clue what they were doing; but if anything, they should have doubled down. How about Thessia? It's the end of the second act and the story's DarkestHour: Shepard is sent to the asari homeworld to retrieve critical intelligence for stopping the Reapers. The way the game plays out, you automatically lose the intel, but rescue your squadmates from a LiteralCliffhanger. What if, instead, the game ''made you choose''? "On the one hand, I have my friends -- including RequiredPartyMember Liara T'soni, the {{deuteragonist}} of the franchise, a possible LoveInterest to Shepard, and the ''only'' party member in the franchise who is guaranteed to still be alive right now." (Well, and Shepard. ...But then, Shepard came BackFromTheDead at the beginning of the second game, so maybe they ''don't'' qualify.) "On the other hand, I have... ''Every living being in the galaxy.''" WhatYouAreInTheDark is another big theme of the story -- whether you want to play Shepard as TheCape or TheCowl -- and both philosophies could make arguments for both choices. But either way... What if you had to choose? What if "You can't save everybody" was not something the writers forced on you, but rather something you were ''actively required to participate in''? What if this happened repeatedly? If you shoot the Virmire Survivor, {{turncoat}} Councilor Udina will surrender and you can learn important things about the Bad Guy's plan; or you can save your friend but sacrifice the war effort. On Utukku, where you encounter the Rachni Queen and have to choose between her and Grunt, you ''actually have to choose'', and Grunt doesn't miraculously survive because you jumped through enough gameplay hoops in the second game.
75
76	There is, in short, a difference between, "You can't save everyone because of {{Railroading}}," and, "You must ''choose'' not to save everyone, because TheNeedsOfTheMany outweigh the needs of your TrueCompanions or LoveInterest." One of them works better than the other. And, if you've been employing the one that actually works, then the CTRL-ALT-DEL ending comes out of left field in terms of its ''options'' but still sits comfortably within the story's CentralTheme: No matter what you do, ''someone'' is going to die for it.
77
78	And that theme is applicable to the writing too. If you are writing your story correctly, your ending ''should'' be predictable. And that is why ItsTheJourneyThatCounts. Signpost where you are going to end. ''Do not'' signpost how you plan to ''get'' there.
79
80	!'''Potential Subversions'''
81	Let's be clear, up front: ''You cannot subvert an ending.'' --Well, actually, that's not true. You can subvert an ending... by having NoEnding, or by becoming a FranchiseZombie. But that's generally not a good outcome.
82
83	The better question is, can you have a ''subversive'' ending? And the answer to that is, Yes... But also No. To explain what we mean, let's examine that most beloved of tropes: the PlotTwist. And to examine the PlotTwist, let's take two examples from the last of our to-be-analyzed endings: ''Series/GameOfThrones''.
84
85	''Game of Thrones'' is a fantasy epic that aired on HBO from 2011 to 2019. They are based on Creator/GeorgeRRMartin's as-yet-unfinished novel series, ''Literature/ASongOfIceAndFire'', which he wrote as a deliberate reaction to his years as a television screenwriter, in which his imagination was constantly hamstrung by the realities (and budgets) of working on a TV show. Consequently, ''[=aSoIaF=]'' has a large EnsembleCast and ThreeLinesSomeWaiting, spans two continents, includes a number of fantastical / non-human beings, and involves a massive SuccessionCrisis on the continent of Westeros, at the exact wrong time: a GreaterScopeVillain is rising in the Lands of Always-Winter to the north, and the Seven Kingdoms must band together to meet this icy threat. Fortunately, they may have help: far to the east, on that other continent, a PrincessInRags, last scion of the family that used to rule the Seven Kingdoms, has performed the impossible by reviving the extinct race of dragons. Her name is Daenerys Targaryen (Creator/EmiliaClarke). If this show has a single {{protagonist}}, it is her.
86
87	In adapting this story for television, showrunners David Weiss and Dan Benioff faced a number of challenges. First, the large cast: over the course of eight seasons, there were ''43 names'' in the opening credits -- plus Creator/JasonMomoa, who took an "AndStarring" credit at the end of the guest-star titles because, in the days before ''Film/Aquaman2018'', he didn't have the clout to share it with Creator/PeterDinklage during the opening credits. It should be pointed out that Dinklage only took "AndStarring" for the first season, after which he ''led'' the credits as the show's biggest star. They needed a big budget for that many actors -- not to mention the multiple filming locations, the giant crew, and a lot of CGI. They also needed to accurately capture the ''tone'' of the series, which is a low-magic CrapsackWorld and focuses much more on realpolitik, interpersonal drama and GrayAndGreyMorality -- "''Series/TheSopranos'' in [[Literature/TheLordOftheRings Middle-Earth]]," as [[FanNickname D&D]] put it. Good people do bad things, and bad people do good things; no one is immune from mistakes; and when characters screw up, there is never an AuthorsSavingThrow. The stakes are high: "When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die," Queen Cersei (Creator/LenaHeadey) says, giving the entire franchise its ''precis''. "There is no middle ground."
88
89	This is perhaps best exemplified by the fate of Lord Eddard Stark (Creator/SeanBean), a DecoyProtagonist who dies during the first season. Such an event is not that unusual -- he's not even the first character from the ''opening credits'' to die; and the fact that he's played by ''the'' ChronicallyKilledActor should have given the game away. But the truth is that the story goes out of its way to position Ned Stark as TheProtagonist: he's at the center of events, he is doing his best to be TheGoodChancellor, and he's played by (at the time) the biggest-name actor in the cast. The story disguises his fate by not including any other character who might possibly qualify ''as'' The Protagonist; some of them are virtuous, and some of them have agency over other characters, but nobody has both, and you gotta have both if you're going to be ''The'' Protagonist.[[note]]Daenerys will get there, but she has six seasons of CharacterArc to get through first.[[/note]] Even the credits got in on it: Peter Dinklage gets "AndStarring" because the opening name is Bean's! Consequently, the moment when Ned is killed is a WhamEpisode for the show -- not just because of its impeccable acting, cinematography and production, but because it represented a huge plot twist (to any viewer who hadn't already read ''Literature/AGameOfThrones'' when it came out 19 years ago). '''TheHeroDies.''' ''At the beginning of the first season''. "AnyoneCanDie" has ''never'' had so much meaning.
90
91	With that in mind, let's talk {{foreshadowing}}, because even unsullied viewers could have seen this coming from a league away.
92
93	First off: we know that people in positions of power can die. Ned's already seen that happen firsthand: he's in the dungeon because he refused to swear allegiance to RoyalBrat Joffrey Baratheon (Creator/JackGleeson) after his father, King Robert Baratheon (Creator/MarkAddy), was killed in a HuntingAccident. Beyond that, viewers (but not Ned) have also seen Daenerys' brother Viserys (Creator/HarryLloyd) meet a CruelAndUnusualDeath after he broke some taboos over on the eastern continent. Viserys and Daenerys Targaryen are the LastOfTheirKind, the only descendents of King Aerys II Targaryen whom Robert overthrew, and therefore style themselves the GovernmentInExile of the Seven Kingdoms... a fact that didn't stop Viserys from getting offed when he overstepped his bounds. Ned has already had a TurnInYourBadge moment because he refused to sanction King Robert's desire to have ''Daenerys'' assassinated. Med knows, for a fact, that being king does ''not'' give you PlotArmor; and if a king isn't safe, then Ned, a king's NumberTwo, certainly isn't either.
94
95	Second: we know Ned's life is on the line. The very first scene of his final episode establishes this. While Ned is languishing in gaol, he's visited by Varys (Creator/ConlethHill), a member of the DecadentCourt. Ned refused to bow to Joffrey due to Ned's belief that Joffrey is not actually Robert's child, but rather the illegitimate, inbred love child of Robert's queen, Cersei Lannister, and [[{{twincest}} her own twin]] Jaime Lannister (Creator/NikolajCosterWaldau). (As it happens, [[RefugeInAudacity Ned is factually correct]].) Varys counsels him to recant this belief, to swear fealty to Joffrey. Ned has the choice between [[BeingGoodSucks What Is Right]] and [[EvilIsEasy What Is Easy]], and Varys thinks he should go Easy, because going "ScrewTheRulesImDoingWhatsRight" would result in... a second CivilWar in a generation; more death, more blood, more war. Instead, Varys counsels, Ned could serve TheNeedsOfTheMany. Additionally, being LawfulEvil would have the benefit of Ned remaining alive. The same would be true, Varys adds, for Ned's daughter Sansa (Creator/SophieTurner), who is [[IHaveYourWife very much in Cersei's clutches]].
96
97	So when Ned is hauled out onto the steps of the Great Sept of Baelor (Westeros' equivalent of the Vatican) to profess his crimes, we know what's on the line. We know that if he chooses to do what is right, he will condemn himself to death, he will condemn his daughter to death, and he will start a war with the rest of his family on the rebelling side. The path of expediency, on the other hand, would lead to peace. But we also know that Ned is the poster child for HonorBeforeReason. He has ''always'' done what is right instead of what is easy; throughout the season, people have both praised ''and'' derided him for it. The stakes are very, very high. Additionally, there has not only been Foreshadowing -- the planting of the ChekhovsGun that Ned could become [[OffWithHisHead shorter by a head]] at the end of this scene -- but also things going FromBadToWorse, as Ned loses option after option. Ned's death has been both foreshadowed ''and'' escalated.
98
99	So when, even after he has the mother of all {{Out Of Character Moment}}s and swears fealty to his new king in the name of peace and prosperity, but King Joffrey has him executed ''anyway'', we are not surprised.
100
101	Well, we ''are'' surprised. Ned has just done everything in his power to save himself, up to and including perjury... and typically, when The Protagonist tries to save themselves, it works. But it's not like the story magically transformed itself from TV show to video game. Ned getting killed off is a MetaTwist, in that it reveals he's a DecoyProtagonist, but it's not a ''Plot'' Twist, because the possibility of him dying was always on the table. We didn't think it ''would'' happen, but we always knew it ''could''.
102
103	See, that's the thing about a PlotTwist. The first time the consumer views / reads / consumes it, it should seem [[LikeYouWouldReallyDoIt impossible]]. The second time, it should seem [[ForegoneConclusion inevitable]].
104
105	And so, if you want a subversive finale, that's how you do it: you have a KansasCityShuffle, with the real ending HidingInPlainSight. You send signals that you're going one way, but make sure the other is and has always been on the table.
106
107	And for an example of how to ''not'' do that, we go... back to ''Game of Thrones''.
108
109	A lot can happen in 73 episodes, obviously, especially for a setting with as much BackStory as Westeros. The War of TheUsurper, where Robert Baratheon dethroned Daenerys' dad, was 17 years back. As of Episode 7, King Robert is dead; as of Episode 9, Ned Stark is dead, and with him the realm's only hope for a CouldHaveAvoidedThisPlot; civil war is inevitable. As of Episode 10, we're officially divided into ThreeLinesSomeWaiting. By odd coincidence, the three lines can be analogized to one of the nouns in the phrase "A Song of Ice and Fire":
110	* '''The song''' is the "[[SuccessionCrisis War of Five Kings]]," as it's called: Joffrey claims his father's throne, Robert's brothers claim it as well on account of Joffrey not actually being a Baratheon, and two other lords seize the opportunity to (attempt to) return their own principalities to self-rule. It's a bloodbath; only one king survives the war, only one king wins the war, and ''they are not the same king''. (Oh, and then the survivor gets killed off too.) Cersei ends up as ''de facto'' ruler of the Seven Kingdoms by virtue of being the only person still alive enough to plop her [[WorldsMostBeautifulWoman shapely]] derriere on the Iron Throne.
111	* '''The ice''': There's a guy named Jon Snow (Creator/KitHarington), the HeroicBastard of the late Ned Stark, who lives in a BleakBorderBase at TheGreatWall in the far north. Jon is a member of the "Night's Watch," an AncientOrderOfProtectors formed to man the Wall and defend the Seven Kingdoms from the aforementioned GreaterScopeVillain, "the White Walkers" (as the show calls them, because the books call them "the Others" but ''Series/{{LOST}}'' already took that name), an army of "AnIcePerson EnemyToAllLivingThings" types. Only, the White Walkers haven't been seen in eight ''thousand'' years[[note]]For context: the oldest piece of RealLife writing we have is only five thousand years old[[/note]], and the Night's Watch, once a calling of great honor, has become a place of disgrace, with criminals who [[TradingBarsForStripes Traded Bars For Stripes]] rubbing elbows with political dissidents who were KickedUpstairs or ReassignedToAntarctica. Too bad the White Walkers are actually back, right? If Jon wants to survive being a member of an ArmyOfThievesAndWhores as they attempt to stop a supernatural threat no one believes in, he's got a lot of work to do.
112	* '''The fire''' is Daenerys, doing her thing where she hatches her three dragons and returns magic to the world. While Westeros is having a civil war and [[HeadInTheSandManagement completely ignoring Jon's warnings]], Daenerys becomes a WarriorPrincess, using her dragons to cut a swath through Essos. But Daenerys is TheCape. Essos is the heart of the world's slave trade, and Dany focuses exclusively on SlaveLiberation, freeing the oppressed and punishing the oppressor; she becomes known as "Breaker of Chains" for exactly this reason. She is TheFettered, scrupulously using her power along these lines.
113
114	When Dany finally gets to Westeros -- which doesn't happen until Episode 61 -- she's got a lot of opportunities to exploit. First off, Cersei is a person of great ambition but few qualifications; she starts off by surrounding herself with [[YesMan Yes Men]] and giving free rein to her paranoia, and eventually is forced to consolidate her hold on power by getting all her enemies to the Great Sept and then ''blowing it up'' -- decapitating her opposition, yes, but also showing her utter disdain for the country's most powerful organized religion. She serves as the BigBad of the show. Even worse, it's GrimUpNorth: Jon Snow has hit the YouAreInCommandNow trope and is leading the Night's Watch, but it turns out those White Walkers are ''{{necromancer}}s'' and can summon hordes of dead with a gesture, [[HeadsIWinTailsYouLose including the people they just killed]]. Good thing both zombies and ice demons tend to be WeakToFire. It is, in short, the ''perfect'' place for a princess with a pedigree, practical leadership experience, ChronicHeroSyndrome, and three flying flamethrowers to make her mark on history by writing the final verse of the song of ice and fire.
115
116	Of course, there's a flipside for Daenerys Targaryen. She is, as her last name would indicate, a Targaryen... and that comes with its own BackStory. Targaryens are descended from an old superpower called Valyria: they have the silver-gold hair and purple eyes of that ethnic group, and can tame dragons. (The DragonRider bit is why Valyria was a superpower, before it... [[NoodleIncident exploded. ...Somehow]].) About 300 years ago, Daenerys' ancestor, Aegon, took his two sisters and three dragons and conquered the entire Seven Kingdoms of Westeros -- a feat never before accomplished, cementing his place as one of the greatest {{Four Star Badass}}es in history. He became King Aegon I Targaryen, called "TheConqueror," and he founded the Targaryen dynasty... by ''marrying his sisters''. BrotherSisterIncest has been a tradition in House Targaryen ever since, and Daenerys is the product of a RoyallyScrewedUp TangledFamilyTree rife with RoyalInbreeding. The whole point is this: "Madness and greatness are two sides of the same coin," to quote Ser Barristan Selmy (Creator/IanMcElhinney), himself quoting Daenerys' grandfather, King Jaehaerys II. "Every time a new Targaryen is born, the gods toss that coin into the air and the world holds its breath to see how it will land." And Daenerys is a Targaryen. So how did the coin land? Is she CrazyIsCool? Or only AxCrazy?
117
118	And ''this'' is where we get to the part where the first seven seasons of the show have ratings in the 90s on Rotten Tomatoes while the eighth and final season rates ''51%''.
119
120	The brief outline of the final season is this: Daenerys arrives in the North with her army and her dragons, having allied with Jon Snow to [[SavingTheWorld Save the World]] from the White Walkers. Behind them are an unlikely MultinationalTeam cobbled together of Daenerys' (foreign) army, the Night's Watch, the northern armies, "wildling" humans who lived beyond the Wall because they dislike Westerosi feudalism, and whoever else showed up to fight[[note]]Some knights of the Vale, left over from Littlefinger's command, ought to be present; we see some of Theon's ironborn; Jaime's here to do what he can; and technically, there should be some folks from the Riverlands as well, since they've been part of the Northern bloc since Season 1[[/note]]. While Cersei promised to send Lannister troops, she doesn't, because she's evil; but that's okay, they succeed without her. The Night King, leader of the White Walkers, turns out to be an AnticlimaxBoss who is slain, along with his KeystoneArmy, in the third episode and without any characterization beyond "AlwaysChaoticEvil." (This in itself was a ''huge'' ShaggyDogStory, but we're going to gloss over that because it's not what we're here to discuss.[[labelnote:For the curious...]]The Others, per WordOfGod, are a ClimateChangeAllegory, a GreenAesop about DividedWeFall. In the books, it's made clear -- as early as the third book -- that political infighting is a distraction from TheEndOFTheWorldAsWeKnowIt. In the show, [[SkewedPriorities it's the other way around]]. Even worse, there's a BrokenAesop when Cersei's "SomeoneElsesProblem" attitude allows her to, for at least a couple more episodes, retain her first-place standing in the game of thrones.[[/labelnote]]) They then turn their attention to the capitol, King's Landing, where Cersei has entrenched ''her'' power -- the remaining might of House Lannister, augmented by a formidable group of {{Private Military Contractor}}s from Essos. The Targaryen force succeeds at TheSiege, and Cersei surrenders. However, Daenerys has suffered some personal setbacks of late: her devoted PraetorianGuard Ser Jorah Mormont (Creator/IainGlen) was killed in the battle with the White Walkers; Cersei had another of her advisors, Missandei (Creator/NathalieEmmanuel), executed as a show of power; and Daenerys is now a WomanScorned because her LoveInterest, Jon Snow, broke up with her, citing irreconcilable differences.[[note]]Such as the fact that, as it turns out, he is ''also'' a Targaryen -- her nephew, in fact -- and he's just not down for incest.[[/note]] So, on the back of her dragon, she TurnsRed and decides to ''burn King's Landing to the ground'', [[WeHaveReserves putting much of her own army at risk]] and succeeding at killing Cersei, Jaime, and a whole bunch of unnamed civilians.
121
122	When planned in the writer's room, this was unquestionably perceived as a PlotTwist. "Holy shit: our Main Character has been EvilAllAlong!" But when it showed up on screen, fans were unanimous: "No, this wasn't a Plot Twist. This was an AssPull."
123
124	The final episode goes about as you'd expect: Daenerys makes a public speech that's in line with her BlackAndWhiteInsanity (including a lot of EvilIsCool visual imagery), and Jon is forced to conclude that she's BeyondRedemption and do the deed himself (followed by CradlingTheirKill and ManlyTears). Those are both of Daenerys's scenes in that episode. Instead of being executed, Jon is ReassignedToAntarctica one last time, rejoining the Night's Watch. One of the other 43 names in the credits is chosen to be king, Peter Dinklage's character Tyrion gets a position in that king's cabinet, AndTheAdventureContinues.
125
126	The BittersweetEnding, capping off a series renowned for its GrayAndGreyMorality, was a decent wrap-up of everything that had happened... But a lot of viewers had trouble reconciling what had happened in the penultimate episode. Simply put, they felt that Daenerys being AxCrazy was CharacterDerailment. While very few people can disagree that there was accurate foreshadowing -- that whole "madness and greatness" thing is quoted ''in that very episode'' -- what was missed was the escalation. There's no SlowlySlippingIntoEvil, there's just a FaceHeelTurn with almost no set-up. Indeed, the "PreviouslyOn" segment to the episode does ''a better job'' of foreshadowing Dany's Turn than the actual show does... because it gets to engage in a biased recap of the text. Daenerys has has spent 70 episodes consistently having ChronicHeroSyndrome, doing things that a wiser (if colder) ruler would turn away; the only way the show is able to make her seem evil is by ignoring all those things and focusing on the moments when she gave in to wrath or impatience. In order to set up its (sarcasm quotes) "PlotTwist," ''Game of Thrones'' has to derail its own protagonist.
127
128	Now, this doesn't mean the CharacterArc itself is invalid or flawed. Daenerys has ChronicHeroSyndrome; what if she came down with SamaritanSyndrome as well? What if she gets tired of doing the right thing only to face relentless and unfair consequences? What if she got frustrated by the fact that she can ''never catch a break''? What if she got so tired of being a FailureHero that she decided that it's time to don a coat of a different color? TheUnfettered, say. Could such a character arc exist? Hell yeah!
129
130	Did it? [[EpicFail Hell no]]!
131
132	Daenerys [[BecameTheirOwnAntithesis Becomes Her Own Antithesis]] in mere ''heartbeats''. We see her on the back of her dragon, getting angrier and angrier but having no dialogue... And then she starts lighting the city on fire, and her face is ''never seen again for the entire episode''. In fact, Daenerys ''the person'' is never seen again; in both of her scenes in the final episode, she's trying to make the best of the tenuous political position that resulted from her outburst. There is not a single moment where she sits back and reflects: "MyGodWhatHaveIDone Was it worth it?" Is she actually BeyondRedemption? If she decides it was, then, yeah, she's a mass murderer; if she decides it ''wasn't'', then she's had her TragicMistake. Either way, it validates the idea that she must die for her crimes -- either because she herself admits it, or because she [[SelectiveObliviousness refuses to]]. Like ''[=HIMYM=]'' above, this is another situation where an entire television series could have been salvaged with a mere ''30 seconds'' of additional footage.
133
134	But we don't get that footage. The show ''doesn't care'' whether she's BeyondRedemption; the writers have decreed she must die, and so she does. She is a victim not of injustice or genetics but bad writing, losing all characterization to instead become some sort of object lesson about... [[ShrugOfGod something the show is unclear about]]. Tyrion levels what is meant to be the main criticism of her character by proclaiming, "Everywhere she goes, [[PayEvilUntoEvil evil men die]], and we cheer her for it," and he's not wrong... But his assumption -- that he, and by the extension the audience, were wrong to cheer for someone who kills evil men -- is not supported by the text (not to mention being a BrokenAesop). Are we instead meant to believe that WithGreatPowerComesGreatInsanity? Are we meant to believe that she was merely DrunkWithPower? Are we meant to believe that ''there can be no heroes'', that anyone who does good things will inevitably be revealed to be a bad person? ''There is no textual support for any of these interpretations''. There is a {{Watsonian}} explanation for why Daenerys ''might'' decide to commit war crimes, but none as to why she ''did'' -- much less as to why she did it so quickly. There is no explanation; there is only {{Railroading}}.
135
136	And the worst part is that her CharacterDerailment pulls ''almost everyone else'' OffTheRails as well. The show -- once renowned for GreyAndGrayMorality -- eventually committed itself to a portrayal of BlackAndWhiteMorality, and Jon -- who at this point has all but stolen the office of {{Protagonist}} from Daenerys -- needs to be put in a situation where his killing Daenerys looks like ShootTheDog rather than a KlingonPromotion. So Tyrion and Varys, two of the savviest political operators in Westeros, get hit with ThirdActStupidity so that they can accidentally push her into an untenable situation. Cersei, who ''is also a mass murderer'', gets to KarmaHoudini her way out of the CycleOfRevenge -- which is a little goofy considering that there are only 10 episodes of the show that don't live in the shadow of the Cycle Of Revenge started by ''Ned Stark's'' death, and 9 of them occur before he dies. Not only that, Cersei is recast as ''the victim'' of Daenerys' rampage. Sansa has the MoralLuck to distrust her despite having no {{Watsonian}} reason to do so: the emnity between Sansa and Cersei is [[ItsPersonal Personal]], so Sansa should support Daenerys' interest in defeating Cersei; oh, and, also, Dany is here to save everyone in Westeros from certain death; but Sansa doesn't like her, because... well, she just knows somehow that Dany was EvilAllAlong, even though that is impossible for Sansa ''to'' know because Dany hasn't Jumped Off The Slippery Slope yet. And yes, Daenerys Pays Evil Unto Evil... making her ''merely identical'' to every other character in the show, all of whom have killed and murdered in the name of war or self-defense or justice, and all of whom are nonetheless framed, by the final two episodes, as ''sympathetic characters''. It cannot be denied that slaughtering civilians is a bad thing... But if our train of logic is, "Daenerys has power, therefore she must turn evil," then every "hero" in the show ''has already'' turned evil, with Daenerys being not the worst of the lot but rather the shining exemplar who resisted the longest. According to this interpretation, Daenerys was TooGoodForThisSinfulEarth!
137
138	(And yes, there's a great deal more that could be criticized about the final seasons as a whole, from the DynamicDifficulty posed by the Lannister opposition to the RedHerring of Jon's UnexplainedRecovery to the absurd amount of HollywoodTactics used against the Night King to the RedHerring of the Prince that was Promised to the CharacterShilling on behalf of Jon Snow to the preponderance of EasyLogistics and TravelingAtTheSpeedOfPlot to the aforementioned ShaggyDogStory AnticlimaxBoss to Bran Stark's ''entire existence'' to Jaime Lannister pulling a Ted Mosby and invalidating some of the finest CharacterDevelopment ''in the history of fiction''... But we're trying to provide teachable moments here, not start Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike.)
139
140	Nonetheless, Daenerys's ending shows how you can subvert expectations -- and also what to avoid when trying the same. Another good example will be her arc in the remaining two novels of the book series, ''The Winds of Winter'' and ''A Dream of Spring''. It's known that GRRM deliberately allowed Weiss and Benioff to write their own GeckoEnding, out of respect for the needs of TV adaptation... but it's also known that he told them exactly five things about the remaining two books ([[spoiler:Shireen's fate, Hodor's fate, and three other bits that D&D have declined to share]]). It's relatively safe to assume that Daenerys' fate was one of those things. Her ending in the show will be her ending in the books. However, when Daenerys goes AxCrazy in the books, it won't be an AssPull. (Reader speculation: the character of [[spoiler:"[[FanNickname Faegon]]"]] will instigate the SanitySlippage, which they were unable to do on TV because they were AdaptedOut.) Daenerys, as a narrator in the books, is ''very'' aware of the fact that Targaryens have madness [[ItRunsInTheFamily in their blood]], and is constantly questioning her own actions and whether she has gone too far. Consequently, when she starts to fray, The Reader will catch it -- even though poor Dany herself will, presumably, not.
141
142	!'''Writers' Lounge'''
143	!!'''Suggested Themes and Aesops'''
144	As we began, so shall we end: the themes and Aesops you employed at the end of your story should be the same ones you have been using through the beginning and middle of your story. If you arrive at the ending, and you still do not know what these things are, then your story is not done. Do not publish it, do not submit it to Website/FanFictionDotNet, do not [[TabletopGame/{{Monopoly}} pass Go and collect $200]]: instead, step back and look at the things you have been subconsciously weaving into the story. Creator/StephenKing gives a good example. When writing ''Literature/{{Carrie}}'', he tells us in his memoir ''On Writing'', he had no conscious intent of using blood to link the story together. But when he stepped back and read the first draft, he discovered that it was showing up three important moments: when Carrie has her first menstruation and awakens her PsychicPowers; during the prom prank; and during the final confrontation with her abusive mother. So, on the second draft, he consciously looked for places he could sneak the symbol of blood into the story. King did not set out to write a theme; he did it nonconsciously, without intent. You, dear author reading this article, have done the same. The theme is there, and the Aesop is there too; you just have to find it in all the stuff you wrote.
145
146	Another thing to keep in mind is that your theme and Aesop determines your ending. This is part of what enables the NoEnding trope to exist: you arrive at the conclusion of an arc, even if it's not The End. To contrast ''How I Met Your Mother'', let's look at another narrated character drama that masquerades as a romance: ''Film/FiveHundredDaysOfSummer''. The film is about a man named Tom (Creator/JosephGordonLevitt) who meets a ManicPixieDreamGirl named Summer (Creator/ZooeyDeschanel), falls in love with her, gets dumped and can't get over her. The film uses AnachronicOrder -- its first scene takes place on Day 488 -- to explore Tom's mentality and reactions as he tries to get over TheOneThatGotAway, not to mention his own deeper issues with being InLoveWithLove, LovingAShadow of Summer instead of the real her. In the final scene of the film, he's at a job interview and he runs into a girl (Creator/MinkaKelly) named Autumn (you know, [[DontExplainTheJoke the season after summer]])... And, on screen, the day indicator flips back to 1. Is Tom about to be a victim of HistoryRepeats? Or has he learned enough to maybe make a new start? The answer is, [[AmbiguousEnding it doesn't matter]]. The story is fundamentally a ComingOfAgeStory, and its Aesop is, "LovingAShadow is bad." Tom stops doing this; he has learned what he can from his 500 days of Summer and is ready to move on. Therefore, it doesn't actually matter if Autumn is his SecondLove or another stepping stone on the path of his evolution; the story of his 500 days of Summer is over, even if [[AndTheAdventureContinues The Adventure Continues]]. It is an ending... To the story director Marc Webb and screenwriters Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber are actually telling, not the one audiences thought they were. And it works, ''because'' Webb and Neustadter and Weber knew what story they were telling -- something the writers of all the previous works were not sure about. Is it the same story as ''HIMYM''? Arguably?... but with clarity and focus. The film's {{Narrator}} spells it out right up front, before any of the characters even have lines:
147	->"This ''is'' a story of BoyMeetsGirl, but you should know up front: this is ''not'' a love story."
148
149	Another example is ''Film/{{Inception}}'', which has one of the most famous No Endings in history. The movie is about a group of cons who are hired to, using AppliedPhlebotinum, perform a heist in someone's dreams. One of the themes constantly underlined in the film is the difficulty between telling dream from reality, and main character Dom Cobb (Creator/LeonardoDiCaprio) has a top that he spins to figure out whether he's awake or not: if he's asleep, it will defy physics and never stop spinning. Another is the question of whether IgnoranceIsBliss; Dom knows he can use the Applied Phlebotinum to just LotusEaterMachine himself to a happy ending, but he also knows it will be a dream. This question is underlined by the heist itself, which involves invading a guy's dream and planting an idea in his head in such a way that he believes the idea was his own -- the [[TitleDrop eponymous]] inception -- because if he realizes it was planted, he won't believe it. At the end of the film, Dom finally gets his heart's desire. He starts spinning the top, but looks away before he can see the results; likewise, the film cuts to credits before the audience can get results. Filmmaker Creator/ChristopherNolan had to explain that the reason Dom looks away from the top is that he doesn't care anymore; he has decided that ignorance ''is'' bliss. The story ends, correctly, when Dom accepts the film's {{Aesop}}. The fact that WordOfGod had to explain what the Aesop ''was'' is, undeniably, a flaw of the film itself; but that's a matter of execution, not intent. "Telling your story poorly" is a very different flaw than "Not actually knowing what story you are telling".
150
151	And finally, let's take a look at ''Franchise/HarryPotter''. As a massive multimedia franchise with huge cultural impact -- it set the stage for an explosion of young adult literature, leading directly to things like ''Literature/TheTwilightSaga'', ''Literature/TheHungerGames'' and ''Literature/FiftyShadesOfGrey''; you could also argue that it opened the world's eyes to the power of fantasy, thus segueing directly into ''Game of Thrones'' -- it had a lot of people making guesses over what would happen in the seventh and final book. Some of them were obvious; author JK Rowling, when [[{{Jossed}} Jossing]] a FanPreferredCouple, [[http://www.mugglenet.com/2005/07/emerson-spartz-melissa-anelli-mugglenet-leaky-cauldron-interview-joanne-kathleen-rowling-part-two/ pointed out]] that she had seeded "[[{{Anvilicious}} anvil-sized]]" hints about whether that couple was going anywhere. Also, since Harry himself was TheChosenOne and Chosen Ones are always [[TheOnlyOneAllowedToDefeatYou The Only Ones Allowed To Defeat]] the BigBad, it was safe to assume that Harry would defeat the Big Bad. However, we knew almost nothing, going in, about ''how'' Harry would do it -- aside from the fact that Harry would employ ThePowerOfLove, because that's always been his greatest strength. And that was even before Rowling released the title of the final book, ''Literature/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallows'', revealing that a bunch of magical objects which had ''never been mentioned before'' over the course of the series would, nonetheless, play such a pivotal role in the victory that the book would be named after them. While critics derided the existence of the Hallows as an AssPull -- and [[JerkassHasAPoint they had a point]], particularly when Rowling did factually forget to {{foreshadow}} that one of them was HidingInPlainSight -- it also helped prove that ItsTheJourneyThatCounts. The ending of ''Harry Potter'' wasn't thrilling because we didn't know if Harry could handle You-Know-Who; it was thrilling because the Deathly Hallows and the [[SoulJar horcruxes]] -- not to mention the RuleMagic -- gave Rowling the tools she needed to turn a "CircleOfExtinction [[SingleStrokeBattle Single-Spell Battle]] WizardDuel" into something that was, well, actually interesting. Instead of a special-effects-laden FinalBattle which would have been rather boring on-page (and, frankly, ''was'' boring in the movie adaptation), we have Harry as a MartialPacifist who withholds the fight until the very end, and instead uses his BreakingSpeech to try and pull Voldemort back over the MoralEventHorizon... partially because, due to his mastery ''of'' Hallows / Horcruxes / Rule Magic, Harry knows Voldemort's death is a ForegoneConclusion. And, as such, ''he tries to turn Voldemort away from his BolivianArmyEnding.'' Because that's ThePowerOfLove.
152
153	There's also that WhereAreTheyNowEpilogue: 19 years later, Harry has grown up and married and is seeing two of his three kids off to Hogwarts. Is it mawkish and sentimental? Arguably. Is it mundane that a man who saved the world places so much emphasis on sending his kids to school? Unarguably. Is it ''in character?'' For Harry "I Just Want To Have A Family" Potter, a man whose orphanhood is his FreudianExcuse? ''Absolutely.'' It might not be the fate that fans would have chosen for Harry, but it is unquestionably the fate he would have chosen for ''himself''. And while it erodes his credibility as an EscapistCharacter, Administrivia/TropesAreNotBad... and you could make the argument that, ''because'' it steps away from escapism and into character development, it's a superior storytelling choice.
154
155	----
156
157	Fundamentally, endings are powerful because they provide you, the writer, a chance to show that you know what you were doing. It should cap off your theme and underline your Aesop. If the ending does not do this, it actively contradicts the story that came before it, and that's kind of a problem. It should ''complete'' the story, not break it in half. And even if it ''does'' break it in half, that break should fit with the Theme and Aesop.
158
159	End ''your'' story. Not the story you thought you were writing; not the story you meant to write. End the story you ''wrote''. You may piss people off. But at least you won't get sued.
160

Context SoYouWantTo / WriteAnEnding