The agony of ending a book

Back in 2010 I was sweating out a major revision of the book that became Mapping Winter. The conclusion fought me every step of the way, so I finally bought myself a week in a cabin in the mountains above Forestville and fought it out with the book, mano a mano. I posted this on August 19, 2010, in the late, lamented site Readerville.com

I hate ending books. I hate ending books. I hate it, I hate it, it’s horrible, I hate it, it sucks.

They don’t want to end. This one doesn’t want to end. They become jigsaw puzzles, with all the weird pieces shaped like New Hampshire sticking out and they won’t go in and all the people shut up and won’t say squat except when they say, “You want me to go over here. Okay. No problem. I’ll go over here. Great. What’s that? What do I think about it? Buzz off, sister, you think I’m going to tell you?” So I explain that that is why I am writing the book, to say what so‑and‑so thinks about it, what’s going on in her head, what his stomach feels like right about now, now that it is all coming together, now that the book is drawing to a close, now that our journey together is ending. Are they convinced? Hah!

Listen, I say to them, we have come a long, long way together, you and I. We started a long time ago, and we have had many adventures, only some of which have made it into the book. We have a history here. And see, I have the plot lines gathered together, they are coming together here, New Hampshire is morphing into a banana which just fits that banana‑shaped hole right over there, see? Isn’t that nifty? What do you think of that? And the book says, “First, your metaphors are a mess and, second, what about that sub‑plot you introduced in Chapter 5, eh? The one you made a big fuss about and now where is it? Ummmm? You think you can end this book without taking care of that?”

I’ve fixed the holes. I’ve gathered up the ends. I have shaped the jigsaw. I don’t give a damn about the metaphors. I can literary it up later, but right now I want the stupid thing to end. And it won’t do it.

I creep in, stake in hand, down the twisting stairs of the castle, it’s midnight, the moon is dark, the dungeon is dark, it is dark and damp and creepy and I will kill the goddamned thing, I will close this book if it’s the last thing I do upon the face of the earth, and I raise the lid of the coffin and I position the stake and I raise the hammer, I lift it up, I raise the hammer to strike the single fatal blow, I have it by the metaphorical or allegorical throat and I am prepared, I am poised, I am ready to finish the book! I raise it high, the hammer, and I balance it, and I bring it down, and ‑‑ the goddamned thing escapes me, and stands jeering on the far side of the room, screaming, “I want to live! I want to live!” But it has nowhere to go, the story is over, the plot is resolved, so why can’t I just end the book?

Deep breath. Deep breath. What are you, a writer or a mouse? Deep breath. Tap <Enter> twice, <Indent> once. Press down on the <Shift> key. Ready? Deep breath.

And then a bear ate them up and they lived happily ever after.

Crap. I’m going to watch Star Wars.

The Tribunal for Mandatory Homicide

This is something I’ve been playing with for a number of years now, but it may be almost ready for prime time. Hope you enjoy it.

As you undoubtedly know, homicide is a state offense unless it is committed on Federal lands, so we will only discuss the states here. Someday, we hope, the law will become enlightened enough to extend the legal theory of Mandatory Homicide to the Federal government.

Depending on the state, the law recognizes various types of homicide: first, second, third degree; voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, and so forth.

The issue is that there are some individuals who, while having committed no absolute crime, are nonetheless so disruptive and annoying to their fellows, and downright inimical to the peaceful conduct of a just society, that they must be brought to justice. However, we abide by the Rule of Law, and this new legal theory must not outrage that Rule. Therefor it is obvious that the workings of Mandatory Homicide must be carefully crafted to preserve the rights of all concerned. They are.

Requesting the Writ. When dealing with regular homicide, our society is pretty much kill-now pay-later. This will not work for Mandatory Homicide, which must strive to protect all involved. Therefore, if Complainant feels aggrieved enough, Complainant must appear before a Tribunal, with his or her paperwork in order, to request a Writ for Mandatory Homicide. The three judges will review the paperwork and hear testimony, confer amongst themselves, then issue a preliminary verdict.

The Preliminary Verdict. This verdict could be that the offenses are not serious enough to warrant a court appearance, and the Complaint is denied. The Complainant is free to try again, but subsequent complaints must be persuasive or the Complainant can be judged to be a Litigious Complainant and no further complaints will be heard for a period of time, the length of which is at the judges’ discretion.

However, if the verdict is that the Complaint is valid, the Tribunal will issue a formal Writ for Mandatory Homicide, to be served by an officer of the court on the Defendant. The Writ will list a specific time and date for the hearing; should the defendant not appear, an automatic verdict is legal sanction to “Go For It” (described hereinbelow). This should guarantee that the proceedings are taken seriously.

The Hearing. No lawyers are allowed at the hearing. At that hearing, the Complainant states the case for issuing the Writ for Mandatory Homicide and can present evidence and/or testimony. The Defendant is then allowed to testify as to why he or she should not be killed, and may also present evidence and testimony. Both sides are then allowed closing statements, and the Tribunal retires to confer.

The Verdict and Administration of Justice. The judges can return one of three possible verdicts. In the first, they declare that the Defendant may be an objectionable asshat but not so much as to warrant further punishment. The Defendant is seriously warned and allowed to leave.

The second verdict is that the Defendant is indeed a reprehensible, lily-livered, low-down excuse for a human, a veritable snake who gives snakes in general a bad name, an abomination in the eyes of society and a stench in the nostrils of the Lord. The Complainant and Defendant are escorted in to a courtyard where a firearm is presented to Complainant and he or she is formally charged to “Go for it.” Complainant gets enough ammunition to carry out the sentence.

But there are always cases where the Defendant is indeed adjudged to be a reprehensible, lily-livered, etc., but not sufficiently so to merit death. In this case Complainant and Defendant are escorted to a courtyard, where Complainant is issued a firearm and ammunition, and told to “Wing ‘em.”

It is believed that such a legal avenue, with its protections of the parties and its requirement for a sober and knowledgeable tribunal of practiced judges, would vastly expand our society’s emphasis on civil discourse and care of one’s neighbors. The Legislature is urged to give this proposal the attention it deserves.