Is it healthy when a Novel turns into a three part epic?

[AdamH]

I figure I'd toss this out there since the boards are back (yay!) and before I head off to bed.

I'm working on my first novel. It's finally coming together nicely and I'm really happy about it but...here's the kicker...the original plan of the story was one 300-350 page novel give or take whatever happened in the final edit. Well, now that I'm writing it, I learn (and it is 'teaching' me as I go) that it wants to take on a grander form. And, after months of fighting with it, beating it down into the framework of an overstuffed solitary novel, it has burst open and convinced me it HAS to be an epic. Three novels. Each easily separated (now that it has shown me the clear divisions in the story). And, surprisingly, each could stand on it's own.

I wanted to complete this story by New Years but it doesn't seem to be in the cards. However, I should be able to finish the first part which is good enough for me. It's a satisfactory consolation prize but I really wanted to move on to something new in the New Year.

I suppose what I'm really wondering is has this happened to anyone else out there? And how did you deal with it?

Now, if you'll all excuse me, I've got to get to sleep. Goodnight all! :sleepy:

[eskkar]

Be careful with the length of your first volume. Writing historical fiction, my agent and publisher required me to get the word count down to 190,000 words. Anything much longer is considered too large for a first time author.

[PeeDee]

I had a short story that I knocked my head against, now and then, when I wanted to write a short story but didn' thave an instant idea to go with. It was a sound idea, it had solid characters, and it went through something like fifteen different drafts or so. Usually, I got about twenty pages in, it fizzled, that was it until the next time.

I tried it again, earlier this year. I decided to think about it very ahrd and figure out why it wasn't working. Instead, my head started filling up with ideas about it.

It wasn't a short story at all. It was a novel. I was completely surprised to find that out. I mean literally. I was eating, and I suddenly stopped, sat up, and blinked. Honest-to-God shock. I started writing it as a novel.

I'm about 3/4ths through it. It's my current work in progress. :)

[DamaNegra]

JRR Tolkien was planning on doing a large novel but had to divide it into three parts because it was too large, and it turned out to be the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Um... not sure that was really relevant but it's a cool fact... ok I'll shut up now

[My-Immortal]

JRR Tolkien was planning on doing a large novel but had to divide it into three parts because it was too large, and it turned out to be the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Um... not sure that was really relevant but it's a cool fact... ok I'll shut up now

I believe the publishers were the ones that decided to divide it - I don't think JRR Tolkien wanted it split. (And if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone out there will be able to correct me on that). :)

Take care all - and good luck on all your writing endeavors...

[DamaNegra]

I believe the publishers were the ones that decided to divide it - I don't think JRR Tolkien wanted it split.

Thank you, you just reminded me of the point I was trying to make. My point is, even if you don't want to divide your story, if the publisher decides it has to be split, it will be split, so it is a good idea to write it in a way it can be split. (wow, I didn't know the word 'split' could be used so many times in one sentence.... ok I'll shut up again...)

[Garpy]

I would say if the story can easily be split into three reasonable size books, that are rewarding to read individually, that a publisher would be very keen to market it as a trilogy (or quadrology...or more). It's simple common sense. A series will bring with it greater reader loyalty than a bunch of standalone books. Publishers like to build their authors careeers, and turn them into longterm money earners. Therefore a series is a more attractive proposition to them than a big fat standalone.

[loquax]

It was the Alien DVD boxset that introduced the word "quadrology" right? It's an abomination of a word, and redundant at that! Bah humbug.

[Jamesaritchie]

It was the Alien DVD boxset that introduced the word "quadrology" right? It's an abomination of a word, and redundant at that! Bah humbug.

Nah, "quadrology" or "Quadrilogy" is a very old word, and an apt one. I don't see how it's redundant. It just means "set of four." I think the order for books is unology, duology, trilogy, quadrology, quintology, sextology, septology, etc.

[loquax]

I was always taught it was "Tetralogy". I typed both 'tetralogy' and quadrilogy' into google and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralogy)is what came up.

[Jamesaritchie]

I was always taught it was "Tetralogy". I typed both 'tetralogy' and quadrilogy' into google and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralogy)is what came up.

It is, or can be. Depends on the language you're counting in. "Tetralogy" is probably more common, but "quadrology," or better, "Quadrilogy," "Quadri is four in Greek) is also applicable, and not a recently made up word. "Tetralogy" is Greek, "Quadrology/quadrilogy" is Latin. For a set of five, you can also say "pentalogy" (Greek) or "quintology," (Latin) and be right both times.

Just as you can say "Hexology" in Greek, or Sexology in Latin.

Some, such as "Octo," or eight, are the same in Greek or Latin.

We use both in the English language, and "quad" and "quin" are both common prexies.

If memory serves, "duology" is also Latin. At least, "duo" means two in Latin. I believe two is "dyo" in Greek.

Greek and Latin prefixes often get mixed and matched in the English language.

But when labelling anything, books, babies, movies. etc., you just have to decide whether you want the label in Greek or Latin. I prefer Latin, only because Latin is considered the basic language of the writer. Books most often use Greek, though not always. Latin is common in movies and babies.

[loquax]

-logy is a Greek suffix, therefore any -logy word with a Latin prefix is a bastardisation. Of course, there's nothing stopping you from using them, but I don't think they'll feature heavily in any legitimate dictionaries. Maybe I'm wrong - look up quadrilogy and see.

Anyway, it seems we've hi-jacked this thread..... ummmm yeah, from what I've heard, publishers like trilogies, but if your first book flops it's not as if they're legally bound to publish the others. So unless they really are stand-alone books, you might risk annoying your readers if they don't get to find out what happens next.

[Jaycinth]

Mine was too long so I split it into two. But when I went in to organize it properly ( i/e make everything stand alone, yet with a common thread to draw the reader onward) I had three. Now, as I have been re-writing 1 and 2 ,I realize I have too much left for three so I re-worked my outline and now it looks like 5.

But If I were you, I wouldn't use me as any barometer of normality. ( Can I say 'Capiche?' ?)
Capiche!?!

[PeeDee]

*mutters* I wanna write a unology.... :)

[AdamH]

Thanks for you input everyone! :) I guess it's not so unusual. I thought about the LOTR trilogy when I started this thread but wasn't sure how it ended up being sold to a publisher.

So I guess my next question, since some of you already touched on it already, is it better to try to sell this story as a trilogy, a really big Stephen King's The Stand-like novel (in length only. Style is different. Right now it's clocking in at about 900 pages...still reworking it though), or each of the three individually (about 75000 words each...roughly 300 pages)?

-Adam

PS Interesting -ology tangent. Don't mind a little thread hijacking. All info is good info in my books. Never know when I might need it for something in the future.

[Jamesaritchie]

-logy is a Greek suffix, therefore any -logy word with a Latin prefix is a bastardisation. Of course, there's nothing stopping you from using them, but I don't think they'll feature heavily in any legitimate dictionaries. Maybe I'm wrong - look up quadrilogy and see.

Anyway, it seems we've hi-jacked this thread..... ummmm yeah, from what I've heard, publishers like trilogies, but if your first book flops it's not as if they're legally bound to publish the others. So unless they really are stand-alone books, you might risk annoying your readers if they don't get to find out what happens next.

No, not a bastardization. While "logy" can be Greek, from the Greek word "logos," it is also Latin, from the word "logia." The suffixes "ology" and "logy" are found in both Greek and Latin. At any rate, the term "Quadrology/quadrilogy" has been used for a lot longer than you and I together have been alive, and probably longer than everyone on this forum together has been alive, and is a perfectly good, legitimate word. And in reality, Greek and Latin are very nearly the same language in many ways. No two languages are closer. A great deal of what you find in the Greek language has Latin roots.

The languages are so close, in fact, that mixing and matching prefixes and suffixes has been common throughout history. If you take all the Latin out of Greek, you wouldn't be left with much more than grunts.

In truth, you can't use ordinary dictionaries for things like this. Nearly all are far too American centric. You have to use language texts, entymological texts, etc.

If you Google both words, "tetralogy" and "Quadrilogy," you get roughly the same numbers of hits for each, about 465,000 for the first, and 432,000 for the second. So an awful lot of people and places are well aware of the word "quadrilogy," even if it isn't in the average, not very good, user dictionary.

And as for bastardization of words, that's pretty much all the English language is.

[loquax]

My last word on the subject is that all the googling I've done today comes up with the general message that 20th Century Fox made up the word quadrilogy, and it's not in any of my dictionaries (I'm English btw). Therefore I would advise people against using it in their manuscripts.

P.S. "quadrilogy -alien" comes up with 44,700 results on google, and "quadrilogy -alien -film -films -movie -movies -dvd" (I take it that when you say the word is very old, you mean it's older than cinema), comes up with 615. I suppose that's my last word.

[Jaycinth]

Economics 101. If each book will stand alone, then publish each individual one that way. I understand that the advance on one book would be $X.XX so multiply it, which you could not do with just one book. Additionally if one does not sell but the other two do, it increases the odds of the unsold one getting printed, and your story being read.

Psychology 101. Gol darnnit! You wrote it as one big book and you want it published that way, not matter how long it takes, no matter how much the possible advances are. It's your creativity, your vision, and you want to see one big ('The Stand') sized book!

Yeah, it was not helpful, but hey..it was only 2 cents!

[banjo]

Hi Maddwriter

I found my self in the same quandary. I began writing a novel with plans to kill off a very colorful villian in the end. My beta readers came to love the villian so much, they became angered that I would kill him off so soon--they wanted more of him. After much debate with them and myself I decided to resolve the problem by writing a prequel.

Both wooks could be stand alone, but I needed to write the prequel before finishing my original work, to find the best part in the long story to make the break. So I began the prequel,leaving the original "almost fininshed". Along the way I discovered that "IT' had so much to say, that it could, very possibly, require a complete stand alone book between the original and the prequal. Now I had a trilogy.

As I now view the current extended form of this story I find that a, summarizing, fourth book is a definite possibility. My lord, a tetralogy?

I too, have questioned my wisdom and sanity to proceed in this fashion. I've heard that it may be most unwise to invest so much into my first story, being unpublished as I am. And this is indeed one long story. But the story begs to be told. So I intend to take it where it leads me and damn the consequences.

This is an adventure/action story, and I have several romances waiting to be written. I also have a few children stories to write along the way.

This is my decision about my work, and I don't present it as advice to you. I'm just sharing my experience, warrring with the same demons. However, I feel I have to get this story out out of me before I can proceed with my writing. I know what I feel I must do as a writer and story teller. Whether it is commercially foolish or not is an issue that is a very far second, in my priorities, at this time.

[zeprosnepsid]

"if you take all the Latin out of Greek"

Don't you mean this the other way around? The Greek language is severely older and ancient Greek is extant in many dialectics in surviving literature. But there is no Latin in Homer but there is Greek in Virgil. There simply is no Latin in Classical Ancient Greek, as Latin had not been created yet.

It was common for Latin peoples/aristocrats to know Greek so I don't think they would have been too upset with combining the words. But in all my years I've study I've only come across quadrilogy in relation to the Alien series.

And Madd, do whatever feels right. I think a publisher would be thrilled with a well-written trilogy. Although you might want to query it as a single book -- there are pluses and minuses to both approaches.

[Jamesaritchie]

"if you take all the Latin out of Greek"

Don't you mean this the other way around? The Greek language is severely older and ancient Greek is extant in many dialectics in surviving literature. But there is no Latin in Homer but there is Greek in Virgil. There simply is no Latin in Classical Ancient Greek, as Latin had not been created yet.

It was common for Latin peoples/aristocrats to know Greek so I don't think they would have been too upset with combining the words. But in all my years I've study I've only come across quadrilogy in relation to the Alien series.

And Madd, do whatever feels right. I think a publisher would be thrilled with a well-written trilogy. Although you might want to query it as a single book -- there are pluses and minuses to both approaches.

Yes, I suppose I did mean the other way around, though there comes a point in both languages where Greek entered Latin, and Latin entered Greek, just as a great deal of Latin and Greek still enters the English language regularly. Once Latin was created, the Greek language made full use of it, just as the English language makes full use of both Greek and Latin. Modern Greek is full of Latin. Latin is thought of as a dead language, but it isn't really. It's simply a language no group speaks as a native language. And it's Latin, not Greek, that is really the mother language of all modern writers.

"Alien" probably did put the word Quadrilogy on the map, but the word wasn't made up for the movie, and in all honesty, I had no clue "Alien" even used the word until this thread.

[Gabriele]

Be careful with the length of your first volume. Writing historical fiction, my agent and publisher required me to get the word count down to 190,000 words. Anything much longer is considered too large for a first time author.

Och, 190K doesn't sound so bad. Mine will probably clock in at 150-170K, depending on the book.

[eskkar]

Och, 190K doesn't sound so bad. Mine will probably clock in at 150-170K, depending on the book.

Gabriele,
it doesn't sound bad, until you have to murder your favorite children to cut it down. I hated cutting some scenes out. Fortunately, I was able to use some in the sequel, so there's always that hope. It seems like you're writing historical fiction, as I do, so I'd suggest you stay under your 170K range. At least that's the latest advice from the Big Apple.

eskkar

[My-Immortal]

Nah, "quadrology" or "Quadrilogy" is a very old word, and an apt one. I don't see how it's redundant. It just means "set of four." I think the order for books is unology, duology, trilogy, quadrology, quintology, sextology, septology, etc.

I think you forgot the most common one of all - for those unpublished authors -

the "nonology"

:)

Take care all - and good luck to all you "nonology" writers - perhaps someday you'll be the proud owner of an unology.

[Gabriele]

Gabriele,
it doesn't sound bad, until you have to murder your favorite children to cut it down. I hated cutting some scenes out. Fortunately, I was able to use some in the sequel, so there's always that hope. It seems like you're writing historical fiction, as I do, so I'd suggest you stay under your 170K range. At least that's the latest advice from the Big Apple.

eskkar

Yep, I write historical fiction - for the UK market rather, considering the setting (Roman Britain mostly, and Scotland for the Medieaval one) and the fact that I live in Germany (the EU might make a few things simpler). I'll try to stay under the 170K range, and I don't write trilogies. ;)

[eskkar]

Gabriele,
never say never about a trilogy. You'll be surprised at how fast they want the second book the moment they buy the first one. And if your first one sells well, then they'll want a third. When I mentioned to my agent that I had a sequel completed, he sold both books as part of a package. So always keep some extra material in the back of your head, just in case you need to cook up another book.
By the way, my novel will be published in the UK next year, probably in September.
eskkar

[Gabriele]

It's not that agents and publishers might want them. It's that I don't write them. I don't want to get stuck with the same characters for ages, and it's difficult if you have to stick to a historical background to top a good climax for book 2 and 3. I keep killing off MCs to prevent that. :D (Most of my books have more than one, and thus I think I'll get along with it.)

Some of my projects are connected, though. The Charioteer and Endangered Frontiers both take place around 410 AD and share some minor characters and the historical background (The Charioteer concentrates on Britain, and Endangered Frontiers on the Visigoths - both have chapters taking place in Rome). There will be a third in this group, The Hostage, which deals with the brother of the MC of The Charioteer in Ireland.

Another connection is made by the British setting: The Charioteer could be part of a parcel that includes Storm over Hadrian's Wall and a future project, Treacherous Alliances (about the Roman invasion). But they would be more loosely linked.

I've also some vague ideas to write a book about the fall of the Visigoth kingdom that could mirror the one about its beginning, Endangered Frontiers.

My Mediaeval saga (in revision) Kings and Rebels is the biggest book, maybe I could cut it into two. But I'm not sure how long exactly it will be once I've sorted the mess out.

Two more plotbunnies (Baltic Sea pirates in the 14th century, and a book about Egberth of Wessex) look like standalones.

[zornhau]

Sorry to revive this, but I have a similar problem so have been doing my own research. "Word on the reasonably well-informed street" is, if you are as yet unpublished:

Don't write the entire trilogy before submitting it anywhere
Do finish the first volume and create good outlines for vol 2 & 3
Do ensure that vol 1 is reasonably self-contained. It doesn't quite need to be stand-alone, but it does need a satisfying ending, e.g. OK to end on protag coming of age, but the dark lord yet to be defeated.

[Novilia]

I never worry about lenghth. Never. I shudder at the thought of limiting myself with restrictions like length (by the way, my teachers hated me for this and still despise me to this day). Then a relative took one look at how much I had written, commented, "Wow, your really almost done," and then I replied, "No way in hell," and the relative proceeded to insist that no one will ever publish the bizillion page book unless you're already well known. It was at this point that I determined to make more than one book out of it, and it is coming along fine.

By-the-by, what is this about writting a triology as your first book or whatever being a bad idea. Who invented that rule?

[DamaNegra]

My WIP is going to be part of a (hopefully) five-book set. However, there's a slight problem there, since books 1 and 2 take place at the same time with different characters. Same happens with books 3 and 4, but the main characters from book 1 and 3 and the MC's of books 2 and 4 will get together and their stories will get together for book 5. It's kind of a piramidal structure, books 1 and 2 have little in common, books 3 and 4 start growing together until they merge in book 5. Is that too complicated?

[Novilia]

Coolness! Too complicated? Who ever said life (or a book) should be simple? It sounds like you're doing something pretty unique and I'm interested! Compleity is awesome and I think, while your idea may not be super popular at first, who knows? Hardly anything starts out popular at first and the importnt thing is.. is it a good series? If it is, then go for it. Do what you think is right for your story and let me know when it's been published so I can check out your cool pyramid thingy.

[mamabear]

I know the Xanth stories aren't serious literature, but I had to laugh when I picked up Piers Anthony's 27th Xanth book, "Cube Route" - he declared that the Trilogy was now finished.

I therefore continually tell my husband that my WIP is "A trilogy in five parts".

[DreamWeaver]

I can't remember the exact wording, but when Douglas Adams' "Mostly Harmless" came out, the front cover said, "The fifth in the increasingly inaccurately named Hitchhiker Trilogy."

[jenstrikesagain]

Be careful with the length of your first volume. Writing historical fiction, my agent and publisher required me to get the word count down to 190,000 words. Anything much longer is considered too large for a first time author.

YAY!!! My first one is 140,000. PARTY! PARTY! PARTY!

Part the Second is only about 82k words, though I still have a chapter I need to stick in there someplace that explains something or other and then there's some editing that needs to happen so who knows where it'll all turn out. And then I can start Part the Third. Oh, and mine, too, started off as an innocent standalone. Dunno what the hell happened. It's been fun though.

[Varthikes]

I figure I'd toss this out there since the boards are back (yay!) and before I head off to bed.

I'm working on my first novel. It's finally coming together nicely and I'm really happy about it but...here's the kicker...the original plan of the story was one 300-350 page novel give or take whatever happened in the final edit. Well, now that I'm writing it, I learn (and it is 'teaching' me as I go) that it wants to take on a grander form. And, after months of fighting with it, beating it down into the framework of an overstuffed solitary novel, it has burst open and convinced me it HAS to be an epic. Three novels. Each easily separated (now that it has shown me the clear divisions in the story). And, surprisingly, each could stand on it's own.

I wanted to complete this story by New Years but it doesn't seem to be in the cards. However, I should be able to finish the first part which is good enough for me. It's a satisfactory consolation prize but I really wanted to move on to something new in the New Year.

I suppose what I'm really wondering is has this happened to anyone else out there? And how did you deal with it?

Now, if you'll all excuse me, I've got to get to sleep. Goodnight all! :sleepy:

Sounds a lot like what I'm experiencing with my Draconia world. I had originally intended to write one book. But, the ideas that I came up for that one book sparked new ideas and follow-ups. And, I loved the characters--especially the main one. So, I just let the ideas flow.

I'm now done with my first book and three-quarters done with the second. And, the third and fourth are in the outlining stage. And, I've also got four novelettes/novellas and a short story completed for this now full-fledged series.