[latepaul]

Originally Posted by crich70

I do agree that it can depend on many things as to how much detail is needed. I mean if John is shown to be angry and next thing you know the police come calling because 'she' has been found dead then it would be important.

But again that's not an ending.

In truth I just used that example to point out that cutting things to bare details can lose a lot of information. I think it can also jar the reader out of the story prematurely (even if near the end). I also think that it is possible to cut a story down to bare facts so much that it is almost unreadable. Traditionally that meant it would most likely be rejected by a publishing house but now with Amazon and Smashwords (to name just two places) anyone can publish anything without stopping to have someone look it over to see if the tale is at its best.

I'm willing to bet that more books are/were rejected for over-writing than for being too bare. Certainly that was true in the writing groups I used to participate in.

Some people over do showing granted, but some also overdo just telling, and as has been noted here in this thread there needs to be a balance. In some stories that may mean a longer ending than in another story.

Again, how long it is has nothing to do with whether it's show or tell.

I don't know about others here at MR but when I pick up a fiction book I do so to be entertained and having too rapid fire a closing can feel like I'm a guest at the author's dinner table and am being quickly rushed out the door for some reason after the meal.

I've had that experience but I've had the opposite experience more often.