Everything has a beginning, a middle, and an end. True or false?

If this week’s lecture (which was a lecture), was an essay, that would be the prompt.

Stories, apparently, have to have a beginning, a middle, and an end, because that is what makes them a story, right? I’m with Adrian on this one. No.

I am someone who needs closure. I need a satisfying ending. I love when a book has an epilogue, even if it is terrible or not to my taste (who said Harry Potter just then?). I hate when a TV show ruins everything it has worked to achieve over so many seasons (How I Met Your Mother has the worst television finale ever, quote me). And I can’t stand it when something is left open ended (come Judd Apatow, just one more episode of Freaks and Geeks). So I surprise myself when I say that a story doesn’t need to have a beginning, middle and end to be a story.

In fact, I don’t think any story has a beginning, middle and end, because I think every story is left open ended, whether the creator intended it that way or not.

As a consumer of stories, I find myself thinking about the could-have-beens and should-have-beens long after I have finished reading/listening/watching. I think about the meanings hidden within the stories, the moral choices faced by characters and the consequences of their actions. I think about what would happen if these events happened in a different place, or at a different time or with different characters. For me, the possibilities of the story are never ending. In my head, or even on paper, I can make ‘finished’ stories go on forever.

So even though an author may write a beginning, a middle and an end, I believe that that is just a necessity of writing (or at least a necessity of mainstream writing). Stories go on forever, even if it just in the muddled heads of the audience.