The Wrap Up (denouement)

I've recently finished reading a novel (new, fairly well-known) that I know was originally published online, and which I'm willing to guess was published online in pieces. The book really felt like three main acts: Act I was the shortest, which was the big reveal in a way and the dissonance that kept the next part going; Act II gave us the best character development and came along at a good pace, with enough jumps forward and back to give us an idea of the increasing stakes. And Act III felt quite slow at times, and then in the last few pages covered what probably could have been 50 pages of activity. Including the most crucial conflict and ideological exposition, revealed in maybe 2-3 lines of narrative text.

Now, the author is doing quite well, and I won't throw shade because 1) he had a good idea, 2) he worked the hell out of it, 3) he's at the moment VERY successful and prolific and 4) I like the way he's gone about his business overall.  But ... to me, it's a missed opportunity to really make the (inevitable) ending stronger, more logical, more cohesive ... more lasting.

I can't say I know what went into the decision, other than it sets up nicely for sequels by not spending too much time on the why (perhaps they were getting a bit long and something had to be shortened while keeping momentum for the next volume?). And I'm certainly not a stickler for details and rules, though fans of Syd Field would also see the same issue as it violates one of his core principles (or at least fast-forwards over it).

So the resolution had to happen that way, yes, no issues. The setup for how the resolution happens is also fine: a character hears a conversation between the two main sides of the struggle, that character turns out to have acted on insights and conscience stemming from the conversation and that decision completely changes how the characters' lives turn out.

However, what I've written above is actually longer than the crucial sequence in the book. The key sequence is noted in the third person, in an overhead narrative about that third person, from a distance, and summarized in a few words. Not the kind of surprise ending I was looking for.

Yes, the two characters would have followed predictable paths and predictable logical arguments with each other, yes they would have disagreed on disagreeing and not yielded (vs. the "agree to disagree" reaction) and yes, the actions taken afterwards made sense. But this is the crux of the book, idea vs. idea. This is the heart of the issue. This is the soul. This is to be shown, not told. This is the opportunity to turn phrases, speak deeply, make memorable moments. This is the courtroom scene from (choose one) Inherit the Wind, A Few Good Men, Anatomy of a Murder, To Kill a Mockingbird. THIS is where you hammer it home.

"This" was three sentences long in this case. Sigh.

Yes, I'm unpublished, and in fact unfinished as far as novels go. No, I have no idea what went into any decisions. No this isn't a momentously important book like To Kill a Mockingbird. Yes, I enjoyed it anyway.

But also (dammit), yes, I have the right to make a cogent argument about what I see and don't see in structure, even as an unpublished author talking about a NYT bestselling one. Yes, I can have a point of view here, because my point of view is not so much about taking down the other author as asking myself what can I learn from him. And I can learn a whole lot, all about how to commit to writing, to develop ideas, to refine, to market, to take ownership, to follow goals, to grow. AND I can learn what I might want to do differently when it's my turn. It's all learning.

The French word denouement is often used to talk about the wrap-up of a story (true or imagined), and it originates in various words for "knot." So in a way, tying up loose ends. So my message to my favorite new writer (me) from myself will be -- "tie the knot mindfully, and tie it choosing to make the most of the knot." Or at least hold out for four sentences when it's your time.