Historical Fictionistas discussion
Goodreads Author Zone
>
Series - how long between each book release?
date
newest »
newest »
It'd be nice to write a book a year.Haven't managed it yet, though ;)
If I could conceive and polish a book in one year, I'd do it. I think a book (definitely mine) has a chance of being better if it has more time, but I envy those who put one out every year.
Mod
I don't think that people feel this way... or not many that I've spoken to. I personally prefer to read series books back to back, if at all possible. In fact, many that I've spoken to prefer to wait for all or most of the series' books to be published before even starting it, so that they don't have huge waits in between the books. Admittedly though, these discussions usually are regarding fantasy series, not HF, but the premise is the same.
George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series is still going on, with book 5 published about 15 years after book 1, and at least 2 more books anticipated. The wait between books 3 & 4 was 5 years, and between books 4 & 5 was another 6 years.
The Wheel of Time series has just had the last book published after Robert Jordan's death in 2007 - and this is a concern that many have regarding Martin's series as well.
Patrick Rothfuss is on book 2 of his trilogy, with a 4 year wait between books 1 & 2, and if you look at book 3 (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24... (hopefully facetious) expected publication date is 2025.
And I'm currently waiting horribly impatiently for the 2nd book in Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archive series. I want to pull up a chair next to his desk and urge him to write faster. It's been 2 years already. The next book is expected later this year, if all goes well.
I will definitely say that I would prefer a better book to one published faster, but I think that there needs to be a middle-ground between keeping readers interested and achieving perfection. Personally, I think 2-3 years between books an OK waiting period. It's not SO long that people get irritated by the wait, but it's still (hopefully) enough time to write a great book.
A book a year is a nice rhythm. My own Ties of Blood series appear one-a-year - but I have the helpful discipline of hitting 200th anniversaries! As a reader I enjoy going through a series in chronological order and it's always nice to know when the next one's due.
Like Becky, I've seen readers say they don't want to undertake a series until it's concluded. Rob, I've never seen them say that instant gratification diminishes the experience. If you have a next book finished, I don't see why you should hang onto it. Given readers' statements that they like to see several out, there to enjoy, in case they get hooked. Often they say they read back-to-back.
Also I've heard a fear that these billions of indies numbered #1 may never result in #2 and #3. A fear that a casual writer mightn't bother with the next, if the first hasn't sold. I can see the grounds for that fear. Us indies are urged to put a second book out in order to be taken more seriously. "Yes, I do intend to finish this series. No, I am not a fly-by-night, uncommitted to my task." That makes sense to me.
I have seen your argument from others: space the books, let the first sell. Possibly. But as an unknown, my first isn't selling and my second can only add to the perception that I'm a serious, not a casual writer.
(My case: I remained at work on both One and Two for nine years; both were ready in 2012 and I published both. I estimate five years' work for the third and last).
Sometimes anticipation works against an author. I read Game of Thrones when it was first published and eagerly awaited each subsequent book. The last wait was almost as long and tedious as the last book. Maybe if I'd been new to the series and hadn't had to wait so long for 4th and 5th book I might have had lower expectations and enjoyed them more. Regarding multiple books; I've read speculation from established writers on the boards at Kindle publishing that authors aren't taken as seriously by readers until they have multiple books published. Colleen Hoover's phenomenal success with her contemporary ya novel blows that argument out of the water, but I have the feeling she is the spectacular exception and not the rule. Publish or die seems to be the consensus. At least over there.
I do not mind the wait between books in a series. It allows me to read other books from other authors in the meantime. For me seeing all the books on display it makes me wonder if I want to take the plunge to read them all. An example of this is Robert Jordan. Of course if I really like the author I will buy all their books at once. It helps then to have all their books out on print.
Mod
Kathleen, I read all 4 available Song of Ice and Fire books for the first time in the lead-up to A Dance with Dragons' release, and I think you're right about the experience of reading them. I loved ADWD, because I was still in full immersion mode and just loving the series in general - but it was slower and less exciting, and not nearly as amazing as say, A Storm of Swords, which rocked my world with it's awesomeness.
Had I had to wait for the book along with long-time readers (as I'll now have to do with The Winds of Winter), ADWD might not have been as enjoyable an experience for me.
Another way that long waits between books could be a bad thing is that people might just lose interest. That was kind of the case with Patrick Rothfuss's books for me. I actually really enjoyed The Name of the Wind, though I had to be coerced into reading it by a friend, but after I'd read it, the interest in continuing the story just kind of withered, and even now that I have the 2nd book at my fingertips on my Nook, I just have no urge to pick it up.
(But then that also happens when there ISN'T a wait for the next book - I did the same thing with J.D. Robb's In Death series, Janet Evanovich's Stephanie Plum series, and others, despite liking the first books in each. Maybe I'm just weird.)
To add on to Gabriel's thought, sometimes seeing a very long series can be daunting, and can make people shy away from that much investment. On the other hand, if someone is willing to try them, they would have a whole slew of books to read. Definitely a plus when arriving late to a series. ;)
Becky, I am so with you on Sword of Storms. It was amazing. There's no wonder the other books haven't lived up to it. How could they? And I know what you mean about The Name of the Wind. I enjoyed it for the most part, but I'm pretty ambivalent about reading the sequel. I peeked at some reviews on Amazon and the things I disliked about the first book seem to take center stage in the second.
It may also be worthwhile to distinguish between series that have a fixed beginning, middle, and end (Harry Potter) and those that will continue for as long as the author has the stamina (many mystery series). With the first type, anticipation is higher and the desire to read many volumes back to back intensified. With the second, there is still some anticipation, but people expect to wait a year or more between books.
I do think, though, that many commercially published authors get pressured by contracts into publishing too soon. As a reader, I'd rather wait another six months than read a rough draft that could have benefited from a couple more rewrites.
I say normally authors take about 1-2 yrears between books with Heorge RR Martin being an excception.
Ack! I meant Storm of Swords. That's what happens when you post when you should be working! Karma gets you.
Mod
Hehe... I knew what you meant. ;)
My first series, "Rashi's Daughters," was a trilogy. It took so long to get the first volume published that I was nearly done writing the second when that happened. So with all the editing, etc it worked out to 2 years between them. I would have liked to have volume 3 ready sooner, but between promoting my earlier books, research, and writing, it was another 2 year hiatus.Since I was starting all over with a new place and time to research, it was 3 years before the first volume of my new series, Rav Hisda's Daughter, Book I: Apprentice: A Novel of Love, the Talmud, and Sorcery came out. My contract calls for Book 2 in 2014, which is really the fastest I can work and have a life, since I am continually researching the subject as I write.
Maggie Anton
I release a new book in my series about every five months, all over 100,000 words. The last one for my current series will hopefully come out in April. I am going to try to write shorter novels for my next series...but when the story is done it's done, and not until then.
Good lord, Caddy - 100,000 words every five months?! Color me impressed. I'm on about a one per year schedule, with books of roughly the same length. I hear you about the story being done when it's done. The book I just finished was supposed to be somewhere aroun 300-400 pages, and ended up around 800. I think I broke my editor's desk when the ms finally landed in front of her!
Rob wrote: "I was wondering if there is an ideal time-span between books published in a series. If there is too big a gap people might get fed up waiting and/or forget about it all together. But if it's too sh..."I can put out three a year. My first three release in September, November and January.
Maggie said: I would have liked to have volume 3 ready sooner, but between promoting my earlier books, research, and writing, it was another 2 year hiatus.You're so right Maggie. Editing & book promotion takes up a lot of time however you're published and then there's the
dilemma of whether you get on with Vol 2 in the hope that Vol 1 sells - if it doesn't? Well then ... Though a reader has asked at my local bookshop for Vol 2 ... so there's hope. But whereas I wrote vol 1 at my leisure with Vol 2 there's a publisher breathing down my neck .. or perhaps not ....
Kathy wrote: "I've waited for books for a year which is torture, but the quality of the stories was worth waiting for it to be written really well!"Actually, it's more a matter of how the author writes, than anything else. Some are faster than others.
There is also a learning curve, at least for me, plus the advantage conferred by reusing characters whom I have already developed. Book 1 took four years, book 2 looks to be about one year and a bit, but books 3 and 4 are forming in my head as I write 2. I even have vague hints of 5....
C.P. wrote: "There is also a learning curve, at least for me, plus the advantage conferred by reusing characters whom I have already developed. Book 1 took four years, book 2 looks to be about one year and a bi..."That's encouraging, CP. It's not as if I'm starting from scratch ...:D
I aim for around one a year but at the end of the day the book has to be right before it is published. It is sometimes hard to judge how long a book will be when you plan it out as the content tends to evolve as you write it. I suspect that my current book will take a bit longer than a year but I am not going to release it until I am happy with it.
My first histfic novel came out in October 2015, Legacy of Hunger. The prequel is due out in June 2016, and I just submitted the third a couple of weeks ago. it might even be out by the end of the year. Now, I started writing these about two years ago, so I'm not writing one every six months. But I didn't get the first published until all three were written in first draft form, at least. That helped with the writing, and now I'm just waiting on the speed of my publisher to get them out.I've two other books in the wings as well. Call of the Morrigu is a finished first draft, but has editing and beta-reading to get through. I'm hoping to get that ready for submission by the fall, maybe published by next year this time. Then The Enchanted Swans is about 75% through first draft. Maybe submit by January, published by June? This all assumes my publisher accepts them all.
So, even though I will have taken five years to write five novels, they may be coming out in a shortened 2 year period due to my own procrastination and the length of time to go through the publishing process.
As a reader, I like the "one a year" time span. In addition to HF, I also read a lot of mysteries/historical mysteries. Having one new book around once a year keeps the previous development fresh in my mind and yet isn't so far apart that I lose the eager anticipation of the newest installment.
I had a friend who would only read a series when the author was finished with the series. Harlan Coben who said his last Myron Bolitar was the last book in the series. I recently heard heard that he may be writing another one featuring this character..
I find this a fascinating thread. As a reader, I want to get on with a series if I really like it. What I do find sometimes is that the first few books in a series really grip my interest, but then either the books or my interest start to tail off a bit. I am not sure if that is just me losing interest because I am becoming familiar with the characters, or the author becoming a bit looser in his or her plotting or character building. I do sometimes wonder if an author just tags on an extra story in the series - for whatever reason.Many years ago I read Maurice Druon's "Accursed Kings" series, and I still use that as my yardstick for judging a series of books. I recall at the end of book six, an author's note saying that he was "putting down his pen for a while after the death of his favourite character" (Robert of Artois, who was killed in 1342). He went on to say that his ambition was to take the series through to the death of Joan of Arc, although he never did so. How many authors have a definite event or end date in mind when they start a series? Is there some sort of temptation - possibly publisher driven - to "add another one", and could this contribute to some sort of tailing off in quality?
As an author, I am attempting to develop a series of stories that have very defining start and end events, thirty years apart, and they mirror Druon's time span almost exactly, although set in England rather than France. I know in some detail how I want the series to evolve and the characters who will be at the heart of it. But I find each book has its own unique demands in its composition. Historical events "frame" the contents of each book, as characters react to them accordingly, and as the first of the series was written around two well documented events, it came together fairly easily. The second took longer to write, and the third longer still (over a year so far) as the historical framework was less definite. I think the next two will come together more swiftly. But I hope each one is also distinctive, with varying amounts of fighting, political intrigue, mystery, treachery and love interest, so that they are also viable "stand alone" stories.
Because I have been contacted by several readers regarding a sequel to my HF novel, instead of taking some time off after writing my most recent YA novel, I'll be back at the keyboard. For me, if enough readers express an interest, are anxiously awaiting a followup, I'm equally excited and a marketing strategy isn't much of a consideration. (Shh, my publisher would disagree.)
I always know exactly when a series is going to end, or rather the time of span a series of books will cover. My problem is that when I start writing, I often find I need more space than initially allocated. My biographical novel of Balian d'Ibelin, turned into a trilogy, and even then it doesn't reach to his death as originally planned because that would have made the last volume to long. So do I do a fourth book? Or leave the reader with an incomplete story? I'm pondering that now, and will probably opt for another novel but not as part of the Balian biography but as the start of a two-part series on the Ibelins on Cyprus.
When I first started to write my series, I took two years to write a book. now I'm aiming for one a year and my group of loyal fans wait patiently. Personally, if I enjoy book one, I would prefer to go right on to book two.
This is my exact question. Thanks for asking it for me.
Catherine wrote: "When I first started to write my series, I took two years to write a book. now I'm aiming for one a year and my group of loyal fans wait patiently. Personally, if I enjoy book one, I would prefer t..."Carol wrote: "If I could conceive and polish a book in one year, I'd do it. I think a book (definitely mine) has a chance of being better if it has more time, but I envy those who put one out every year."
I went to a writer's conference and was told about a man who wrote a very successful first book in a series, but he took too long to publish the 2nd. He was actually with a traditional publisher. By the time book two came out, everyone had forgotten about it and it did poorly. I believe he took two years to write the 2nd book. He later wrote another book and it did "ok." So timing is important.
I would not go longer than a year for the second book. Too many books come out every month and you don't want readers to forget you.
Historical Fictionistas
Books mentioned in this topic
Legacy of Hunger (other topics)Apprentice (other topics)
I've mixed feelings about this. If I am enjoying a book and I finish it, it's good to go and read the next one in the series straight away.
On the other hand its also good to have to wait a bit in anticipation. But then having just what you want instantly somehow diminishes the experience?
What do you think?