Let's talk about Cliches: Cliffhangers

Let's Talk About Cliches: Cliffhangers

No one really likes cliffhangers. I don't like cliffhangers. If you went to the average person and said, "Hey, would you like a really good story with an unfinished ending!?!?!" They probably would say "no." Cliffhangers generally are hated by the public. It's an unspoken rule, but theirs a lot of really good books that end in cliffhangers simply because there's more rocks to look under. Sometimes the plot can't handle being placed in one book but the basic structure of it demands another one. 

But sometimes it's because of money.

I get it: writers, like all career jobs, need money to create content. You gotta pay the piper. That's just how things work. The thing is that you're creating entertainment, not making a cash machine. Though I thought the Divergent series was okay, I could have a long and lengthy argument on why the creator should've kept it a standalone series. The other books were unnecessary and the final one ended horribly.(Rule of writing: Don't kill off your characters for no reason, basically when they're the MAIN CHARACTER.) 

In my latest review as of date, I forgot to mention how the cliffhanger seemed really, really, fake. It wasn't there because the story couldn't be finished, it seemed like it was there to make money. When creating content, money shouldn't your primary motivator. You should keep a good perspective: telling the story you want to tell and being able to support yourself. Mr.Yancey's ending on his story seemed like he just wanted to stretch it out to three books to make money. 

The sad part about cliffhangers designed for making money is that they work. Plenty of people are going to read the next book just because of it's a next book. 

I'm not gonna fall for it any longer. So **** you, Rick Yancey. Your book is terrible.