Or is it a hopeless cause?
Is it better to write a stand alone first and is it hard to market a series book?
-Charles Phipps
Is it better to write a stand alone first and is it hard to market a series book?
-Charles Phipps
Should a new author try for a trilogy?
- Thread starter Willowhugger
- Start date
- Status
Well, I would suggest making the first book capable of standing by itself, but with the next two books mapped out and waiting so that you could continue if you got the chance, but if you didn't, then the one book would be okay on its own.
I would recommend this to any author, beginner or otherwise. Leaving your ending a gaping cliffhanger rarely does anyone any good.
I would recommend this to any author, beginner or otherwise. Leaving your ending a gaping cliffhanger rarely does anyone any good.
It isn't a hopeless cause but if that first book fails, the entire trilogy is dead. If you aren't willing to have your trilogy die based on an unknown writers first attempt, writing something else first.
The choice is up to you.
The choice is up to you.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 10,881
- Reaction score
- 5,368
Casiopeia said:
Nah. Look at Star Wars as an example. Episode IV (A New Hope) was a complete movie all by itself...but it became more complete once you had The Empire Strikes Back following it. The Indiana Jones movies, for example, are each complete in and of themselves.
Unlike, say, Back to the Future, where each part is really and truly a (REALLY MADDENING DAMN IT) cliffhanger.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 10,881
- Reaction score
- 5,368
ugh...I HATED the sequals to Back to the Future...they were HORRID...sorry for any of you die hard fansPeeDee said:
Casiopeia said:ugh...I HATED the sequals to Back to the Future...they were HORRID...sorry for any of you die hard fans
I don't think Die Hard fans are going to care what you think of Back to the Future.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,376
- Reaction score
- 539
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Website
- www.mattdinniman.com
I like both Die Hard and Back to the Future. Heh.
I personally have seen many planned trilogies fail miserably because the author screws up a publishing choice for the first book. My personal opinion is to not start one until you have a good standalone under your belt.
But that's just me.
I personally have seen many planned trilogies fail miserably because the author screws up a publishing choice for the first book. My personal opinion is to not start one until you have a good standalone under your belt.
But that's just me.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 10,881
- Reaction score
- 5,368
Clever boy aren't we?PeeDee said:I don't think Die Hard fans are going to care what you think of Back to the Future.
It's best, first, to see if you can actually write a good book. It's not as easy as it might seem, if you haven't yet tried to do so.
caw.
caw.
Not to be combative, & perhaps this deserves a thread of its own, but what is this fascination with "writing a trilogy"?
The Lord of the Rings is one book. It was artificially split by the publisher.
Stephen Donaldson recently said his first "trilogy" was four books, split into a trilogy by his publisher.
It's a convention. Artificial. Nothing more.
A few years ago, a friend (another witer) asked me how the novel was going. I said, "As of a few hours ago, it's 57% done." She looked aghast. "How can you possibly say that?" she demanded.
Well, easily: I'd set out to write an 80,000-word book, based on my outline. (It came in at about 86,000.)
Yet she would blather on about her ten-book series, of which to date nothing's done but maybe 10,000 words in notes.
If you want to get published, start by writing a book. One book. After that, you'll actually know whether you have anything further to say on the topic.
The Lord of the Rings is one book. It was artificially split by the publisher.
Stephen Donaldson recently said his first "trilogy" was four books, split into a trilogy by his publisher.
It's a convention. Artificial. Nothing more.
A few years ago, a friend (another witer) asked me how the novel was going. I said, "As of a few hours ago, it's 57% done." She looked aghast. "How can you possibly say that?" she demanded.
Well, easily: I'd set out to write an 80,000-word book, based on my outline. (It came in at about 86,000.)
Yet she would blather on about her ten-book series, of which to date nothing's done but maybe 10,000 words in notes.
If you want to get published, start by writing a book. One book. After that, you'll actually know whether you have anything further to say on the topic.
Anthony Ravenscroft said:
It has a thread of it's own - I asked the same question a while back.
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33766
Well I started out an 8 book series and it's through my own choice in publishers that I'm probably going to wrap it up at 5 books. Nevertheless, I think that's pretty darn impressive even if they're only about Vampire Hunter D size.
Like the above poster, I just wrote a single story and then wrote the next one as part of the series.
But I guess my idea for a Trilogy is because it's Fat and juicy and gives the reader a sense that it's read a good deal.
Like the above poster, I just wrote a single story and then wrote the next one as part of the series.
But I guess my idea for a Trilogy is because it's Fat and juicy and gives the reader a sense that it's read a good deal.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 7,705
- Reaction score
- 1,336
- Location
- Where the Wild Things Are
- Website
- www.christine-norris.com
I wrote my first book, totally standalone, but with a door open for a sequel. Had no idea what the sequel would be about, but left a way to do it should it come about.
That was published, and it's gotten good reception, so I thought about it and figured out a nice plotline for the sequel. Will it be a trilogy? Nah, probably not.
I also have a series. But that was planned to be a series, not a trilogy. At least five books, possibly seven. I have, running around my head, another idea for books that will probably be a trilogy, but that's because there are going to be three main characters, and I'm thinking that each needs their own book. Actually it may be a quartet, I'm not sure.
Anyway, all this points to the fact that most publishers won't take on a trilogy by an unknown. Not to say that it never ever happens, but it's not as likely as a standalone. You're an unknown quantity; they want to know how you'll sell before they commit to more than one book in the same series.
Of course people do get mulitple book deals. But I wouldn't count on it.
Just write the book and let the rest take care of itself.
That was published, and it's gotten good reception, so I thought about it and figured out a nice plotline for the sequel. Will it be a trilogy? Nah, probably not.
I also have a series. But that was planned to be a series, not a trilogy. At least five books, possibly seven. I have, running around my head, another idea for books that will probably be a trilogy, but that's because there are going to be three main characters, and I'm thinking that each needs their own book. Actually it may be a quartet, I'm not sure.
Anyway, all this points to the fact that most publishers won't take on a trilogy by an unknown. Not to say that it never ever happens, but it's not as likely as a standalone. You're an unknown quantity; they want to know how you'll sell before they commit to more than one book in the same series.
Of course people do get mulitple book deals. But I wouldn't count on it.
Just write the book and let the rest take care of itself.
I did, however, each book in my series is stand alone. Saying that, most of the stand alone series books I 've bought, read better if the previous books in the series are read in order.
Elizabeth George's Inspector Lynley series is a case in point. If a reader gets hold of the most recent book he / she will probably wonder at some of the tensions and their origins. These go unexplored yet if one has read the previous volumes, all is known. However, that doesn't prevent the last book from being an enjoyable read.
Elizabeth George's Inspector Lynley series is a case in point. If a reader gets hold of the most recent book he / she will probably wonder at some of the tensions and their origins. These go unexplored yet if one has read the previous volumes, all is known. However, that doesn't prevent the last book from being an enjoyable read.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2006
- Messages
- 294
- Reaction score
- 84
I'm in the same boat as Imelda. I sat down to write one book. Nine months later I counted my words and found I had almost 300K, with no realistic hope of cutting to 100K without completely gutting the story. So I identified two good break points and broke it into a trilogy--and I've spent the last year making the first part stand alone. I pitch it as a single story, and when asked what my next project is, I explain the next two books are already written and waiting to be edited. I've got one request for a full so far--we'll see how it goes from here.
HN
HN
Short answer, Willow, is NO. Any author, published or not, should produce the best book he/she can. Put everything he/she has into it. Otherwise, he/she will probably end up with three trunk novels. If one has success with that one book, then it may be appropriate to think about building sequels to it. One book published is better than three books trunked any day. Obviously, established authors can go for a trilogy at the outset, and an occasional newbie can strike gold with one, but the latter is going to be rare, in my opinion.
Our own prodigy, Liam, signed on for a multi-book contract, but I believe it was originally written as a single piece, and separated out after accepted. Liam, please correct me if I am wrong.
Our own prodigy, Liam, signed on for a multi-book contract, but I believe it was originally written as a single piece, and separated out after accepted. Liam, please correct me if I am wrong.
I'm confused here... do you already have a publisher? Your statements are somewhat vague in this area...
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 1,369
- Reaction score
- 85
- Location
- Western US
- Website
- night-children.blogspot.com
PeeDee said:
I agree. Make the first a stand alone, but know your world well enough, with sprinkles of foreshadowing, to allow for sequels if possible.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2006
- Messages
- 238
- Reaction score
- 21
Just don't do the horrible evil inexcusable cliffhanger thing. (Anybody else's kids fans of "Between the Lions?" Do you find "Cliff Hanger" as amusing as I do?) There is no better way to alienate your reader (at least me, personally).
I don't think there are many stories whose narrative arc can successfully sustain the sheer mass of a trilogy. Especially when the books are coming out at 100,000 words apiece. Geez, even the Iliad clocked in at under 16,000 lines, and Aristotle thought Homer could've done just as good a job in 5000 lines instead. (The Kristin Lavransdatter trilogy is an exception. There's a reason Sigrid Undset won the Nobel Prize.)
I don't think there are many stories whose narrative arc can successfully sustain the sheer mass of a trilogy. Especially when the books are coming out at 100,000 words apiece. Geez, even the Iliad clocked in at under 16,000 lines, and Aristotle thought Homer could've done just as good a job in 5000 lines instead. (The Kristin Lavransdatter trilogy is an exception. There's a reason Sigrid Undset won the Nobel Prize.)
Willowhugger said:
It's not hopeless, but it is exceedingly rare for unknown authors to sign for a trilogy. Unless the books are brilliant and there is some super marketing scheme behind it (Naomi Novak comes to mind).
Willowhugger said:
Yes. But it's your choice on whether or not the standalone is "book one" of your trilogy, or a completely different novel that gets your foot in the door.
Willowhugger said:
Market to whom? The agent/editor? Or the reading public?
Series and trilogies are not necessarily the same thing. A trilogy is three books, with intertwined stories, and then you're done. A series could go on indefinitely (think Sue Grafton or Laurel K. Hamilton), and each book's narrative should stand alone.
PeeDee said:
This is how I'm tackling mine. The first book stands alone, but there are some seeds planted for the 2nd and 3rd books.
- Status