Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
Bulletin Board
>
Sequels and Trilogies - Why?
date
newest »
newest »
I don't get or read series. I like self-contained books/characters/worlds. The few detective thrillers I read that have the same Cop in them, always make me feel the author has to find new things to say about the Detective from previous in the series, so I always feel the reader should have known about that particular character trait or backstory a lot earlier. But I recognise this is an issue of personal reading taste.
Every author is an individual creative artist, so how can there be only one right answer to this question?!
It's fascinating reading all the responses here, because they make it clear there is no one right answer. For some readers (I am one) a cliff-hanger ending is unsatisfactory, not to say annoying. For another, it is not just okay, but liked. Some like to read/write series, others not. But I will go with D.M's post about making each book the best dang book it can be, in and of itself, not just a step on the way to a huge series that will keep readers coming back. If that's how it turns out, fine (love Discworld, and I'm pretty fond of Pern, too, though it may be telling that I still prefer the earliest books in that world).
I wrote a sequel (coming soon!) to the Ninja Librarian because a) I found when I had finished the first that I had more stories bubbling up in me about the people and place, and b) my readers asked me to. In person. Hard to deny that ego boost! If I do a third book, it will be after I finish an unrelated project, lest I grow stale and the world forced.
There is no right or wrong answer. Every author and reader will have their own personal preferences. What fascinates me is why some authors tell their story and walk away and why others create an ongoing world of entertainment. Are stand-alone books written to dissect a particular element of the human condition with characters fitted around that?
Are Trilogies' and sagas written to boost our spirits by filling them with characters who fight an ongoing battle against life, taking the knocks because tomorrow, when they wake, they may very well taste victory?
What drives people to reach those decisions, is it the art of storytelling, maybe it's publishers demands or the readers appetites? Or does Mr Banker have a bigger stake in the process than we realise?
Congrats on going full time, Jacqueline, long may your imagination stay fertile, your fingers nimble and may your readership continue to grow with each word you type. Great news.
Another opinion from the same topic on another thread - Tom -
I agree we're prone to sequels, and I won't get started on re-makes.
I think the question posed lists the probability of an existing sequel's reason for existence from highest to lowest. Sadly, we have defaulted to picking our horses and riding them until they die. I think it's rare that a story is so huge it cannot be told in one book. I'm thinking Asimov's "Foundation" books.
I've adopted a take much like Heinlein - set your stories in a common universe, and even cross-weave them now and then, but don't chain things too heavily sequel-wise.
One man's opinion.
If any of you want to comment because the person is not a member of this group, the link is as follows
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
D.M. wrote: "'Yeah, they'd never know, I hear you cry, but inside I'd know that I'd cheated them, and isn't that cheating myself.'Love that statement, Harrison, brilliant. Refer to your books by all means, it allows you to make your points from a real perspective.
The common point both you and Patricia have made is that readers want more, once they have experienced the thrill of the first read. And I guess that is what storytellers should do, they should leave the audience asking for more, keen to find out what happened to the characters in the book.
There seems to be a lot of passion from the writers of trilogies' / series for their characters, settings etc. Is it that passion that leads to further stories unfolding or have those stories already been formulated before a key gets pressed?
I suppose it's no different than anyone's life, we all have more than one story to tell, why should we limit ourselves to just one.
..."
D.M, in my book, Ominous Love, I made sure at the end everything was answered, except for the cliffhanger. I didn't plan the story and had no plot to start with, just characters. A girl, a boy, and a good and bad angel. I just started writing to see where it would lead me and the story just unfolded. I never knew what the next chapter would be, so when I reached a place where I thought the reader would be satisfied, I stopped, or it would have just kept going. LOL. So with still more of the story in my head, I left it with a cliffhanger. And like you said, D.M, in life we all have more stories to tell, so why not our stories.
My children's books are all stand alone stories, and I still have two sequels that I'm writing in that genre. Although Ominous Love is the first book in a series, I hope that readers will still enjoy it even if they never read the sequels. Hopefully the ending is satisfying enough to be a stand alone story, though the cliffhanger will probably hook them. I hadn't intended it to end that way, it just happened. The characters made me do it. After all, they are angels. LOL. :)
Also as authors, we have to follow our own creativity. We may write a stand alone book, or a series. I don't think we have a choice. It just happens. Money doesn't come into it for me, though it would be nice. When I write, I leave the planet and let the story unfold. It ends where it ends.
As a reader, I love a series. I've just read three Y/A Coming of Age romance books, and they all have sequels. I love that, especially if I like the characters. I read and enjoy many stand alone books, too.
Ominous Love
I do think those that despise sequels are missing out big time on some wonderful stories.I'd say check to see if the books are all available before you invest, so you can buy the next, rather than lose out.
It is sad.
My Book, Sugar and Spies, is actually the first in a series. I really like strong television shows that have a lot of character and plot development, and the more you watch, the more you get attached to these characters. When I first started working on my book, I imagined it as a TV show. I imagined this character growth that couldn't happen in just one book, in just one adventure. I also feel like I can explore secondary characters and their stories, and how it all connects, as well. Book one is just the tip of the iceberg of crazy that my main character uncovers.
I do have plans for a single novel, but it's only a short snippet in the characters' otherwise long lives.
I wrote a long reply then realised it was bollocks;).I guess it depends on the writer and why they write, plus the world.
There are sequels which should probably never have seen the light of day:) Especially some written long after the original by someone else. Although not sure these count.
Alexandra, your reply made me laugh. Good knows what the other one would have done had I read it.
I write a series because that's what I like to read. If I find a character or world that I truly enjoy, nothing makes me happier than to know that the author has more adventures featuring the same. Whether that's the variety of a single common world/character with multiple independent episodes (crime novels, thrillers come to mind), or a single long major story arc broken down among smaller minor (though still book-length) arcs (fantasy, science fiction come to mind, I like to keep the magic of reading alive once I find it. I'm the type that rarely reads a book that's not in a series for this very reason.It's been mentioned before, but some larger stories simply have too much story to fit into a single volume. Whether those volumes are 150, 300, or 600 pages or longer doesn't matter. I'd skip a single story running 3,000 pages in a single volume; I'd happily read 5-10 volumes comprising the same 3,000 pages though. I don't think it's a case that the 3,000 pages in this example are simply "fluff" to bring about the length in question, or to force out additional volumes to make people buy. Ideally, readers find the story, characters, and world(s) entertaining and want to read more for sheer enjoyment.
Still, understood that there are readers who like to see a story thoroughly completed in a single volume, and there are writers who happily comply with that demand as well.
Alex wrote: "I write a series because that's what I like to read. If I find a character or world that I truly enjoy, nothing makes me happier than to know that the author has more adventures featuring the same...."Love it!
Very interesting discussion! I see why some folks prefer one book (I've been there) and I see why some folks enjoy series (I do, too). I do despise cheap cliffhangers as a ploy to get people to buy more books. I get enough of that with TV.But if a book has entranced me with its world and its people, I want to go back. Harry Potter had a self-contained plot in each book--but there was also a metaplot going on. Reading each book alone was possible, but reading them all together was much better.
I have a couple of standalone books planned, as well as a foundational five-book series to establish the world. I like Heinlein's model, of jumping back and forth through the timeline of a world for various stories. It made his work so intriguing!
Right, being doing a bit of thinking about this. Excluding 'this is my job' books i.e. Detectives, Forensic Scientists etc. which I class as being in a series. Would it be fair to say that sequels / trilogies' always involve building a new world for the reader to enjoy, hence the need for them to run longer than the norm. If Joe works in a factory, drives a 4WD and plays for the local football team, we all get that straight away. We don't need much more info than that to get the picture, whereas if he was an intergalatic 25th century slave owner, who buys and sells humans through various time dimensions, we need a lot more info to comprehend how all this works.
Does anyone know of any trilogies, based in the here, the now, the everyday that are not related to the above two concepts?
I have no real interest in writing a series, but I do read a lot of them.But then so far my self-published stuff has been all short stories, so I suppose I should write one novel before I even think about a trilogy!
Andrew wrote: "I have no real interest in writing a series, but I do read a lot of them.But then so far my self-published stuff has been all short stories, so I suppose I should write one novel before I even th..."
Bundle them into one and call it a shovel.
D.M. wrote: "Right, being doing a bit of thinking about this. Excluding 'this is my job' books i.e. Detectives, Forensic Scientists etc. which I class as being in a series. Would it be fair to say that sequels ..."David Peace's 'Red Riding Quartet' and his Japanese trilogy, the third one to be published this or next year I believe. Unless you count 1970s Yorkshire as requiring of a world building...
D.M. wrote: "Right, being doing a bit of thinking about this. Excluding 'this is my job' books i.e. Detectives, Forensic Scientists etc. which I class as being in a series. Would it be fair to say that sequels ..."I don't think so. In the 1970s historical trilogies were quite popular (RF Delderfield comes to mind)or Clavell's Asian Trilogy which later became his Asian Saga (Shogun)both writers cover real history through the eyes of fictional characters and I believe James Michener would probably find his books broken into two or three parts today.
Harrison wrote: "Andrew wrote: "I have no real interest in writing a series, but I do read a lot of them.But then so far my self-published stuff has been all short stories, so I suppose I should write one novel b..."
LOL! I think my book is a shovel! I put together a collection of short stories about the same people and place which has just enough linear development to call it a novel. "Shovel" is a perfect description.
I don't think there is a right or wrong answer.For me, the series I am writing could not be told in just one book, unless you want to lug around a 1,000+ page book. Maybe in today's ebook-world it wouldn't be so bad, but there aren't too many authors that can get away with 800+ page books and people stick with it (Robert Jordan is one that does come to mind).
In a lot of cases it doesn't do the story much justice to rush through certain parts simply because it's "getting too long" or "I need to get it into one book." When authors are creating whole new worlds, there is a LOT that goes into that. For my current series, it takes actual events that occurred 2200 years ago, but it covers about 8-9 years with a LOT of events. There is just no way I could do that in one book and keep it interesting.
D.M. wrote: "Right, being doing a bit of thinking about this. Excluding 'this is my job' books i.e. Detectives, Forensic Scientists etc. which I class as being in a series. Would it be fair to say that sequels ..."There are loads of Coming of Age sequels and Trilogies, D.M, and since I've started my series, I've got hooked on reading them. Most have a real cliffhanger at the end and you crave the next one. It's become an addiction. :) And I should be writing more, not reading more. LOL.
Ominous Love
D.M. wrote: "Cliff Hangers....is it a concept which has crept from our television screens and into our books or was it always there? You see it with movies too, looking back at movies in the 40's, 50's, 60's ..."
It's my understanding from Eliot Engel's A Dab of Dickens & A Touch of Twain: Literary Lives from Shakespeare's Old England to Frost's New England that Charles Dickens "invented" the cliffhanger when he started serializing his novels. I remember reading somewhere else (can't remember where unfortunately) that people waited on the docks of New York harbor with bated breath for the latest serial to see if Dickens's character Little Nell would live or die.
Charles Dickens was not only a literary genius, he was an incredibly shrewd businessman.
I've never had my heart set on writing a series, but I've lately been thinking about writing a prequel to my new novel. It's not that I want to extend the story, more that I'd like to broaden the reader's view of the world in which it's set. I think that's what draws me to a series, rather than the prospect of an epic tale.
I've been thinking more about this question, because it's interesting.Sequels, trilogies, series... they're not new. I don't think it's fair to chalk it up to being a result of TV series, and they're not even a genre-related thing. It's human nature to want more of a story, to stick with characters we know and love.
I was going to mention Charles Dickens as my example... but I see someone else beat me to it :)
Hello,
I just created a Kindle trilogy, Exploring the Sacred in Vietnam, because the original file,'Spirit Realms of Vietnam: The Diaries' which is sold as a paperback on Amazon, was too large a file to submit to Kindle. Hence the trilogy. The companion 'Spirit Realms of Vietnam: The Context' sells as both a paperback and a Kindle.
The large file size is because it contains many intriguing photos of sacred sites in Vietnam taken from 2006-2011, that are under the radar. I was guided on these four journeys to Vietnam by 100-year-old maps and directions written by a French priest-ethnologist.
Whether or not this is sound marketing will play out over the next few months. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Jenelle wrote: "I've been thinking more about this question, because it's interesting.Sequels, trilogies, series... they're not new. I don't think it's fair to chalk it up to being a result of TV series, and the..."
I agree that it's human nature to want more/or different perspectives about certain characters and stories--witness the various, countless versions of the King Arthur mythology over the centuries. Your comment stated the point I neglected to include in my example of Charles Dickens, so thank you. :)
Karen wrote: "Your comment stated the point I neglected to include in my example of Charles Dickens, so thank you. :)No problem. :) I refer back to him a lot... despite the fact that I'm not a huge fan of his writing. I think he was a genius when it came to stories... but I have a very hard time reading his stuff. Oddly enough, he's one of those very few authors where I prefer the movies to the books.
What the Dickens.....selling his stories in serialised versions.
D.M. wrote: "Sequels and Trologies seem quite popular at present, but they do leave me wondering1 - Is it a failure on the authors behalf to tell the whole story in one book?
2 - Do they exist because readers of these books enjoy the characters and want to find out more about how the characters lives evolve after the initial story?
or
3 - Has the author hit a seam of gold and it makes sense to keep working?"
For me, it's a firm 2.
Let me quote some of my readers:
"By the end of the story I was thoroughly enthralled and I can't wait to get my hands on the second novel Peccadillo to find out who and how Katla will be killing next and how her relationship with Bram will continue to evolve."
"Buy this book,review this book, and help get the author off his butt to write the next Katla novel."
"This book has excellent sub-plots and the author brought it all together with a neat bow. Kudos to Martyn on this book. I can't wait to read more of Katla's adventures in future books."
"I'm glad I stumbled upon this author and definitely want to read more of his books."
"I can't wait to read the next novel in the series."
"It is evident that this is a series to keep reading. The locale is unique and interesting, the characters diverse and intriguing and the idea behind Katla's occupation and her methods are fascinating to contemplate."
"Apart from dealing with the Chinese we get another interesting glimpse into how Katla troubleshoots corporate problems. Like in the first book the amount of detail and thought that went into the story is amazing. I am definitely looking forward to the next book in the series."
"I'm really looking forward to reading more of Katla's stories!"
Now, I won't deny that series often sell better than stand-alone novels, but if I was just into this for the money, I would write something with more commercial appeal than stories about a freelance assassin in Amsterdam.
Goodreads Authors/Readers
Books mentioned in this topic
Exploring the Sacred in Vietnam: 2006 (other topics)A Dab of Dickens & A Touch of Twain: Literary Lives from Shakespeare's Old England to Frost's New England (other topics)
Ominous Love (other topics)
Sugar and Spies (other topics)
Ominous Love (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
J.R.R. Tolkien (other topics)C.S. Lewis (other topics)
Agatha Christie (other topics)
Richmal Crompton (other topics)
J.K. Rowling (other topics)
Her..."
Wow! Some lofty ideas there and Oh, if it were only thus! I always admire someone who thinks like this; literature as art.
I don't consider myself an artist. I'm not writing to make my mark on future generations. Writing is my craft and my sales and reviews say I'm pretty good at it (Okay, most of my reviews) I write to entertain and if someone enjoys whiling away a few hours of their time between the pages of my books, then I'm a happy author. So yes, my writing is part what I like to write and part what readers want me to write.
Having said that, one of the things I like about self-pub is that I'm not contactually locked into writing another book in a series that now bores me to tears. It hasn't happened yet, but I'm sure it will.
I consider it high praise when a reader likes my characters or setting so well that they want to return to it and find out what happens next. My fear is in disappointing them by not giving them the story they deserve. The danger, as Janelle said, is becoming repetative. And Andrew, you're right, market considerations do play a huge part in my decisions. I'm about to go full time and so will no longer be able to say I write only what pleases me. I have a living to earn.
Series and cliffhangers aren't new. My father at 94 remembers scrounging up a nickel to watch the silent films for which the word was coined. People like them -yes, Harrison, I'm admitting it lol- and as long as they do, I see no reason not to keep writing them.