Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion
Bulletin Board
>
Sequels and Trilogies - Why?
Hi,This is my perspective as an author of 4 books planned for my current storyline.
I think an element of all the above applies for a lot of authors.
It would be completely impossible for me to write everything I want to write in one book due to its multilayered storylines, let alone the sheer fact is that I’m limited to 800 pages max for a self-published paperback.
If I was to add all the estimated page counts for four books together, I would be looking at 2520 pages, now that’s a hefty book to carry around.
I don’t think shortening my storylines to fit in one book would do it justice, or give the audience full value for money. It would feel rushed and half-assed.
My series has always been planned this way from scratch. Not out of some expected financial reward.
Regards,
Harrison
I agree with Harrison but would also like to add that I love series and trilogies and such. I love writing them because the reader gets a broader sense of the world I've created and the characters that I've put in them. I love reading them because then the story isn't finished yet. I have a lot of TV shows I watch because I can't get enough of them. It's the same with books. I gravitate towards series and such because it doesn't have to be over in one book.
I wrote the second book because there was a character in my first book who I just adored and I wanted him to have his own story. The next series I have planned centers around three friends, and each one will have her own story.
Abigail wrote: "I wrote the second book because there was a character in my first book who I just adored and I wanted him to have his own story. The next series I have planned centers around three friends, and ea..."That's the type of series I like to read and write - stand alone stories that are connected through shared chracters. I am not fond of cliff hangers unless it's a secondary storyline.
As far as writing goes for me, I mostly create my own worlds (rather than set my stories and characters in our own), which means I always end up with ton of world-building material for which I also have plot ideas. In turn, of course, I want to use those.But I'm not terribly fond of the trend of trilogies/series with cliffhangers at the end of each book. I too prefer to see one main plot wrapped up in one book--and then, if there is more to tell, following standalone stories with recurrent characters and/or secondary plotlines. It's the best way for me to enjoy a given universe.
I'm writing a new book and I'm inspired by The Hobbit. I know Tolkien built the whole world of Middle-earth allowing a whole host of new stories from it, but for The Hobbit, it was a straight forward adventure story with a clear beginning, middle and ending. I like that, I want to make a world that is obviously more massive than the storyline but to keep the story focused on the characters.
Jacqueline wrote: "That's the type of series I like to read and write - stand alone stories that are connected through shared chracters. I am not fond of cliff hangers unless it's a secondary storyline."I guess you'll not enjoy my first book then, ends on a cliffhangar for two reasons.
1. space, and publisher requirement restraints.
2. natural progression.
Doesn't mean it isn't a good story.
Hi,I have (or am working on) both. I have a trilogy, of which the first book has been published, but most of my future work will either be a collection of short stories revolving around the same theme, or single novels.
The reason for the trilogy is simple - I have three loosely-related story lines involving the same characters and settings. There will be no cliffhangers, as I hate those myself.
As I said, most of my other work will be single novels, or short stories involving the same characters/settings, allowing them to be loosely grouped into a novel-sized book in the future.
Rick
Actually, technically my book doesn't end on a cliffhangar, that came at the end of the penultimate chapter...there is more storyline beyond that before book one ends.
I agree that the answer to the original question is "all of the above." I figured when I put my first book together that I was done, but more stories about the people and place came bubbling up, so I'm bringing out the sequel next month, if all goes according to plan.As a reader I very much like, for example, mystery series' using the same detective. Not stories that have to build on one another, just familiar characters. It does allow an author to develop people and places better, and as a reader allows me to drop into someplace familiar.
My preference is that each book stand alone, capable of being read out of order, though I'm fine with a development through the series. I'm thinking of Tamora Pierce's "Tortall" books. She wrote quartets, each set of 4 being in a sense a complete story, but each book contains its own complete story arc as well, and you could read any one, without any of the others, and feel like you had a complete story.
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 they told their stories, put the characters to bed and set about finding a new story to tell. Has television changed the way writers and movies makers approach their craft?
With a trilogy does the ending bring everything to a conclusion, all the issues, themes etc or does it allow for certain things to get lost along the way? Themes, motivations that may have been hugely important in the first book but have slipped into the background as you enter the final chapters at the end of trilogy, do they get resolved? One of the hardest parts of writing a novel is in bringing everything to a successful conclusion.
Has the art of storytelling become more about creating images in the readers mind and less about how a story ends?
Without self-publishing would people still be inclined towards writing trilogies, unsure that they would ever see the light of day. Or, would the desire remain to create a whole new world, that as Harrison said can run to 2,500 pages.
I don’t doubt certain stories take longer to tell but I also wonder whether there is a certain fear in picking up a blank canvas and starting something new, something different. Maybe a bit like a painter who has perfected painting coastal scenes and sticks with it forever, never trying anything new.
As writers are we limiting ourselves or extending ourselves when we write sequels and trilogies?
I think sequels and trilogies are good for certain genres or when the story idea is so broad and big that you need more than one book to tell it. I always say when they make sequels for movies that they dont need to and I ask why, the first was so good why ruin it with another story? But writing is different because if people want more or its left open to where there can be more to write about. Sometimes certain books should be left at one but sequels and trilogies are needed in the writing world.
I think it all comes down to if the author wants to do his/her story justice, and does it really matter if a series is split into two or more books? I know mine can't be turned into one book as my story stands. If I was to rewrite, could I make it fit?It'd be a struggle for sure, and it would lose so much.
Aside from building a whole new world, there are other planets in my fantasy world that hold life and, I have many stories planned for each world.
As this is my first fantasy series, I intentionally planned each of the 16 books beforehand. the first four are a quadrilogy, there are two prequels, and the rest are stand alone. There is one book in there that explores the adventures on one particular character from book one.
What does that say I wonder....I don't feel limited or stretched...I have enough of a story to match the amount of books I intend to publish, and some of them are single volumes.
Self-publishing has given us freedom to experiment, and I personally never thought about writing anything other than a series of books that follow on when planning the first four. Concious choice, maybe. Influenced by TV? I don't think so...planning the books drew out the natural conclusion that I had to write more than one book.
One thing I notice with most of my favorite mystery writers who do series: somewhere between about book 12 and 15 , almost all of them have gone off to write a stand-alone thriller. Even the ones who do more than one series. My conclusion is that they crave variety, including at least some change in genre. I can see that. I am working on a mystery even as I get the second NL book toward publication. I suspect that at some point the author has too many ideas bubbling up that just don't fit the established world.
Good point Justin about the book world needing sequels / trilogies. I can see the relevancy.With regards to Rebecca's comment and mystery series being 12 to 15 books. Is there really a need for a series that long? Could someone actually have a life that filled with mystery? The only mystery in my life is that I am not a lot shorter than what I am.
I like the way Rick describes the control he has over his writing and the flexibility it shows, the idea that the author has a choice in the way their stories is told, I guess that is one of the joys of self-publishing.
Yeah I think some books and genres lend themselves to multiple books- sci fi, fantasy, mystery.I am planning a series - why? Numerous reasons really, because I love the world and there is too much to tell in one book. The ending of my published one leads into the next and I have seen this elsewhere. The story ends but lose ends remain to be picked up elsewhere. Sometimes there is a gap of months or years but the characters reappear or new ones surface in the world.
I agree with Harrison- I don't think what I plan would fit in 1 book. I am not yet sure exactly how many but for now it will be 6 with the world as it is, then perhaps a few more for the aftermath. I may do some short stories within the world which are concurrent but not part of the BIG plot.
Book 1 and 2 go together, 3 will be as a result of something found in book 2 plus a couple of smaller idea, 4 will be a follow up for 3 and finding more info, 5 will be going off to seek the next piece of the puzzle and so on. They all lead from one another until the big reveal and the big war. After that who knows:)
Reading wise a series is good, even if it is loosely a series. I like Cadfael and some of the later books do refer back to earlier stories and the history moves on. I do think though sometimes series can be too drawn out.
DM--no, no ones life is that filled with mystery. I think that's where the willing suspension of disbelief comes in :DBut there are two reasons a series about one detective gets that long: one, it makes it easier for the writer, and two, readers love to be able to keep coming back to those familiar characters. If that kind of reading is mental comfort food (my view for myself), then it makes sense. The reader just doesn't have to work as hard. That's not all bad.
I think that's the one major advantage that us little self-published guys have over those authors that are locked in with publishing houses - we have full creative freedom in writing how and what we want. I see a lot of different ideas and concepts on this thread, and all of them are extremely valid. Some of us want to write one-offs, so we write one-offs, and some of us want to write 16-volume series, so we write 16-volume series.I love the freedom... now if only the income would match. LOL
Rick Field
Rick, it is a rich man that gets to pursue his passions.
I'm currently in the middle of a 4 book series. It was always planned to be a 4 book series from the start, but that is mainly because of my publisher's requirements. The story naturally has 4 distictive sections to it, but due to length, my publisher required it to be split. Also, I doubt many readers would rush out to buy an 800 page romance novel from an author they didn't know. I think in that respect it also has to do with the genre. Sci-fi readers seem to be a lot more willing to buy huge books than romance readers do.
DM, you're absolutely right. :) Sherri, the first novel in my fantasy trilogy is almost 700 pages, and seems to be selling a few copies per week - not bad for an indie author with no previous publications and no PR budget. Maybe the fantasy crowd is like the sci-fi crowd, and willing to take a chance on a tome written by a newcomer. :)
Rick
D.M. wrote: "Rick, it is a rich man that gets to pursue his passions."True. But it doesn't buy the groceries!
I think the cliffhanger is the best part, maybe a little annoying in that you have to wait for the next book, but it is what makes me dying to read the next one in the series. That's just my opinion though.
I may consider a series down the road but right now im a one novel speaks for itself kinda guy.
I think the reason probably differs by book. For me I just finished the first draft of the sequel to my debut novel Into the Deep and I never intended to write it. Into the Deep was going to be a stand alone novel, but after I finished it I realized that there was more I could do with those characters and the next book,Hidden Beneath just kind of wrote itself.But I have other outlines for books that I'm intending to be a series from the get go.
Personally I like trilogies and series. When I get really sucked into a book I always want there to be more. But, at the same time I want each book to feel like it's own book. I'm not a fan of cliff hangers at the end of books.
That's a very valid point / observation Simon. Are readers of sequels and trilogies' carried along because they are seeking resolution that they possibly didnt find in Book One, Book Two etc? Buying the next book because they feel they have missed out on something, or are they all genuinely happy with the way the stories get told? One of my fears is that I could extend my stories into ongoing sagas but am I cheating the reader? As a storyteller should I be able to craft my stories into one book? I know there is no wrong and right when it comes to how we decide to tell our stories but from a readers persepctive there might be.
Don't we owe the reader something for the time they commit and the interest they show in our work?
Should it be left for the reader to demand an encore, just as music fans do at concerts. Is it slightly arrogant to assume they want more before they have even asked?
Or is it all about getting the story put down in words?
I love reading sequels and also writing them. I end up loving my characters so much I don't want to stop writing about them, even the baddies. LOL.I published children's books with series, but now I'm hooked on writing a Paranormal Angels and Demons Romance. I'm writing the sequel at the moment and I have many more of their stories to tell. I love all four main characters. All are teenagers, a female MC, her ratfink of a boyfriend, and two fallen angels, one good and one bad. She loves only one, but they all want her. :)
Though my stories continue, all my books are stand alone as well.
I've had readers ask me when the sequel will be available, so yes, I guess they make more money. However, you have to be a best seller to cover costs. Authors make peanuts. We are nuts 'cause we do it for the love of it.
Ominous Love
I know I keep referring to my book, sorry about that, but it's the only experience I can relate to. I like a good debate.To imply there's arrogance on an authors part if none is intended would be a bit harsh really.
Personally, I think I found a happy medium by having the cliffhanger in the penultimate chapter and having a softer ending to complete the beginning, middle and end.
But the audience knows there's more to come. They just find out less harshly. One reader says they have reserved a special place on their shelf to line up all my books in a row, that doesn't sound like someone's who's been cheated.
I personally dont think I've cheated anyone, as my blurb says it is part of a Quadrilogy. To fully realise the complete story and give the audience the best product available, you can't fit it all into one book, sometimes.
I'm not like Stephen King or JRR Tolkein who can write a billion words about a flower in a field. I give the reader enough detail, just enough to let their own imagination run wild, and it just so happens that enough (And I could do a SK/JRR) is too much even for one book.
As I say I'd be doing my readers a disservice if I gave them one book, they'd miss out on everything I've planned, every character nuance, every detail about the world, even more so if I asked them to carry around two and a half Lord of the Rings worth of book.
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.
As for owing the reader something, they've got their reward, a damned good tale with more rewards to come.
Must everything have a firm end?
I've not come across anyone who has bought the next book in case they missed something. They buy it because they invest their time, and emotions in the characters and want to know how things turn out. If I feel cheated, I don't go back to a product.
The initial feedback for version 1 of Destiny was that people were surprised it ended when it did, so I rewrote the end softer and that appeased readers. I guess in one sense then they felt cheated, but now they don't, they are just excited for more.
It's down to how you present it.
'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.
I think what I like about sequels is that - life goes on. When a story ends and then picks up with it's sequel years later you get to see what happend after. It kind of fights against the idea of "and they all lived happily ever after" because life doesn't end like that. It goes on.I don't think sequels in general cheat the reader, though I do understand what Simon is trying to say. When there is a series that leaves each book open ended I find myself dissappointed because it feels like the whole series (3, 4 books, whatever) are really just one story and maybe should have just been one book. But when a book has a beginning, middle, and an end, and so do all the books in it's series (which I think can even be done with a cliffhanger though I don't personally like them - Hunger Games did it right with Catching Fire and Mockingjay) thats how I feel sequels should be done.
I don't think everything needs to have a firm end, but it needs to feel complete.
Harrison wrote: "I know I keep referring to my book, sorry about that, but it's the only experience I can relate to. I like a good debate.To imply there's arrogance on an authors part if none is intended would be..."
Perhaps I spoke too soon. (Think before you write LOL)Fantasy is probably the exception that proves the rule. It is, IMO, the foremost genre where continuing stories are accepted and expected.
I certainly intended no offense. Different genres lend themselves to different expectations. For instance, I'll read an Urban fantasy where the love interest develops over several books and may or may not work out. It's secondary to the main plot. However, don't give me a straight up romance and make me buy a second book to find out if there's an HEA.
I guess, like you, I was referring to my own genres, PNR and Contemporary romance. My apologies.
Personally, I love reading series when they feel like there's an actual story for each book. Even in mystery books, I've always loved series. Give me some Poirot, or Hamish Macbeth and I'll be happy. And when I heard some of my current supernatural favorites (like Dark Days) was drawing close to an end, I was sad because I liked those characters and I wanted more time with them.That sometimes applies to what I'm writing. I like the characters so much, I don't want to be done with them.
For what I write, I usually know how many pieces to the puzzle there will be when I'm writing the first book. I have a series planned out that's gonna take me 7 books to get done. Each one has a story, and a villain, so to speak, and some type of evolution to the overall arc of the story... The first thought I had was of a trilogy, but then I couldn't push all the things I wanted to get done into three books. It felt rushed, and didn't allow much time for bringing secondary characters into the story and introducing them properly.
Rick wrote: "DM, you're absolutely right. :) Sherri, the first novel in my fantasy trilogy is almost 700 pages, and seems to be selling a few copies per week - not bad for an indie author with no previous pub..."
Rick, I do think fantasy readers are more along the line of sic-fi readers. Most romance readers are looking for a story they can sitdown and read in one or two sittings. Most fantasy and sic-fi books aren't that way, and that's not what those readers expect.
D.M. wrote: "Sequels and Trologies seem quite popular at present, but they do leave me wondering 1 - Is it a failure on the authors behalf to tell the whole story in one book?
2 - Do they exist because readers..."
Good questions, DM, and in my case there is more than a kernel of truth to each of the three options you pose. I released the first three books of the Sovereign Spirit Saga in 2012. Each book is 100,000 words, so they are full length novels. The story is designed to be an epic series and each book takes the characters to different locations where they face different challenges. A 900 page trilogy edition of the first three books will be released this year, with at least three more books to follow. However, I don't think I would have written that much without knowing that it would attract a following.
Voyage of the Dead was released in January 2012 on KDP Select. I gave away thousands of freebies before releasing Flotilla of the Dead on April 1. Almost immediately the sequel was making more actual sales than the 1st book, as those who liked the freebie were hooked into buying the sequel, which generated renewed interest in the 1st book too (both climbed into the Top 100 Paid Sci-Fi-Adventure for a few months).
Obviously, only fans of the series will go on to buy the third book. Nevertheless,Deluge of the Dead was released on December 12 and has already sold a thousand copies. It's release has also reKindled sales for the whole series, with an average of more than 60 sales per day so far in 2013. It might not be a gold mine, since my books sell for $2.99 - $3.99, but those sales are quite good for an unknown indie author.
My books are zombie fiction with a few unique twists (not everyone's cup of tea). They have been described as "Battlestar Galactica meets the Walking Dead" and "a Star Trek of the Zombie Apocalypse" because the story line follows survivors on a mega yacht/cruise ship as they search for survivors, supplies and a cure to the virus that turned most of humanity into mindless cannibals. The books are fun to write. My ultimate goal is to have them adapted into a television series. ;-) All I can say to answer your question is that I have found the Kindle marketplace well suited for promoting sequels, trilogies and series (especially for a newbie indie like me).
I self-published my first novel We, The Watched and have just finished a sequel set after the events of the first. I've written the second book in a very self-contained way so that the reader would not have to have read the first book to understand what was going on. They might get a deeper experience, but it was important to me that the books could be read in any order.
This is in part because my first book, as a self-published work, isn't a massive bestseller. If it was, and I knew I already had a large audience, it's possible I may have written the second book differently.
Just wanted to add that I think the trilogy craze comes from the natural three act structure that many stories follow -- set up the heroes and conflict in act one, have those heroes fail in act two, and then have the heroes find a way to win in act three.
My view on it is pretty simple: If you have characters and a storyworld that resonate with readers, give them what they want. It's also more efficient in that you don't have to create characters and worlds from scratch, but to me the main thing would be to satisfy my readers.
Jacqueline wrote: "Harrison wrote: "I know I keep referring to my book, sorry about that, but it's the only experience I can relate to. I like a good debate.To imply there's arrogance on an authors part if none is ..."
No need to apologise, this is a debate, and I was speaking generally.
I think there are many reasons sequels and trilogies and "series" exist.1. Readers like to read more about the characters they've grown to love. I am always a strange combination of excited and bummed to finish a series I've been loving, because I don't want to "let go" of the characters I've been reading about.
2. Especially in a fantasy/sci-fi setting, the author probably has more stories to tell in the world they spent tons of time creating.
3. As the author of several different story-lines, starting a new world is fun, but time-consuming. As I was beginning my latest story, I recall telling my husband: "I know why fantasy authors write 12-15 book series... it's a lot easier to write about characters you already know and have named!"
4. Sometimes it just happens. You write a story that fills a single book and you think you're done... and then your readers start asking questions and you realize there's more to the story than you originally thought. In fact, there's an entire book... or three... of material that you could add to the story!
Yes. I think some worlds and characters lend themselves well to multiple books, of course there are those that the reader thinks, why bother;)
Alexandra wrote: "Yes. I think some worlds and characters lend themselves well to multiple books, of course there are those that the reader thinks, why bother;)"That's so true, one character seems to stick out to readers and they have asked if I intend to write more about them in their own books.
I hadn't considered it till then.
J.R.R. Tolkien Lord of the Rings, C.S. Lewis Narnia series, Agatha Christie Poirot, Miss Marple & others Richmal Crompton the William series - to name but a few from various genres.Nothing to do with tv or films as to why they wrote sequels, series etc. I think the simple answer is that some writers have many stories in them that belong to one set of characters. In the old days writers kept going as long as they had something readers kept buying. Sometimes because their publishers insisted. Sometimes because they had signed multi-book deals that required them to fulfil an obligation - as J.K. Rowling found herself doing with the Potter books.
I think that sequels can be very good for expanding worlds and characters that we know and love. Too many sequels however, can be a little boring for me, especially if it begins to be the same storyline.
Maya wrote: "I think that sequels can be very good for expanding worlds and characters that we know and love. Too many sequels however, can be a little boring for me, especially if it begins to be the same stor..."What do you mean by 'especially if it begins to be the same storyline' enquiring minds want to know.
Do you mean repetitive?
Thanks.
Harrison wrote: "Maya wrote: "I think that sequels can be very good for expanding worlds and characters that we know and love. Too many sequels however, can be a little boring for me, especially if it begins to be ..."I think a great example of this would be the "Hunger Games" trilogy. It's the same story three times. Even the final book in the trilogy is just a variation on the stadium and the fight for survival... the author only had one idea... and she cleverly managed to sell it three times.
I had posted this thread elsewhere on the site and got this response and thought I should share it after seeking the authors permission - there is a link back to his blog on GR at the bottom. Here you go -
Must everything we create be a series, a collection, merely a part of a body of work?
Can nothing simply stand proudly on its own?
A single, epic, awesome work, with a beginning, a middle, and most importantly, an END?
I definitely understand the need that the starving artist/author has to develop an audience, a body of believers, thirsty for every word they produce, like pilgrims three days lost in the desert.
But must this awful perspective corrupt and infect everything we do?
Believe me, I too have been both a victim and a perpetrator of this mindset, as I was sold on this idea as a methodology of achieving "success" as a writer.
But at what price?
No longer can we as artists simply do art, we must now build a legacy, constructing a house of cards with every work, offering our readers that first taste, but at the price of infecting them with the virus of repeatability.
There is no "formula" for art.
No "prescription" for success as a writer.
If you have talent, desire, skill, and a grand idea, you still will most likely fail to develop a great audience, at least while you yet live. History is littered with the bones of those "failed" writers who achieved "success" only years or decades after their "physical" death.
But this is the peculiar "gift" of our brand of art. It lives on, purposefully so, ages after we ourselves are not even memories.
So, I urge each and every one of you, readers and writers alike, to help us break these rusty chains that bind us to the "next" work in a series, the one that may never even be.
To focus only on that single work which is at hand, to craft it, carve it, even to bludgeon it into perfect existence if we must.
But please, please do not tell me that your work is "Book One" or "Part One" or any other fragment of a greater work. Make it the solo masterpiece that it deserves to be, that you are capable of, in and of itself, nothing more.
I and your audience will love you for it.
http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_...
The long and short of it is that authors write series because readers buy them. When Douglas Adams wrote the first Dirk Gently book people asked him for more Hitch-hiker's. Terry Pratchett, by creating an idiom cunningly disguised as a world, has managed to sell people a wide range of different novels masquerading as a single homogeneous series. There are actual series in there, of course - the stories with the witches or with the guards, for example - but if Equal Rites had been set elsewhere than Discworld it's probable fewer people would have bought it and Pratchett would not be a full-time writer today.As an author myself, I would prefer it if it were not so. Whilst I'm happy to put out sequels to Erasmus Hobart and the Golden Arrow in the short term, I'm aware that unless I achieve the holy grail of becoming a full-time writer, time constraints will mean I have to keep writing what the reader wants - or, more accurately, what the publisher thinks the reader wants. All those other ideas will have to wait until I either succeed, or fail badly enough that I'm not constrained by market considerations. I can't do what Terry Pratchett did, because my books don't inhabit one idiom, let alone one world, but I live in hope I will find a way to get something else out there and achieve the dream of literary freedom.
You can't please everyone all of the time, so I gave up trying. I write what I like to read, which happens to be what people enjoy. If that means more than one book to tell a much better tale, then so be it.
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)
1 - 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?
Maybe its a genre thing or possibly it has come about as a result of television creating shows, where we get weekly updates to an unending story. Is it a sign of the times - never ending stories with rolling news or is it a reflection of a writers ability to tell their stories.
For me it's a mystery, it intrigues me and I would be keen to hear other peoples thoughts and opinions.