One of the more common criticisms that is made of my third book Captain Mack is made not by reviewers and media critics, but by almost every school student who reads it. To be fair, it's not always a criticism. Sometimes it's just an observation, but it's always followed by a question. The observation is: "You don't tell us what happened to Captain Mack," and the question which follows is, obviously enough, "So, what does happen to Captain Mack?" I'm often then asked if I plan to write a sequel. Kids love to have their stories all wrapped up and complete, and that's fine. I don't have a problem with that at all -- a great number of adults like the same thing.

Why is that? Is it because Hollywood has taught us to expect a story to reach a perfect conclusion within a couple of hours of the story starting? This is almost certainly the case. In a lot of cinema (and this seems to me to be more true in American cinema than European cinema) the observer sees the main characters presented with a problem which they then set out to resolve. And when the credits roll ninety minutes or so later, the audience expects to see that problem solved to their satisfaction. If they don't, they feel cheated. TV is the same, and I think we all get used to that. The weird thing is that the American movie industry seems to think that an important movie which deals with important and "serious" issues can engage in this tying up of the loose ends nonsense but still pass itself off as serious cinema simply by being longer. The fact is, though, at the end of such a film, most of the problems we were presented with at the beginning are dealt with and solved. It's just taken twice as long.

But real life isn't like that. Real life is a series of dilemmas, and every solution to a problem brings with it another problem. Tying up the loose ends is very convenient, but it's not very much like real life.

And I don't like to write that way. I prefer my stories to have some element left over to the reader. I want my readers to think about what the final ending might be. My reason for doing this is that such an ending includes the reader. If everything goes to plan this type of conclusion makes them think about the story, and leaves them with an element of curiousity and interest in that story. I think that's important.

Why is it so important? Because of the way a reader reflects on the story when it's all over. If they look back and see that the story was all tied up neatly (and as such perhaps not a lot like real life) they will then see the characters in the story as not entirely real. The characters will seem like movie actors after the credits roll -- just actors in a wrapped-up and finished-off story ready to head off and make their next movie.

I prefer my readers to ask themselves questions about what might have happened after the last page is turned. You see, every decision we make changes our lives just that little bit, and I think the same thing applies to characters in a book. If a writer leaves his or her reader with a character in an partially unconcluded situation, then that character will live on in that reader's mind. Where did he go next? What decision did he make on that last page? Did Danny try to find Captain Mack so he could return what was rightfully the old man's, or did he hang onto it? Did he go and look for Captain Mack's son and give it to him instead? Were the bullies really expelled, and if not, what kind of reception did Danny receive next time he went to school? Is Captain Mack happy at last? Does Danny ever actually get his eye fixed? All these are questions the reader is left with at the end of my story, and they weren't left that way because I was lazy or because I couldn't think of how the story might finish. No, I left it that way because by not telling the reader every last detail, those characters live on as if the story is an account of something that happened to real people.

That's why it ends that way. I might write a Captain Mack sequel one day, but for now, imagine your own. It's more fun like that.