question about fantasy stories

[VMcNeill]

How come we almost never see stand alone fantasy novels anymore. Everything written nowadays is written in series. Are authors being pressured by the publishers to make their works longer? Does it diminish our chances to get publish if we sent out a stand alone novel?

[HConn]

First time novelists should stick with a stand-alone. And if it's part of a series, make sure the first book works as a stand-alone.

[LisaHy]

It's quite the opposite in Australia. First time authors are encouraged to start with a trilogy, and then follow it up with a trilogy, after which, they're asked to do another trilogy. Only when they get super popular can they risk a stand alone.

The publishing industry think that if the general public even marginally liked the first book in a trilogy they will buy the other two. Garanteed sales, I suppose.

[E.G. Gammon]

It's quite the opposite in Australia. First time authors are encouraged to start with a trilogy, and then follow it up with a trilogy, after which, they're asked to do another trilogy. Only when they get super popular can they risk a stand alone.

The publishing industry think that if the general public even marginally liked the first book in a trilogy they will buy the other two. Garanteed sales, I suppose.

That actually makes sense. A writer releases their debut book and prays sales will go well. If they do, and the book is part one of a book series, the publisher is guaranteed more sales, because those who read the first will also read the rest. I wish I lived in Australia...

[SeanDSchaffer]

I'd have to agree with HConn on that, VMcNeil. A standalone is much more befitting a new author, because as of yet that author is pretty much untested. Besides, if a first-in-a-series fails, where is the author to go who has written a trilogy?

Whereas, if a standalone fails, well, there are no more works in the making to continue the story -- and if it thrives, most stories can be adapted to build a series around.

:Sun:

[Zolah]

There is some really great standalone fantasy out there at the moment, but I think it tends to get pushed less heavily by publishers than trilogies and series, just because they've invested more in the serial works.

Having said that though, I've never attempted a series or trilogy, and that was a point in my favour when I came to seek publication. My editor said that when he came to his boss with a fantasy, she cringed. 'Not another bloated trilogy...' she begged, and was relieved when presented with a single, standalone ms. When I eventually met her, she told me that she felt my attitude towards my stories (ie, they should be finished at the end of the book, not in three books time) was really 'refreshing'. She said it showed I wasn't afraid to be different. If many editors and managing directors feel like she did, then standalones may be on the up.

[dragonjax]

I'm a first-time author, and my completed novel that I'm shopping around is a fantasy, the first of a series. While the book mostly stands alone (major conflicts resolved), there are still numerous subplots left dangling, on purpose (definitely not resolved, but enough answers given to tide the reader over). Why a series? Simple: the overall story is too damned big for just one novel.

Will writing a series instead of a stand-alone novel hurt my chances of publication here in the States? Dunno. Guess I'll be finding out soon enough...

[Christine N.]

My book (being published now) is a stand alone. I wrote it that way, it being my first book. Actually, I had no plot for a second book when I wrote it. I did leave myself a "door" in case something comes to mind. I'll probably write a sequel later down the line - something has started to come to mind - but it won't be more than that.


My current WIP, however, is book one of a series of what I think will be six or seven books. I plan for each to be able to sort of "stand alone". No cliffhangers.

[Richard]

Personally speaking, if I read a fantasy novel that isn't a standalone story, regardless of whether it's Part I of the Blippingdale Chronicles or whatever else, I do not pick up the next volume. Dangling subplots, fine, but if it ends on...

The dark figure at the heart of the madness finally lifted his cowl.
"My gods!" screamed Lucian. "You're-"

TO BE CONTINUED


...the author gets the copy back via my shredder.

[zizban]

I always write my books as standalone novels. I actually dislike writing sequels. That said, I'll leave a hook in it, just in case a sequel is to be written.

[dragonjax]

Personally speaking, if I read a fantasy novel that isn't a standalone story, regardless of whether it's Part I of the Blippingdale Chronicles or whatever else, I do not pick up the next volume. Dangling subplots, fine, but if it ends on...



...the author gets the copy back via my shredder.

:ROFL:

I promise that my book doesn't end that way.

[azbikergirl]

My nearly-finished novel is book 1 of 2. All of the story questions raised in the first half of the first book are resolved. Almost all subplots are resolved -- the ones the readers will care most about. However, the book ends by revealing something previously unknown, which creates more questions. That's where book 2 will begin.

I've started the first draft of book 2. The challenge is in writing it such that people who hadn't read book 1 won't be completely lost. I'm exploring different ways to develop the MC's character because the internal issues and struggles he had to face in book 1 are mroe or less over, and now he has new ones. The first set is relevent, but not what drives him anymore.

David Brin wrote 3 books in a series: Sundiver, Startide Rising and The Uplift War. I started with Startide Rising and read Sundiver last, unaware that Startide Rising was the second in the series. I'm not sure I'd call them a trilogy though. They take place in the same universe, but with different characters. The events of one book cause the events of the next.

[mistri]

I've heard lots of Australian authors mention that it's easier to sell a trilogy than a standalone *shrugs* Publishers must think they sell well there.

If a reader likes your books, yes they'll buy a whole trilogy, but on the other hand, if they don't like the first one, you could be in trouble. I know of at least one author (and there must be many) who's had to abandon a series (without being able to tie up all loose ends) because the publisher didn't think it was selling well enough.

I've just completed a standalone, and my next two WIPs look to be standalone as well. They each have enough room in their world, so to speak, that I could write another book set there if readership/publisher/my mind demanded it, but the main plots are all wrapped up.

Guy Gavriel Kay is perhaps my favourite standalone fantasy author (though he has completed one trilogy and a duology, too), and there are plenty of others out there too.

[Hummingbird]

I have alot of fantasy favorites that are stand alone, as well as trilogy pieces. I'm not sure the advantage over other books, market-wise, but I do know that I like stand-alones the same, if not better. Depends on the story. ;)

This is kind of off subject, and I'm sorry! A few things were mentioned about endings to fantasy books, so I thought of this.

I have a small question. I'm writing a series, and it's my first book attempt. In the first book, lets say the main character gets kidnapped. The end of the book, the character still isn't home, but was able to help alot of other people on the way and solve a serious problem in the way. The series is the character trying to get home. Is that a bad way to go?

[James D. Macdonald]

Is that a bad way to go?

Fiinsh the book with a closing such that, if a bus hops the curb and nails you the minute after you finish the book, your readers won't want to dig you up and burn your corpse for leaving them in suspense.

[Rambling]

As a reader, I enjoy the whole 'heroic quest' subgenre, and that really lends itself to long series. I even like multi-volume novels (a 600 000 word story split into five books for your convenience and our financial gain!) but I expect
a) to be told that upfront
b) for them to come out snappy-like
and
c) it to at least read like the bulk of all five was written before the first one was edited.

I dislike books being tacked onto an exising series. If it is a stand-alone in terms of characters, then come up with a new world, thank you. (And, and I know I'm criticising Heinlein here, please don't come later and make up some story as to why all your books were in the same universe after all!)

[clintl]

I sure hope publishers are interested in standalone fantasy novels, because I don't see the one I started as being part of a series.

[katiemac]

Are authors being pressured by the publishers to make their works longer? Does it diminish our chances to get publish if we sent out a stand alone novel?

This isn't the case at all, IMO. Most of the popular, widespread and more "groundbreaking" fantasies are serial novels, especially trilogies (ie: Tolkien). If new (or old) writers decide to develop their own fantasy, they're probably taking these models into consideration, even if unconsciously.

Also, I think fantasy is probably the easiest genre with which to actually develop a series. Your hero finished is quest. Your book is a success. What do you do? Send him on another quest! He died? No problem. Magic! (Quick disclaimer: fantasy writers can only do these "fix-its" if they work. You can't just whip up an excuse for a new novel; people won't like it. Most authors probably don't do this, anyway.)

I have a harder time seeing a contemporary author who wrote about family discontinuity and alienation coming up with a sequel if the original book ended in a nice little package. However, Janet Evanovich has a nice contemporary (chick lit?) series going with the Stephanie Plum novels. I'd argue, though, that her ability to create the series comes with the nature of her protag's job than anything else in the novels, similiar to private detective mystery novels.

As for the Potter books, as well as being a fantasy, it's also a children's literature. I find children's literature more adaptable to series as well. Way back when, R.L. Stine was writing the Goosebumps series. Only a few of these novels carried over into other books (sub-series, I'll call them), but kids recognized it as a brand. When I was 10, I didn't know author names, but I sure as heck knew the name of my favorite tv show, clothing brand, etc.

With all that being said, my WIP will probably be the most marketable in a fantasy genre. It's definitely stand alone. I originally envisioned it as a series, but then realized that's just pointless. My original thought for making it a trilogy was the need for three separate POVs during the three major sections of the book. Instead, I have "parts" in my book to take care of that. If I were to be published with this, and the publisher wanted another story out of it for a sequel, I really have no idea how I could do it. And I won't want to.

[victoriastrauss]

How come we almost never see stand alone fantasy novels anymore. Everything written nowadays is written in series. Are authors being pressured by the publishers to make their works longer? Does it diminish our chances to get publish if we sent out a stand alone novel?

My perception is that there's definitely a preference for series, especially once you get a bit established. Series authors certainly seem to do better commercially, generally speaking, than standalone authors.

I'm not naturally a series writer; I think in terms of single books. The Burning Land was conceived as a standalone, but the publisher wanted a followup, and I committed to a two-book contract without the faintest idea of what the sequel would be (bad, bad move. Won't do that again). I didn't start plotting the sequel until TBL was finished. Nor could I have, without following the characters to the end of their journey in the first book.

The new project I'm thinking about is a standalone.

- Victoria

[Nateskate]

I'm sure some people set out to write a trilogy, but I think you'll find that a lot of writers simply set out to write a story, and that a fantasy lends itself to having more twists and turns than other Genres.

Here's my opinion why. Most Genres fashion an existing world, with a city, or set of characters. A love story centers on two people. A murder on a suspect, murderer, murderee, and a few other characters of substance. If you keep adding people to a murder mystery or romance, you complicate things endlessly.

However, with a fantasy, you are creating worlds, species, realms. There's not only the story you are telling, but like most worlds, there's a history, and a future. And in making everything relevant, you find there are countless possibilities.

If you were on another planet, and someone told you about earth, and WW2, one of your readers is going to say, "What happened to Germany next? Did they have another dictator? Did the other countries recover?"

As a writer, you become involved beyond what any reader is going to read in your story. My guess is that for every fantasy you'll see on a book shelf, you'll see reams of stuff in the authors burn pile, shelf, or saved in their computer files. Look at all the post mortum books posted on Tolkien. There were multiple versions of chapters, altered histories...etc.

[Lenora Rose]

I've received conflicting advice on this. I've known of people who submit longish but standalone novels asked to split it in two (With all the attendant editing and expanding that requires so the first novel has a real ending.) And i've been told but can't confirm that in one case, Cecilia Dart-Thor(n?)ton, what was a single book had to be split in three because its original length was so extensive. I've even been told explicitly to do this ahead of time, as two/three short novels will sell better than one long one in today's market.*

I've also been told, while working on a duology, to combine/shrink it into one long book because a standalone, even a long one, has a better chance of being accepted.*

I do prefer series' that are basically made up of a cluster of standalone novels in the same Universe (Pratchett's Discworld or de Lint's Newford or Le Guin's Earthsea), but I also believe firmly in making each individual story the length it needs to be to finish it. This includes series' that are artificially broken up, as per Tolkien, IF we know ahead of time that's what it is.

(I think the Two Towers would fail Uncle Jim's "Hit by a bus" test above, but I also observe that byt he time it was published, Return of the King was, as I understand, completely written. Potential lesson here; Finish at least the rough of the complete story? Of course, it was also not his first book... and the lesson there isn't just potential.)



* All this is assuming you're talking about a FIRST novel and a first-time novelist. We all know the rules are different later.

[dragonjax]

Technically, The Lord of the Rings is one epic novel, split into three volumes at the direction of the publisher (and, from what I've read, Tolkien did not like that decision at all). So it really shouldn't be considered a model for a trilogy.

;)

[James D. Macdonald]

Publishing being what it is, you can find examples of anything.

The only things that are under your control are these two:

1) Write the best book you can.
2) Submit it to the best place you can.

[mistri]

I have a small question. I'm writing a series, and it's my first book attempt. In the first book, lets say the main character gets kidnapped. The end of the book, the character still isn't home, but was able to help alot of other people on the way and solve a serious problem in the way. The series is the character trying to get home. Is that a bad way to go?

There is a fantasy series by Julia Gray (forgot the name of the series), in which the main character is trying to get home, and it takes him five books to do it. But in each one he fights a demon of sorts (actually, resolves its problems, more than fights it), so that there's a sense of closure for the reader.

[Vomaxx]

I think Nateskate is right when he says that fantasy novels, because they usually involve building and explaining a world or different societies, tend to be long, and often more than one volume.

I'm pretty sure publishers accept this--that fantasy authors will produce longer works than, say, mystery writers.

Of course, some of this discussion is a little pointless, in that the length of a novel is like the length of a piece of string--it varies. Tolkien -has- been published in one volume, but it is a very thick volume. Anthony Powell's "Dance to the Music of Time" was originally twelve short hardbacks (c. 250 pp. each); it is available in four paperbacks now.

The average novels by Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, and GRR Martin are, I'm sure, at least 50% longer than the average novels in other genres.

None of which is to suggest that length = worth. Two of the best fantasies I know of are Ursula Leguin's "Tombs of Atuan" (part of a trilogy, I think) and Black Unicorn by Tanith Lee (also part of a series) and both are very short.

[Richard]

The thought of a Cecila Dart-Thornton book so long that it has to be split into three parts gives me a cold shiver. No, seriously. I'll be having nightmares about that for the rest of the week.

[katiemac]

Technically, The Lord of the Rings is one epic novel, split into three volumes at the direction of the publisher (and, from what I've read, Tolkien did not like that decision at all). So it really shouldn't be considered a model for a trilogy.

Good point, dragonjax. Thanks for bringing this up. However, I would still argue that authors are still going to read these novels and, being a set trilogy, think of it that way. It's showing more the publisher view than the author setting out to plan a trilogy.

Since the epic did have to be separated, that should give a clue about the publishing world.

[mistri]

The thought of a Cecila Dart-Thornton book so long that it has to be split into three parts gives me a cold shiver. No, seriously. I'll be having nightmares about that for the rest of the week.

But she's your mostest, favouritest author, ever in the world ever! I can't see you ever threatening to burn one of her books, for example...

[Richard]

They'd be too damp to burn. I shall not comment on the liquid they'd be damp with.

[SRHowen]

The novel I am currently working on is a stand alone fantasy, I can't see it being a series or a trilogy or even having a book 2. While my last book could easily be an ongoing series of many many books, if needed to be. I've written book 2 of that series and have a rough rough draft of book 3 and a rough draft of the final book in the series. (but even that could be questioned and the series be ongoing)(and the final book is many many years after the events in the third book)

Write what works. There are many stand alone fantasies.

Shawn

[zizban]

I am writing a stand alone fantasy as well. Its a big story but I think I can finish it in one book. I'll decide when I get where I think "The End" will be.

I also wrote a fantasy that could have a sequel but I only outlined. If it sells, I'll see about writing the second one.

[Nateskate]

Of course, some of this discussion is a little pointless, in that the length of a novel is like the length of a piece of string--it varies. Tolkien -has- been published in one volume, but it is a very thick volume. Anthony Powell's "Dance to the Music of Time" was originally twelve short hardbacks (c. 250 pp. each); it is available in four paperbacks now.

The average novels by Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, and GRR Martin are, I'm sure, at least 50% longer than the average novels in other genres.



I loved comic books for what they were. You could look at them each as a short story, or a chapter of a long novel.

LOTR would have been one gigantic book if the publisher didn't have the sense to presume it was a bit long for the average reader. And at that time, he was right. After world war two, paper was at a premium, so the cost alone would have been prohibative for people. Thus, the first "trilogy" was a single work.

I'm quite sure many others began as a single work, and it just kept growing. Rather than slash it down by 60% to fit it into a single volume, why not increase it a bit and make it two, even three books?

The key to any good fantasy are compelling characters. You can follow Hans Solo, or Luke Skywalker. In fact, you had a slew of Star Wars books that expanded on the storyline, because "some" people, couldn't get enough. I should know. My one son had them all, and could tell you more than you could ever want to know. But you have the same thing with branches of the Arthurian legend, and the "Atlantis" legends.

Katdad is writing a series of murder mysteries in Houston. "Houston" is not the subject. You're still looking at specific events. So, each event is a story, and if you have a theme, it would likely be a detective or police department.

Well, in a fantasy, generally you have something larger than a detective or police station. You have entire nation, world, armies, creatures. And here's the biggie. Since I'm writing a series, I realized that the hardest part is to lay the initial foundation. You have "rules" in your universe, "What is the force? How does it work? What are the alliances? Who is good? Who is bad, and why?"

IF you have to lay down a new set of rules, and names, and places for every story, it would be cumbersome. The easiest part for the author is also the easiest part for the reader. Once they know your "rules, legends, theological framework, they can focus more on characters and storyline.

I had a ton of ideas for stories, but guess what? I saw how they a number could fit together as a part of the whole, and rather than make them all separate, why not make them a part of a familiar world? They are "different stories", but can exist in the parameters of the same universe. Now I don't have to re-explain the background. It just makes alot of sense. And even if you write a story in the 21st century, somehow you can attach it to the first century story you wrote.

[Lenora Rose]

The thought of a Cecila Dart-Thornton book so long that it has to be split into three parts gives me a cold shiver. No, seriously. I'll be having nightmares about that for the rest of the week.

Actually, the one in question *became* her already published first trilogy (The Ill-Made-Mute, etc). I suspect but cannot prove, not as long as the trilogy, as you need some serious work to change Part one of three within one book to a Book one that nobody will throw across the room for its ending (**As opposed to its quality** - have not read, therefore will not judge).


Tolkien is NOT a model for a trilogy, except in that he's the first example anyone thinks of as to where the fantasy=trilogy concept started.


I think it's very possible to overestimate how much more worldbuilding there is to fantasy, and how much less to "Mainstream" or to other genres. Historic novels have at least as different a culture/world to create as fantasy (Those who wimp out on doing it correctly, and only write modern attitudes in quasi-historic dress notwithstanding), and those who write about other cultures in the modern-day, likewise.

[Richard]

The nightmares have tarried, not abated. I feel it gives one a most queasy feeling of the stomach, does it not? Indubitably!

Trilogies don't bug me per se - I think what annoys me is when people think of them in the same way as a three-act play, rather than three stories in their own right. That, plus individually over-long fantasy books, too often leads to a lack of satisfaction.

[Nateskate]

Actually, the one in question *became* her already published first trilogy (The Ill-Made-Mute, etc). I suspect but cannot prove, not as long as the trilogy, as you need some serious work to change Part one of three within one book to a Book one that nobody will throw across the room for its ending (**As opposed to its quality** - have not read, therefore will not judge).


Tolkien is NOT a model for a trilogy, except in that he's the first example anyone thinks of as to where the fantasy=trilogy concept started.


I think it's very possible to overestimate how much more worldbuilding there is to fantasy, and how much less to "Mainstream" or to other genres. Historic novels have at least as different a culture/world to create as fantasy (Those who wimp out on doing it correctly, and only write modern attitudes in quasi-historic dress notwithstanding), and those who write about other cultures in the modern-day, likewise.

I agree, three books isn't necessarily a trilogy. In Tolkien's case, it's a long story. But then again, I believe that's the case with most series, though I stand to be corrected, if I'm wrong.

In my estimation, if you began your story with a beginning and an end, but the end isn't completed in book one, it's still one story. I guess Star Wars borders this, because technically, the Empire was never defeated. Although you blew up a death star, you still had the Emporer and Darth Vadar. Yet, some might say the first was a stand alone story. The second was definitely not a stand alone story though.

[Nateskate]

The nightmares have tarried, not abated. I feel it gives one a most queasy feeling of the stomach, does it not? Indubitably!

Trilogies don't bug me per se - I think what annoys me is when people think of them in the same way as a three-act play, rather than three stories in their own right. That, plus individually over-long fantasy books, too often leads to a lack of satisfaction.

I think a three act play can be great, but you have to make them great acts. I'm more leery of someone who contrives to "milk an idea". It's just been this cash cow for them, so they keep trying to stretch the idea until people stop buying it.

Now, I think it takes an incredible amount of work to take one long story, and find three or more "endings" that aren't endings, to make each individual book satisfying. Each reaches a particular climax.

Speaking of nightmares. How about having a great story, and realizing you'll never fit it into less than three books? Now, you've got to create the dramatic tension in books one and two because that's the package everyone expects. You better blow up a death star or something, or you're toast. If you blow up a death star, maybe you can leave them hanging a little in book two, which also works in movies.

But be honest. A lot of people were ticked off when they were left hanging in story two of star wars, but now, it's many people's favorite of the three. And the same can be said for the LOTR movies. Fellowship of the Ring ticked some people off, who wanted some kind of climax at the end. Well, there were tons of climaxes, but you never reach a "Happily ever after" point. Now, despite dangling, there are people who watch FOTR dozens of times because it is just so riviting, and emotional.