I just finished reading E. L. Doctorow’s “Wakefield,” a short story in his 2011 collection called, All the time in the world. “Wakefield” is the tale of a successful middle-aged lawyer who “accidentally” (comes early, so not a spoiler) abandons his home, family, and job by secretly moving into the virtually unused storage space above their detached garage. It’s an intriguing premise and executed as well as one would expect of a writer as fine as Doctorow.
But it’s not a finished story. That is, the story stops at the very point where the reader yearns to know the consequences of Howard Wakefield’s nearly year-long absence and abandonment of his family. He, Wakefield (and thus writer Doctorow) carries on this big change of life, then is instigated to change back, but he (and we) are literally left at the opened door. It leaves me wanting to write at least the next scene, but since it’s a great writer’s story who chose to leave it “unfinished,” do I dare? I can see it, perhaps, being used as an exercise in an MFA writing class. I can see it being praised for its “literariness.” (If Doctorow can leave me hanging like that, can’t I coin a word, even if it’s never used again?)
This technique might be called “in medias res,” Latin for “in the middle of things,” except that this usually refers to beginning in the middle of a story, not ending there. Thrillers and mysteries often begin in medias res, but can you imagine one ending there?
If I were to read “Wakefield” as my own work to a critique group (temporarily as “mine” and presuming they didn’t already know it), I could expect to be flayed for not ending the story. “This story is unsatisfying!” “Actions have consequences!” “You’re copping out, Figler! Don’t come back without an end to this story and an apple streusel!” etc. Or, someone may like stories that end without ending.
What other published stories by good or great writers have ended without an ending (consequence, etc.)? How did you feel about it? How might your story be received if you did this?