To series or not to series

Flicka · Dec 20, 2011

I'm trying to decide on what project to start on next. I have two ideas, and the problem is that one of them, the one I think has most potential, is a trilogy. It just is. I've had plenty of advice on how books should be stand-alone and that publishers don't want series from new authors. In this case, there would be one major plot that stretches over all three books, but each would have a complete story arc. It's just that they can't be called stand-alone because the 'core conflict' is what binds them together and that isn't resolved until book three.

I thought of doing the other one first, but I really, really think the trilogy idea would be better for a whole lot of reasons – more unique, easier to research, easier to classify genre-wise and just easier to write. So in many ways. I'd like to do that first, but I wondered if it's a complete waste of time for an unpubbed writer to embark on a project like that. Or should I just ignore that and just write the sucker? If nothing else, it'll likely make me a better writer.

Thoughts, advice, bad jokes?

And FYI, it's historical fiction.

BotByte · Dec 20, 2011

I would say write one book with the entire premise to expand.

So one novel, complete story and ending.
Then you say that you have a idea to carry this off to a trilogy.
You can keep the connections, events and character from the first and carry into the others.

But there has to be a ending to the first book. A total resolve to be called a story.
Then again, you can keep a small pinhole open to expand off of. People see this a lot when a author writes a story, ends it and something just floats in the waters that can be worked into another story.

Try to cut down to 3 books. If not, make into one large book. My WIP was going to be a trilogy, but I didn't have enough to expand it that far. So I cut back and writing to the end.

Flicka · Dec 20, 2011

BotByte said:
I would say write one book with the entire premise to expand.

So one novel, complete story and ending.
Then you say that you have a idea to carry this off to a trilogy.
You can keep the connections, events and character from the first and carry into the others.

But there has to be a ending to the first book. A total resolve to be called a story.
Then again, you can keep a small pinhole open to expand off of. People see this a lot when a author writes a story, ends it and something just floats in the waters that can be worked into another story.

Try to cut down to 3 books. If not, make into one large book. My WIP was going to be a trilogy, but I didn't have enough to expand it that far. So I cut back and writing to the end.

Well, I suppose I could make it into one, really long book. With several ups and downs and sub-plots. How long is too long for hist fic? Could I get away with over 100,000 words? 120,000? 110,000?

The premise is that one of the MC:s is set up to want revenge in the 'first story' and that isn't resolved until the very end. But yes, I think I might be able to do it in one book if I cut out some of the subplots (or many of them) and just focus more on that one story line. It will be on the longer end of the spectrum I think. But I think I could do it.

Hmmm... Maybe that's the answer...

seun · Dec 20, 2011

Go for the one which interests you the most. If that's part one of a trilogy, then that's what it is. Just ensure the book is written to the best of your abilities and stands alone for the most part. Nothing wrong with hinting there's more to come. Then when it comes to subbing, you can say here's my book and I have plans to develop this story in the future.

Don't write it (the first draft in any case) with the thought of will this sell in your head. Write it because you want to tell your story. Then polish that bad boy into something shiny.

Flicka · Dec 20, 2011

seun said:
Go for the one which interests you the most. If that's part one of a trilogy, then that's what it is. Just ensure the book is written to the best of your abilities and stands alone for the most part. Nothing wrong with hinting there's more to come. Then when it comes to subbing, you can say here's my book and I have plans to develop this story in the future.

Don't write it (the first draft in any case) with the thought of will this sell in your head. Write it because you want to tell your story. Then polish that bad boy into something shiny.

This is something I've thought about too. "Just write the sucker and don't over-think it".

Maybe I should just start writing it, see how long it becomes and take it from there? Just see what it turns out to be. One book, two books, three books, just waste of space of my hard-driver...

I think I'm partly stalling because it scares me. It feels like writing a real book. And also because I tend to go ooooh, shiny! and so letting go of a project (even though I haven't even written a single word on it yet) feels like a failure. But this story is one I've had in my head for years and years, just re-worked and shaped up and placed in a new setting.

It also means plenty of research. I think that's part of what scares me too. Terra incognita and all that

Can you tell I'm talking myself into doing it?

BotByte · Dec 20, 2011

Flicka said:
Well, I suppose I could make it into one, really long book. With several ups and downs and sub-plots. How long is too long for hist fic? Could I get away with over 100,000 words? 120,000? 110,000?

The premise is that one of the MC:s is set up to want revenge in the 'first story' and that isn't resolved until the very end. But yes, I think I might be able to do it in one book if I cut out some of the subplots (or many of them) and just focus more on that one story line. It will be on the longer end of the spectrum I think. But I think I could do it.

Hmmm... Maybe that's the answer...

The only problem with smashing a book like I did and like what you're thinking of doing, is that it's hard to create a personal level with the environment with the reader.

Or maybe that's just me. I've got trees that grow up to 100 miles into the sky. It's hard just creating a massive scale of them in the first place.

For history, I would expect 600+ pages. I say that because 80,000 words can be 600 pages. I would aim for atleast 130,000 and see how far it gets. Remember, final draft = first draft - 10%

BotByte · Dec 20, 2011

Flicka said:
This is something I've thought about too. "Just write the sucker and don't over-think it".

Maybe I should just start writing it, see how long it becomes and take it from there? Just see what it turns out to be. One book, two books, three books, just waste of space of my hard-driver...

I think I'm partly stalling because it scares me. It feels like writing a real book. And also because I tend to go ooooh, shiny! and so letting go of a project (even though I haven't even written a single word on it yet) feels like a failure. But this story is one I've had in my head for years and years, just re-worked and shaped up and placed in a new setting.

It also means plenty of research. I think that's part of what scares me too. Terra incognita and all that

Can you tell I'm talking myself into doing it?

Sorry about the double post.

I take it in stages. I go by chapters up to the end. The worry of it all it to finish it and to edit. I hate editing.

Research is fun.

gothicangel · Dec 20, 2011

Flicka said:
I thought of doing the other one first, but I really, really think the trilogy idea would be better for a whole lot of reasons – more unique, easier to research, easier to classify genre-wise and just easier to write. So in many ways. I'd like to do that first, but I wondered if it's a complete waste of time for an unpubbed writer to embark on a project like that. Or should I just ignore that and just write the sucker? If nothing else, it'll likely make me a better writer.

Thoughts, advice, bad jokes?

And FYI, it's historical fiction.

Well, I would argue that Simon Scarrow, Ben Kane and Anthony Riches where all debut authors when they approached agents with series concepts.

Flicka · Dec 20, 2011

I think I'm going to give it a shot. The more I think about it, the better I think it would be to make the main plot line one book and save the other sub-plots for possible stand-alone books. Since my scripts tend to be too short rather than too lonf, I think it's absolutely doable within an acceptable word count.

I'm scared and something tells me that's good. I've been playing it safe for too long. I think I need to challenge myself.

seun · Dec 20, 2011

Flicka said:
I'm scared and something tells me that's good. I've been playing it safe for too long. I think I need to challenge myself.

Nowt wrong with challenging yourself. Go for it.

NeuroFizz · Dec 20, 2011

Make sure your stories are all damn good stories, and that a reader could pick up one in isolation and be fully satisfied and entertained without having to shell out money for another book in the series. You want the reader to want to buy the other books in the series, not feel like he/she has to buy them to get a full reading experience. To me, that's the only way to approach a series.

Start your series like that and realize that if the first book doesn't sell, there is no series. If you knock the socks off an agent/publisher with that first book, I'll bet they'd be interested in the subsequent books.

So, write the first book and see how it plays out in terms of the series.

halfbloodprincess · Dec 20, 2011

I would write the trilogy. If you write the other one your heart won't be in it, and the whole time your writing you'll be like dang I should be writing that trilogy. It sounds like your really excited about the idea so go for it! Who knows maybe its so awesome that publishers will be begging for more.

I'm having sort of the same predicament myself. I'm trying to figure out if my wip should be a stand alone or have a sequel. I think it will largely depend on the ending I decide on. I like how you mentioned that most publishers don't like new authors to write series. So maybe I'll keep that in mind and just kill off my main character to make it a stand alone.

Good luck! Keep writing!

Cathy C · Dec 20, 2011

IMO (having written both series and standalones) so long as the first book ends the primary plot, you can have "world arcs" that can be continued in subsequent books. If you happen to write said books while selling the first book, I assure you that there's nothing an agent loves more than selling a 2-3 book deal. If only the first book sells, that's okay too. But it MUST stand alone.

Think of it like Star Wars. If the movie had bombed and none of the other movies had been made, it was still a good standalone. Luke survived, Han got the girl, and the day was saved. But you knew the battle continued.

Does that help?

S. Eli · Dec 20, 2011

I had the same problem. However, I think that if you close up the first one real nice while still writing the books you want to write, you should be fine. You'll always have a great story to tell fans.

jaksen · Dec 20, 2011

Write one solid, stand-alone book that people want to read. If they really love the characters, the story, the world you've built then you're ready to write book 2 and get into series mode...

It's all in that first book. Deliver the magic and your agent and publisher - and readers - will be looking for more.

blacbird · Dec 20, 2011

Just about every successful fiction series I can think of started as one single highly successful book. That includes, most spectacularly, Harry Potter.

Make one book work. Which doesn't mean you can't think of series possibilities, but you have to make that first book go, or none of the rest are likely to.

caw

Coco82 · Dec 21, 2011

I'm dealing w/the same issues w/my current WIP. I think because of its underlying arc I can do a series, but am going to take it one book at a time. The idea does excite me (the plot) and I am looking forward to delving into it.

Vemy Paw · Dec 21, 2011

This reminds me of Terry Pratchett's Discworld. There are more than 30 Discworld books, and except the firsts two books, every books are stand-alones. Well, not quite. Some books have the same MC, and if you read them in the right order you can see that the next book is actually the continuation (in timeline, the life of the MC) from the previous one. After a few books, you will get the idea that the author is not actually telling about the character as a standalone person, but the character as part of the world. You can read the books not in the right order, and can still get into story. Very clever, I think.

blacbird · Dec 21, 2011

Coco82 said:
I think because of its underlying arc I can do a series,

I sooooooooooo wish my stuff had an "arc". Instead, it seems to have a plummet.

caw

Anne Lyle · Dec 21, 2011

Flicka said:
II've had plenty of advice on how books should be stand-alone and that publishers don't want series from new authors.

The latter point is a misconception. In some genres (e.g. fantasy and SF), publishers practically demand series from authors, new or not. OK, so they also want the first book to be stand on its own merits, but they love successful series because they build readership. My own agent has stated here on AW that he would find it near-impossible to make a single-book deal in the current market!

I say go for it. Write your trilogy, see how it works out, then make sure the first book has closure. Because that's what readers really want from a "standalone" genre novel - a feeling that things have been resolved to some extent, that they've reached the end of an episode, even if the story clearly continues.

blacbird · Dec 22, 2011

Anne Lyle said:
they love successful series because they build readership.

They absolutely do love successful series. But you don't sell a successful series. You sell a single book, and if you can do that, you then hope to God it will be successful. If that happens, you can think "series", and your publisher will probably be prodding your for it. Which means you can think and prepare for a series, but you still need to get that first book to work in the published world.

Best of luck with that.

caw

bearilou · Dec 22, 2011

BotByte said:
For history, I would expect 600+ pages. I say that because 80,000 words can be 600 pages.

*pulls out a calculator and does the math*

...o~kay...

Cyia · Dec 22, 2011

BotByte said:
For history, I would expect 600+ pages. I say that because 80,000 words can be 600 pages. I would aim for atleast 130,000 and see how far it gets. Remember, final draft = first draft - 10%

80 K is closer to 350 pages; it's nowhere near 600 unless you're using large font or weird margins.

And final draft is not "first draft - 10%". For some, final draft is first draft - minor typographical errors. For others, it's first draft + 60,000 new words. For others, it's scrap chapters 1-7, start the book with old chapter 12, and cut three characters while combining another two who are too similar.

Anne Lyle · Dec 22, 2011

Cyia said:
And final draft is not "first draft - 10%". For some, final draft is first draft - minor typographical errors. For others, it's first draft + 60,000 new words. For others, it's scrap chapters 1-7, start the book with old chapter 12, and cut three characters while combining another two who are too similar.

This.

Mine is usually first draft + 50%

bearilou · Dec 22, 2011

Anne Lyle said:
Mine is usually first draft + 50%

this gives me hope.

To series or not to series

Dull Old Person

Not a Reader, a Writer

Dull Old Person

Horror Man

Dull Old Person

Not a Reader, a Writer

Not a Reader, a Writer

Toughen up.

Dull Old Person

Horror Man

The grad students did it

Ooo! Shiny new cover!

Custom User Title

Caped Codder

Fantastic historian

DenturePunk writer

Rewriting My Destiny

Fantastic historian

DenturePunk writer