Connecting Readers and Writers discussion
Writer's Station
>
Sequels and Trilogies - Why?
date
newest »
newest »
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.
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.
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_...
John and Tom, Can I refer you to this post - http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
It is the same topic but with a far better response, I think you both make highly valid points, points that I would be keen to share with the people that have responded there. I could cut and paste your comments but that is not what I want to do. If I knew how to link them I would.
John, Have I permission to link back to your blog piece, that might help?
DM Lee
I'm not a member of that group, but you can post a link. Right click on the "52 minutes ago" (or whatever it says) on the colored bar on each of our comments. That is the link to that particular comment.
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
D.M. wrote: "John, Have I permission to link back to your blog piece, that might help?
DM Lee"
Of course!
D.M. wrote: "John,
Have I permission to link back to your blog piece, that might help?
DM Lee"
You can link to mine as well... thank you.
Have I permission to link back to your blog piece, that might help?
DM Lee"
You can link to mine as well... thank you.
I agree with Sherrod's statement that the characters make the decision for me. I never set out to write x number of books. However nearly everything I write is in the same 'universe', so that a minor character in one book may turn out to be someone major further on. It's like life. I have an idea of how I'd like things to work out, but the unexpected does happen and I have my main players, but everyone involved has a voice and they don't always take my suggestions well. I know that my series will eventually come to an end and at this point I'm as curious as anyone as to what the resolution will be. I have an idea of what I THINK may happen, but there are many turns between the ideas in my head and hitting the 'Publish' button on Amazon.
I read a lot of reviews that state how they wish authors would write books in series that act as standalones, that way you can read them out of order and not be confused. I admit I get pretty upset when I find a book I want, only to find that it's book 3 of a series (then I don't want it anymore!) because usually it doesn't say 'book one of blah blah' on the cover or inside.I think authors realize that their readers fall in love with a character(s) and don't want that story to die, so maybe it's a bit of supply and demand? I know that while reading the Hush,Hush series by Becca Fitzpatrick I fell in love with the MMC Patch and he was the only reason I continued the series. Cassandra Clare has sooooooo many books in one series and then there are spin off series. Isn't that because she has a high demand for it? I mean, there are 7 books in one series for pete's sake, someone wants to read them, right?
Also, lately I've been seeing a lot of prequels and .5 (1.5, 2.5, 3.5, etc.)novellas on Amazon or stories of a supporting character that got good reviews from readers who want more of them, therefore they get their own spin off.
One of the things I find when coming up with ideas is that my stories don't usually pan out to trilogies. A sequel, maybe, but it's never really a continuation of the first novels' story. But then I feel like i'm doing something wrong if I don't have enough material to stretch out for a trilogy or something.
Readers fall in love with characters; authors fall in love with characters. It happens. Pretty basic stuff, really.
I think readers decide on how many books will be in a series. The first book was meant to be a stand alone but readers loved it and wanted to know what happened to the surviving characters. So an epilogue was added to the first book and the story continued.
My books would never have been a trilogy if readers had not wanted them. I as a writer decided that I would stop at a trilogy. I think readers will accept that if a complete story is told in the first three books.
George wrote: "I think readers decide on how many books will be in a series. The first book was meant to be a stand alone but readers loved it and wanted to know what happened to the surviving characters. So an..."
That's close to my experience as well. My first in my series was initially intended as a stand-alone, but I and some readers both wanted more with the same characters. Since the series deals with criminal cases, and since each new case in each book is definitely solved, closed, open-and-shut within one book, it works. No Moriarty coming back in the next volume.
On the other hand, it's the characters, their relationships, and their growth that makes readers want the series to continue. (In my series, it's sort of a male/female/canine near-future buddy-cop thing.) Although each case (book) can stand alone, the character development progresses through the books in a certain order. I think this is true of a lot of series. So readers should not be confused when they read the books out of sequence, but it is more rewarding when it is read in the correct order.
Yes, it's beautiful when a work can stand on its own and shine, but some lives have more than one peak and some stories can't be told in one sitting.
Sheila
My first is a stand-alone that also sets up two more books. You do not have to read them all to still feel closure for the first book. My reasons for writing like this are that the story focuses on a victim of abuse who gets out, discovers her strengths, creates a career and life for herself, and ultimately finds the life that makes her completely happy. The adventures and challenges of this whole story wouldn't work well for one book unless it was 1200 pages. There are also supernatural elements and background to multiple characters that is important.The other reason is that, as an indie author, I don't have scads of money to promote several books from scratch. I can build off the promotion for my first book, but really couldn't with a new story. I've spent nearly a year subtly and not-so-subtly promoting Sacred Blood, and it has taken a lot of time.
As a reader, I like fluff to be in one story, but for characters with bigger worlds, I want more. This doesn't mean drag every story out into a dozen books. Find a good stopping point where there is enough that I can start over and still find new things, but not so much that the thought of rereading it all in a month of overwhelming.
Some stories and characters are simply made for series, others aren't. Take for example monster hunter type characters. How many stories can you come up with for that character? And if you wrote one and readers loved it, there is no reason not to write another. Also, it's good for sales, especially if the stories can be read in any order.
I think that some authors are writing sequels to have a built in audience for their books. I also agree with Amanda; some characters are just made for a series. I think it just depends. I know I would read multiple books with the same characters if I loved the characters and if the books were good.
Sequels and Trilogies - Why? Because most of the time it leads to more of this:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
When I started writing my first novel, I had no plan to write a sequel. By the time I finished it, I had really grown attached to the characters and had an idea for a second and third novel with those same characters. If I would have tried to put all the stories together as just one book, it wouldn't have worked. Each had its own story line with a beginning, middle and end. I've only published the first two, but am holding off on the third while I work(ed) on other books. I've published two non-series books, and am working on another. I'll probably do two or more other stand alone novels before I go back to the third book of my trilogy. For me, the characters and the stories are the primary factors to determine if they are to be a series or not. Quite honestly, if my fans wanted sequels to the other books, I'd have to disappoint them. There are simply no other stories I have to tell that follow those books.
I fully intended my books to be a standalone novel when I started writing the first draft. It became apparent quite early in the writing process the outcome of keeping it in one book would be a gargantuan tome. I knew, as a first-time author, a book of such size would be a hard sell to anyone—both for the price having to be charged for such a lengthy work, and the commitment asked of a reader to take a chance to read something of such length.
In the end, the deciding factor was the rise and fall of the plot points. Three separate books just made sense.
Martin wrote: "Sequels and Trilogies - Why? Because most of the time it leads to more of this:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"
I think that's probably a very common assumption, and probably with some justification. On the other hand, such attempts to create a 'franchise' are not always successful.
It's something I gave thought to setting out as a new author, and I came to the conclusion that I would only ever write a sequel if I was absolutely 100% sure that the idea was better than the original. I can see the thing of splitting something that is just too huge for one book, but I don't get the idea behind having a series of novellas, which is something that seems quite common among new authors, from what I have seen.
I wore the Sci Fi trilogy Sanacion (so far 1& 2) are out. I think you overlook the power of the reader! My publisher received many requests for more and so 2 was born. Three came off my characters. I really love them! I have written something all together different but I miss these characters. You form a bond. So it isn't really commercial the decision and it isn't always the authors.
Vicki wrote: "Most people agree that in order to sell your first book, you need to write another. A sequel is an easy way to do just that."That's what I personally find worrying, in a sense, particularly as a reader - the idea that authors are taking an 'easy' route rather than trying to come up with completely new ideas. Similarly the idea of authors writing sequels because that's what their readers have asked for, rather than because they have genuinely come up with some great new idea for them. They are both entirely understandable things, of course, and may even make commercial sense (at least in the short term), but they both seem to run contrary to my natural instincts somehow.
To use a musical analogy, it feels to me bit like a band making an album that is almost exactly the same as the last one because that one went down well with the fans, rather than making the music they want to make at the time when they are making it. Some bands build very successful careers out of pumping out album after album that are basically the same, of course, but for me the more interesting bands are the ones that constantly change, develop and experiment with new things, even if those new things don't always work as they'd like, and don't always go down well with all of their fans.
Shaun wrote: "I think writers know publishers are looking for 'the next big thing', "That's what I find even more worrying! Again using a 'musical' analogy (well, kind of!), it's like the literary world is becoming more and more sucked into the 'X-Factor' way of thinking - all about the 'next hit' and the 'next big thing', rather than developing the genuine talent to find the really great stuff that will end up being 'classic' and 'timeless'. That kind of thinking has produced very little music of any quality or longevity, and I suspect it could have a similar effect on literature.
All too often I see people writing things now that are very obviously basically just their ideas for films - essentially an attempt at making a screenplay into a book, rather than actually trying to write a good book that stands on its own merits as a book. I don't see that as a good thing at all.
A binding commitment or good-faith agreement to submit a sequel within six months after the original work has been deemed a commercial success is sometimes included in the standard author's contract.If such is part of your contract, it would be wise to at least prepare a rough draft of the manuscript or a detailed outline ready, just in case.
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.