Fringe Fiction Unlimited discussion
Questions/Help Section
>
Series, Are They the Way to Go?
date
newest »
newest »
Well, I'm glad someone asked lolBeing honest, no guarantees, and series are not an exception. Bear in mind, all the titles you named are traditionally published and have had a whole team of people working behind the scenes that the public never sees.
For indies, easier said then done. Unless you have a team of people working for you.
The only reason why series can, sometimes, seem like a lucrative option, is a greater chance of establishing an author's platform or fanbase of people guaranteed to buy that next book. But then, first, you have to establish a fanbase. By yourself.
If you can guarantee that enough people will buy the next book, then promoting a series right from the start might work out. But again, no guarantees.
So, and sorry to be long-winded, it's gamble, like anything else. You can try. There's certainly no law against series. If it doesn't work, try again next time. Personally, if you're an unknown author, I would advise against putting all eggs in one basket and forcing yourself to write a series.
Glad I wasn't the only one thinking this lolI understand on the traditional series I mentioned, but some people do look at these and think that this is their way to fame and fortune, or just wider exposure.
I think if a person has a story to tell that comes naturally and just needs to be split into a series because of how large it is, then that works.
But as you said there are people that put their eggs all in one basket and hope that this'll get them through. Or they'll start several series and kinda overload themselves.
just my opinion on book series
I share your opinion. There are gems, of course, there's also a lot of overloading going on. I've also noticed the type to put all eggs in one basket, with exceptions here and there, tend to complain about lack of reviews the most.It's ironic, isn't? By being indie, just imitate traditonal. Yeah, it doesn't work that.
Do what comes naturally to you.
I've always written epic sagas and it's a total pain cutting books in half due to printer limitations. i don't set out to write them. i guess because i read a lot of sagas growing up and watched a lot of soaps. XDonly some of my works were able to be cut down into trilogies. the rest.... not so much
I just find the thought of depending on a series as their big break to stardom something that many people do due to the sucess of big name series.
It's true. At the same time, what many don't see, is all the hard work and establishing connections behind the scenes.Can a series be your big break? Sure, entirely possible. Plausible? Not really. Unless you're willing to do all the thankless work that the public will never ever see.
Orrrr... keep writing for yourself because it works for you, even if it happens to be epic sagas.
:)
I pretty much agree. I love/hate series so I can understand both ends I just wasnt sure if the majority were under the same mentality of "they became famous because of this, so can I"
Well... I think the majority are under that impression... at least, it seems like a majority.
The ones overloading the library at least
Heh, true.To be honest, trad publishers make the same mistake all the time, so the problem is not exclusive to indies. And then people wonder why books fail...
As a reader I hate series. I hate them because in many (most) cases they are intended to be cash cows for the authors. I hate a book where you have to read the next or the next after that to get to the conclusion of the story. I refuse to purchase any series like that.On the other hand if it is a series where each story is stand alone and only the charactors hold it together that's fine.
But I want closure!!!!
I hear ya, Ed. I get very disappointed by books in a series that doesn't provide at least a small amount of closure, and instead cop-out with "to be contined." It just feels manipulative to me, as a reader. Well, gee, maybe I don't want to read your nxt freaking book, take that.The only exception I can think of is the first episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The premiere was a two-part to be continued episode. And it worked beautifully.
But, the tv show is also inspired by a movie. In other words, it started with a built-in platform. Many people already knew the movie and started watching the tv show out of curiosity.
I know for myself, I totally expected the tv show to bomb, because the movie was such a parody. As it turned out, Whedon is a brilliant writer and I loved every episode. I was hooked from the start.
So, my point is, as I said earlier, sorry to repeat, series only work if there's some kind of established platform, preferably before the book(s) are published, no matter how small of a platform.
Television series are fine since I don't have to pay to see the rest of the story (at least in my mind).'Gracepoint' on Fox being a great current example.
These days I'm hesitant though to get engaged in TV series since it seems many get canceled before they finish telling any story.
I can see why series are popular with (and recommended as a route to success for) indie authors. It gives you the promotional leverage of being able to make the first book free (and take out "free book" promo ads with Bookbub, eReader News Today, Kindle Daily, etc, to get that first book in front of people's faces), which can help you build your mailing list and readership faster.
I hope it doesn't become "the way things are generally done," though. I prefer standalones. I want to be wrapped up in a book for a little while, then have it reach a definite end so I can move on to a whole new story. I think I've only finished reading all the books in two series, ever, and I've done a lot of reading (and even abandoned series I was enjoying, just because I'd rather read standalones).
I hope it doesn't become "the way things are generally done," though. I prefer standalones. I want to be wrapped up in a book for a little while, then have it reach a definite end so I can move on to a whole new story. I think I've only finished reading all the books in two series, ever, and I've done a lot of reading (and even abandoned series I was enjoying, just because I'd rather read standalones).
I started out writing a book, which turned into a series. The next time around, I planned a 3-book series which turned into 7. I think I'm just long-winded, lol.I've only published 3 and I never wrote the series to get rich. I just wrote them because I had more stories to tell about those characters.
Right now, I'm writing stand-alones and I can't imagine turning any of them into a series. I like my stories wrapped up at the end.
Also, for those who follow traditional market trends (or are planning to publish traditionally), right now it seems that agents are turning against the series trend. I see a lot of agents listing series books under their "not looking for" list. Sometimes they also have a stipulation like "No series books unless you have a character strong enough to carry a whole series."
Lena, slightly off topic, but my understanding is agents and trad publishing had always rejected series, especially for first-time unknown authors. I've seen a lot of articles that say, don't tell an agent this is the first book in the series, just present the book as is. That's my understanding. Perhaps agent have become overwhelmed by queries of series that they're now making it clear from the start?
Something that I've kind of noticed is that most people with the get rich quick mentality don't understand the work that needs to be put into a series. They start off running but before you know it they're scrambling for ideas and it shows in their work. Z I completely agree. I think what happens with some series is that the first few novels are stand alone and build up to something bigger that part way through the novels now depend on each other. They're no longer stand alone but with gaps that only the next book can fill.
Lena, I've only ever spoken to one agent (was a class speaker) and he told me that unless you were an accomplished writer they wouldn't bother looking at anything that is a series. And even if you were moderately successful they still would probably not take the chance. Granted this was years ago and I hhaven't spoken to an agent since, I always assumed every agent had the same rule.
I love series because I get involved with the characters and the settings, and can come back to that same protagonist and spend time with him or her again. However I don't like it when the series is either so bogged down in backstory that the later books feel like summaries of the first ones, or the don't make sense if you haven't read the first ones. Authors I like do series where I feel each story is whole in and of itself and yet is also a continuation of that protagonist's personal story. My series "idol" is Nevada Barr. I can pick up any of her books anywhere in the series and follow the plot even if I'm out of sequence.I write a series because I love to read series. I try to make each book whole and able to stand alone, because that's also what I like to read. It never occurred to me that this was likely be a "cash cow."
I think that if you make a character or characters that people take hold of, then you almost have to continue their story. I don't mean the cliff-hanger type series, but just moving on to the next adventure. Of course, it should tie in to the last one as well as reference the next too, but as long as it can stand alone it should be alright.Well, stand alone with the exception of the first book where the characters are introduced...oh hell, I guess they can't stand alone, but they can sure be fun.
Heh, funny, Ed.You know, I've yet to finish a series. One of my projects does happen to be a series, but it will be a while yet. So, I'm thinking, even if a series is written as a cash cow, it's still hard work no matter what. I just find, more often than not, if the cash cow idea is written first, before the series, it fails.
I tend to work with a "series mindset", but to be honest, I never really thought about it, and especially not in terms of marketing. In fact, I wish I were able to work on shorter, one-novel-only stories! Only I find myself with so much to tell about my worlds, my characters, with plots that can span in so many directions, that... Well, for me, series are "the way to go" in terms of imagination.I've wondered a few times if it has anything to do with me also being a GM/storyteller for tabletops RPGs (for the past 15 years or so). When I do that, I have to write more than one scenario each time, so that my players can use their characters again; and they also want subplots, either for the group as a whole to solve, or for each player to have his/her own little side story. Maybe this has conditioned me to instinctively plan large from the start: not only 1 main character, but 3 or 4, not only one subplot, but several, etc.
On the other hand, if authors aren't in such a mindset, I also guess it feels in their works. I've already felt it in some series, where volume 3 or 4 seemed to me like a filler (the author having to write it b/c the publisher demanded it, but the plot was rail-thin, the characters flat, and the novel as a whole smacked of "gee, I have no idea what to write, let's fill my chapters with just whatever"). Which is a shame, and no one should be pressured into that. If we don't have anything else to say about our worlds/characters, better stay silent, I suppose?
I think the problem with starting a series that you have to read in order is that your first may be your weakest because you're still learning and it doesn't matter how good you get later, the first book will still be weak.
All my projects currently are going to require more than one book. I don't do it on purpose but it is the kind of story I like to tell, I suppose. I like layered tales that are driven by characters and their issues, so add that together with plot and action and you have quite a fertile field for books to grow. It's not about marketing in my case because honestly I think it would be tons easier to market a stand alone.
Mod
It's been the norm in the mystery genre for decades, rather than a trend. I don't read fantasy or sci fi so if it's become a hot trend there I wouldn't have noticed. But anyway, I doubt it will go away in genres where series have been standard. Think of Agatha Christie's Miss Marple books, and her Hercule Poirot books, or the Sherlock Holmes stories. Dorothy Sayers' Lord Peter Wimsey books. It's not a fad in mystery. Stand-alones in mystery may in fact be less common than series.
as a reader, i'm not a fan of how everybook I pick up is part of a series. I don't see too much standalones anymore. I mean if the series is good then I don't mind reading it. I draw the line when the books in a series have nothing to do with each other or things get too fantastical and problem are just thrown from left field in for the mc's to overcome. or when authors finish a series and then decided to revive it to add more books to it. or when series run for way too long.
its just annoying for me to pick up a book, read the synopsis then realize that it is the first book of a series. I liked it when there was a good mix of standalones and series books on the shelves in bookstores. it gives you the option to go on a quick adventure that wraps up in one book or to go on an adventure that last awhile.
also I hate waiting and there is usually a year between each publication of a book in a series. I hate waiting.....
Joanne♥~Bookworm Extraordinaire wrote: "as a reader, i'm not a fan of how everybook I pick up is part of a series. I don't see too much standalones anymore. I mean if the series is good then I don't mind reading it. I draw the line..."
There are series, which follow the plot from book to book, making it almost necessary to start with the first one.
Others, often also described as part of a series, simply have the same protagonist, but can be read as standalones.
My books - at this point, at least - belong to the second category.
I have enjoyed series, such as WEB Griffin's "Brotherhood of War" and "The Corps", along with Diana Gabaldon's works, but in general also prefer to read a standalone book.
This topic is starting to derail, folks...
I'm just now starting out (published my first book at the end of November) and I chose a series to start because of the ability to reduce the price of the first book when the next comes out, taking it all the way down to free when the third and last book is done to try to entice readers to try it out and hopefully want to buy the other two. After that, I want to do some stand alones, because as a reader sometimes I just don't want to commit to a series.A series can be daunting because you don't know if it will conclude in a reasonable number of books or if it will continue long past when it should have wrapped up just to use the established characters to sell books. I've read series like the latter and I gave up when I realized there was no end in sight. I'm actually almost at a crossroads with a Song of Ice and Fire, fantastic as it is, because initially I'd thought it would be a trilogy and somehow it just keeps stretching on.
I think a trilogy isn't too bad because then the reader knows the story will wrap up after three books and it won't just be an indefinite cash cow for as long as the author can stretch it, but maybe a stand alone is a better start, since it may grab those readers burnt out on series.
It seems that everywhere I look authors (myself included) are looking to start a series. Either, a long epic adventure, or just stories held together by title and genre, or by lead characters.
I can understand why, with the success of Hunger Games, Twilight, Game of Thrones etc. but is it really the best thing to do? This isn't to say that if you are planning a series, to take this advice to heart. This is more along the lines of questioning those who think that by creating a series they will be developing a cash cow.
Hope that makes sense, it's a thought that's been brewing a lot, but I haven't had the words to voice it. thought i'd try anyways lol