What makes a series?

[Rylie]

I'm debating book number 2 - perhaps a series, but I am not sure yet. I'm hoping you can give me some food for thought. :)

What makes a series? The exact same characters? The same setting? Written in the same voice (1st person, 3rd)? Can a single character in a new book be a series to the first?

At what point is something no longer a series and should just be a different book entirely?

[T.N.]

I believe that in order for a book to be in a series it's plot has to be carried through all books within that series. The setting can change but it doesn't have to. It helps if all of the books are written in the same voice, but that's a style preference of the author. I can switch genres but write in the 3rd person for every novel... doesn't make it a series.

Characters throughout the series should be consistent with the first novel although you can add and kill them off as the story progresses.

A book can be a stand alone novel if you use characters from that series to create their own story. Sometimes a character deserves their own book because there isn't room in the series to give your readers everything they would like to know about their story. If that book has nothing to do with the plot of the orginal set of books, as in it doesn't continue or add to it in any way, then it should be a stand alone

[Laila]

I think there's a difference between a series and something like a trilogy.

In a trilogy you have to develop one plot arch with more or less the same characters. It stays in the same voice and the same perspective and while you should be able to read book one as a stand-alone novel, you can't read the others by themselves.

A series is looser. Often, every book has it's own plot arch. Sometimes the only thing they have in common is the verse (or the same small town). But that, too, should have consistent perspective. (Voice can change if you change the main character or narrator).

[Hákon]

Laila wrote: "I think there's a difference between a series and something like a trilogy."

I agree. I don't think series have to have continuous plot lines. They can have the same single character at the center, take place in the same location, or have something else that connects them.

[Hayley]

I'm not sure I agree with the definitions of 'series' and 'trilogies', only because I'm in the process of reading Margaret Atwood's MadAddam 'trilogy.' (I'm on Book 2) While the setting is the same - that is, the imagined world is the same - each book is told from a different person's perspective, and while the 'world' is the same (ie. the same catastrophic events happen) they are experienced by people who don't know each other and have no connection to each other. I can read Book 2 without having read Book 1, though having read Book 1 gives Book 2 more context.

So is that a trilogy?

Personally I believe every book, if it calls itself a novel, should be a stand alone story. If it's not, it just looks to me like a writer trying to sell three books when really all they have is one book divided into three parts. If I read a book and I come to the end and I'm expected to buy Book 2 for the resolution, I won't do it out of annoyance. (How's that for a cranky author/reader? :) )

[Hákon]

Hayley wrote: "Personally I believe every book, if it calls itself a novel, should be a stand alone story. If it's not, it just looks to me like a writer trying to sell three books when really all they have is one book divided into three parts."

Or it may be the publisher that is trying to do that. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings as one book, but his publisher thought it was too big to be published in that way and so it became trilogy.

[A Voracious Reader (a.k.a. Carol)]

Wow. When I first read the question I thought, "Oh, this is easy." Then I got to thinkin' and it's not. lol

To me, a series is a collection of books with something in common. Either there is a main plot arc that goes through each book (for instance, a villain that escapes and continues to plague the MCs), the location is the focus or it's centered around 1 or 2 people as they go about their lives.

Whatever the common denominator is, I expect each book to have a beginning, a middle and an end. I loathe cliffhangers. If it is a continuing story arc (such as the slippery villain) I don't mind that so much as long as a main thread is wrapped up in each book. I do not want the fate of the characters continued into another book while I sit around for a year twiddling my thumbs. Yes, I'm picky.

The only exception to this is these new serials that are becoming popular. I'm reading one now, but only because I happen to like the author's work. I typically would not start a book/story that I knew didn't have some sort of resolution at the end, but for this author I decided to give it a go. I'm enjoying the story, but I will not read any other serials. I hate being left hanging from month to month.

[Amber]

I agree with everyone that series are stories that are in the same book universe with their own unique plots that intertwine with each other like the Sherrilyn Kenyon Dark hunter novels for example or they just have one major storyline like in Simon Holt's Devouring series with this girl and her friends are plagued by the vours that feed on your fears. That was a great series with a great storyline.

They must have a beginning, middle, and an end though. Sometimes they end it and they leave you asking "What happens next" so you have to read the next one to find out.

[Bradley]

Interesting question and good responses so far. I tend to think that a series could relate to a number of different possibilities. The series could be based around the following:

1. Just a character and their many adventures.

2. A Universe or World, or Kingdom.

3. A group of characters in a certain situation or multiple situations

4. An event that draws characters together or forces them to choose sides

5. A common frame of storytelling, like Bedtime Tales of Horror, or Tales from the Crypt

Really a series is what you as an author makes it. It is really just a matter of choice as to whether or not the stories are related or belong to a common thought.

[Rylie]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

A.K.A. Carol, I have to say that I agree with you! It seemed like a simple question until I really started to think about it.

I like the discussion of each book having a beginning, middle, and end. Many of the series I have read do end with a cliffhanger and need the second or third book to be complete. Unlike some of you, I have to keep reading. I don't want to. I resent it. But I have to know what happens!

Basically, I want to take a character out of my first book and make a new book from her perspective. Some of the other characters will overlap too, but I wasn't sure it was enough to call it a series. Maybe it's just semantics. It seems I want to create a group of people rather than a series of books. Maybe other characters from the first book will follow with their own stories. It seems this is enough, though, to call it a series. Or am I totally off?

[T.N.]

I completely understand I was having the same issue with a character I felt deserved their own story so I'm calling it a spinoff but its not apart of the other two books just a completely different novel involving one of the characters... so I don't know I guess maybe it is semantics.... if you're the decision maker call it what you believe it is. or leave it to the publisher

[Stan]

To me Harry Potter is a classic example of how to do a series. Each book stands alone, but the ending of each is established as the end of the school year.