The Series Conundrum

[mr mistook]

I'm not finished with the first novel, but already my brain is bowling me over with the story line for the sequel, and the prequel, not to mention Book IV.

I imagine that when the current work is finished, if it catches the fancy of a publisher, it will be a great thing to be able to say definitively what the next book in the series will be about...

But in the mean time, the imagining of that next novel is taking my attention away from the work at hand.

Is it a good thing to find I'm writing a trilogy, or pentology? Or am I just suffering from over-exuberance for a story that should well be encapsulated by one book alone?

[Writing Again]

Were I in your position I would spend the first part of my writing time, say in the morning, working on my current novel, and when I was done spend the last of my writing time outlining and solving problems in the next novel.

I normally tend to work on 3 projects at once. I edit and polish the last WIP, write my current WIP, and plan my next WIP.

I never have writer's block cus I'm never stumped on more than one at a time.

[HConn]

But in the mean time, the imagining of that next novel is taking my attention away from the work at hand.

Is it a good thing to find I'm writing a trilogy, or pentology? Or am I just suffering from over-exuberance for a story that should well be encapsulated by one book alone?

It's not a question of whether you should write a single book or a series, IMO. It's a question of whether you should let yourself be distracted from your current WIP by a new project.

Remember that things you haven't written will always be more attractive than things you have/are written. It's just the nature of our brains that a project that exists as potential will seem more perfect than one you are actually creating. It's a form of procrastination.

It's fine to work on a new project, as long as you continue to finish your original project, too.

[maestrowork]

If your first book doesn't sell, there will be no series. So focus on making your first book the best you can. You have plenty of time to work on your second, third, etc... (publishing is a very SLOW business).

[mr mistook]

All great points... especially the last one! I suppose I am procrastinating at the moment. I stumbled into a sub-plot that I hadn't seen coming.

I was just about to have one of my characters make a graceful exit from the story, her purpose being served - but in all the early chapters where she worked so doggedly to get the plot going, I kind of took a liking to her. So I had her go out with a bit of a "bang". Now she's gotten herself into quite a deeper mess than I at first realized and the only way to keep her alive for the next book is to have her set up a "sting" - if you can believe it.

I really think it will help liven up the closing chapters, but working out the sting, and working it into what I already had planned is just... killing me!:smack

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we choose to write fiction.

[Writing Again]

Maestro has a valid point. Writing a second book in a series that never happens would be a waste of time.

But that does not mean you can't have outlines, synopsis, and treatments to show an editor with all the major points of the next story or two worked out. This will show the editor you are dedicated, you know where you are going, and let the editor determine if they like the future you indictate.

[Flawed Creation]

i agree with maestro's point in general.

however, there is an ecepion. if the second book in the series stands alone, that is, is really anoher story and not a continuation o the same, then if you can't sell the first one, you can still sell the second, and perhaps eventually sell the first as a prequel.

i have 3 books planned out in the world of my WIP. (and one in a different world...)

those three are all reasonably independent of each other, and can be read in any order.

therefore, they can be sold in any order or combination.

as an example, suppose the movie "Star wars" had never come out.

they cpould have released "The empire strikes back" it would have needed a different name, and a little more early characterization, but they could have started with Luke as a rebel. if they wished, they could later have released Star Wars, to show how luke came to join the rebellion.

similarly, brian jacques' redwall books can be read in any order.

[Kempo Kid]

This is my second attempt to post. The site deleted my first message!

I'm shopping around the first book in the series, and I'm outlining and working on the second.

But I'm making the second a standalone, with enough references to what happens in the first book to make it make sense. If the second book sells first, maybe I can introduce the first book as a prequel.

I'm going to have trouble with my mystery series, though. There are several books in the series, and I'm outlining them sort of en masse. They're standalones, but they do build on each other.

Well, maybe I won't have that much trouble at that, but I'm wondering something. I don't have an overarc for the mystery series. A story line that starts in the first one and then finally reaches its conclusion in the last book. Maybe I should.

If you have a trilogy, can you present it to a publisher/agent as one book, three volumes? Or does your agent get a three book deal for that one?

Just wondering.

[Flawed Creation]

i don't think it matters how you count: if the agent gets 15% of the money you receive,, it's 15% percent of oone big check o 3 small ones. it comes to the same.

[Gala]

you have parents with a credit card.

:grin

[Kempo Kid]

Huh? I don't understand. I know that an agent gets 15%. That's not what I was asking about.

And I guess my parents have credit cards. I don't know. What is this in reference to?

I was talking about presenting a work to an agent/publisher. Should a trilogy be presented as one work (split into three volumes), or as three books? I can see an inherent danger of the publisher turning down the third book of a three book deal when that third book happens to be the last of a trilogy.

Never mind.:gone

[macalicious731]

Kempo, I think the best bet would be to try to sell them as three separate books, but when you're querying the first one be sure to mention you have outlines/drafts, even complete works of the other two in the series to let them know you're serious.

[James D Macdonald]

Sell the first book. If/when it sells you'll have plenty of time to pitch the others.

The words in the cover letter "This is volume one of a series..." strikes fear into editors' hearts.

[Jamesaritchie]

James D is right. The words "THis is the first in a planned series" is a frightening prospect for an agent or editor.

Write and polish the first novel. If it sells well, the editor will ask you for another.

I've never written a series because I've never wanted to write a series. I have, however, written sequels. I wrote them because reviews in The New York Review of Books said the novels were worthy of sequels, at which point my editor said, "We've got to have a sequel," at which point my agent asked how big the advance would be, at which point I said, "I'll write a sequel."

It look like I may be writing a mystery series in the not too distant future, but again it's because the editor wants it, based on sales of a first mystery novel.

New writers tend to get way ahead of themselves with thoughts of series and sequels. First you have to write a standalone novel that's good enough for an agent to represent, and good enough for an agent to buy. Then that novels has to be published, and usually has to earn a profit for the publish. Then, and only then, do series and sequels usually come into play for new writers.

It does NOT interest agents and editors when you mention a first novel is part of a series, it just frightens them. Concentrate all your energy on the first novel, get it a perfect as possible, find an agent for it, and worry about a seocnd novel in the series after the first novel has been published.

[Kempo Kid]

First, I'm not a new writer, so I don't know where that came from. (I get tired of saying this.)

Second, this was a point of wondering not a plan of action.

Third, everything I've heard goes directly counter to everything you just said. Publishers don't want a "one-book wonder." They want to know that you're planning and writing more books, especially in the fantasy and mystery genres, which is what I write in.

[macalicious731]

]
The words in the cover letter "This is volume one of a series..." strikes fear into editors' hearts.

So, going along with what Kempo's been saying, when is the appropriate time to mention it's a series? I can see that a mention in the cover letter/query is a bit overeager and assuming, but if you cart of a synopsis (or an entire ms) to the editor, shouldn't you let them know you've got answers to those unresolved issues in the ms?

Yes, of course, every novel should be able to stand on its own, but the "big picture" isn't often realized in the first novel of a series when it's supposed to be a continuation rather than a episode-per-book.

(Btw, not writing a series here, just plain curious.)

[James D Macdonald]

I've committed series twice.

The first time was a middle-grades series darn-near twenty years ago (heaven help me!)

This started out as a 400-page fantasy novel. Back then, pre-Harry-Potter, no one was publishing 400 page kids' books. Middle grades books, they were looking for around 120 pages. So we put the novel on a band saw and cut it into four roughly equal chunks (the extra twenty pages going to re-introduce the characters in each book and do a brief "our story so far" section). Then the publisher said, "Great! But we don't do four-book series. It's either one book or six. Can you write two more books in this series?"

When an editor asks that kind of question, the answer is "Yes!"

So we wrote in two additional books (you may notice that the third and fourth volumes of the Circle of Magic series take place in a whole different country than the first two and last two volumes). Smoothed 'em down, fitted 'em in, and all was well.

The second series came about like this: We sold a novel, a nice stand-alone space opera. The contract included an option clause for the next novel written in that same universe. Publishing works on long schedules, while I type fast. The second book was written and turned in before the first was printed. Imagine the look of surprise on my face when the first book (a nice paperback original) had the words "Volume one of the Mageworlds series!" on the cover. The second book was cut into a two volume sequel, becoming volumes two and three of the Mageworlds Trilogy.

Since then, over the years, we've written a total of seven novels in that universe. These have had some overlap in characters and places, but there's no continuing story. Some of the books have had volume numbers on them, others didn't, but it's still called the Mageworlds Series (buy one! Better still, buy a dozen!). The first, fourth, fifth, and sixth, are all convenient entry points, where you don't have to know a single blessed thing about the universe or the characters to get a stand-alone story.

[Jamesaritchie]

Well, "standalone" means there really shouldn't be any unresolved issues in a novel. This doesn't stop it from becoming a series. Unresolved issues in a first novel usually just means no one will buy that novel. The big picture should be just big enough to fill that novel from cover to cover.

A first novel really should be written as a complete standalone, meaning everything neatly tied up with a pretty bow. Very, very few first novels become a series, and unresolved issues just disappoint readers.

I'm not sure why it's so tempting for new writers to think about series, but it's almost never a good idea. Even when it is, it's still usually best to wait until after a novel has been published, certainly until after a novel has been bought, before mentioning another novel, or several novels, set in that same universe.

[Jamesaritchie]

James M,
I have the best of intentions in buying your novels because I do like them, but I'm in a bit of a fix when it comes to buying any new novels. I now have well over 2,000 books in my TBR pile, 90% novels, and I'm in dire danger of dying should one of these stacks fall.

It's an absurd number of unread books. I once bought just over 100 mystery novels in a single day (Not as bad as it sounds. I got a decent deal on high quality hardcover first editions, and just couldn't pass them up), I get books and more books for birthday and Christmas, and people send me books like you wouldn't believe.

I've decided to take two years to cut my TBR pile down to a manageable size. Surely there will be some in this stack I don't like well enough to finish, and two years should put a noticeable dent in it. It will, I suspect, take about eight years to get rid of it more or less completely.

[macalicious731]

Well, "standalone" means there really shouldn't be any unresolved issues in a novel.

Okay, the most well-known example of this right now is Rowling's series. I mean, you could read any one of those HP books out of order, if you really wanted. Every one of those books has its own storyline that's resolved, but each one (including the first) ends with more and more unanswered questions than the last in reference to the series as a whole. Maybe it works differently with children's literature, but I've also read plenty of adult series that work this way, but unfortunately I'm blanking on titles/authors.

If you have something in the works that's really long and involved (regardless if you're experienced or not) shouldn't you at some point let the editor know so that when they reach the end of the first one he/she doesn't think you've just skimped off? I think I'd rather risk sending a ms along having an editor thinking I'm a bit overeager than finishing the work and thinking I have a sloppy story. If it still doesn't work, then there's time for change/revision, or setting the series template aside until you're more experienced and published a couple more novels.

I guess the question is just when do you let the editor in on what you're thinking?

[Flawed Creation]

would it be reasonable to simply offer the editortheir choice- either way.

what i had always planned to do when i submitted my book was to mention in the synopsis or covcer letter that i had an outline of a sequel available, but that the book was not written with the sequel in mind (i consider this true:i had the major plot details down before a sequel ever ocurred to me, and although i have been tempted i have not changed anything in the first book to give more meterial to the second.) and that the book iwas submitting to them told the complete story of the protagonist. the sequel, in fact, is about someone entirely different, with a couple of characters showing up again.

does it make any sense to simply offer the editor their choice- make it a series or leave it as one? or will the mere mention of a sequel poison your chances with the first book?

[Jamesaritchie]

Actually, it works because Rowling is a blasted genius.
The rules do not always apply to everyone and every novel. But had that series not been popular, readers would have been content with the way the first novel ended.

The thing is, you can't just skimp off at the end of a first novel, intentionally or otherwise. Rowling didn't. There was certainly much more to tell about Potter's world, but there always is, IF the novel is popular. Unless your hero grows up, grows old, and dies in the first novel, there's always room for a second and a third and a fourth.

But if the ending is unresolved in a writer's first novel, the editor simply isn't going to care about explanations. Unless that novel sells very well, there will be no sequel or series, and it will be a double flop.

I think you're looking at this is reverse. For a new writer, the editor lets you know, you don't let the editor know. No matter how a novel is written, even if the writer has every intention of making it a series, odds are extremely high that that novel will not sell well enough for an editor to want it to be a series. It's just not a chance an editor is willing to take, except in the rarest of circumstances. There's far too much money at risk. And losing money means an editor may lose his job.

The Rowling model might actually be the right one. It certainly left readers wondering what would become of Harry and the others, what further adventures awaited them, but it was still a completely standalone novel, with absolutely no need of Rowling mentioning anything about a series. It became a series solely because it sold so fast they couldn't keep the shelves stocked.
At this point the editor begged Rowling to turn it into a series.

This is how it almost always works for new writers. You need to write a standalone novel, which means one that will satsify the reader in every way, even if a second novel is never written, because odd are it won't be, whatever the writer's intentions. The editor knows this, even if the writer doesn't.

There's simply no gain and much potential harm in writing a first novel with an open end, with unresoved issues relating to that story, and in telling an editor you have a series in mind. Every new writer seems to have a series in mind, and this simply is not what editors want from a first novel by a new writer.

It's fine to write a novel, as Rowling did, that ends with a protagonist young enough to have many more adventures, and who lives in a world obviously capable of providing those adventures, but it isn't fine to skimp on the ending because you want the novel to be the first in a series, or to tell the editor it's going to be part of a planned series. She not only won't care, it's exactly the opposite of what she wants.

First sell a novel. Then worry about sequels and series.

It may seem that series are common, but compared to the number of novels being published, they are quite rare. Far rarer still is the new writer who gets anywhere by mentioning a series up front. It really does make an editor roll her eyes and mutter, "Oh, God, not another one."

Sell a novel, worry about the rest later.

[James D Macdonald]

...at some point let the editor know so that when they reach the end of the first one he/she doesn't think you've just skimped off?

Forget the editor. How about the reader standing in the bookstore? When that reader gets to the end of your novel will he or she feel that you've skimped off on the story? I tell you what: Skimping off on the story is a sure way to make sure that reader won't buy another book by you.

Editors are the readers' advocates. To please the editor, please the reader.

(Please remember the way <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/059035342X/ref=nosim/madhousemanor" target="_new">Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone</A> ended: Harry, having defeated Lord Voldemort, goes home for his summer vacation. Even if another book had never been written, that would be a satisfactory conclusion.)

[Kempo Kid]

So I should be okay, then. I'm working on a sequel, and mentioning it, but the first book is a standalone. Everything in that book is put paid to by the end of the book.

The sequel is a standalone, too. In case the first book doesn't sell, the sequel can carry things by itself.

Perhaps there's some confusion as to "series," "sequels," and books that are simply part of the same fictional universe.

But I'm glad to see that I'm doing it right. I'll just go happily on working on my sequel.

[Flawed Creation]

perhaps we need to clarify a few terms-

as i understand it, a series is a number of separte books which really comprise one story. as such, new writers sohould avoide them

different novels in the same universe is saving some effort on worldbuilding for your next book.

to me, a sequel implies some relationship the first besides existing in the same universe, but not neccessarily forming one overarching story.

as such, series is to be avoided, but sequels are acceptbale is they don't depend on the first book.

right?

[macalicious731]

Okay, here's what I'm thinking. (Again, not writing a series/sequels, nothing. Just curious, especially because I do enjoy, on occassion, reading serial novels where everything connects together book to book.)

When I said "skimped off," I'm not talking about huge gaping plot holes, or anything. I also don't want to make this a case specific example, either, but in Rowling's case and her series, she was signed by the editor with more than one novel in mind. And, just my opinion, had there been one book and one book only, a lot of people really would have been unsatisfied. It's been awhile since I've read it, but I do believe there's a line toward the end that goes something like, "I'll tell you when you're older." There's a hint to readers that more is coming.

Now, an easy fix to that, if the editor decided it was going to be only a one-book wonder, would be to answer the question right then and there, but that's not the case here. The editors/pubs must have already decided to give Rowling the green light for more books.

Forget the editor. How about the reader standing in the bookstore?

This is where I'm confused, though. The editor is your first reader. If you don't clue them in, how is the bookstore reader going to know? If you handed the editor your ms, and had a mysterious question hanging around by the end, much like Rowling did, they're going to suspect you have something in mind for the future.

Do you just let it go, and let them approach you about it ("Where is this going, what's your plan?") and see if it should be fixed, or let them know before it's in their hands?

[maestrowork]

The way I look at it, most books are not concluded "neatly" at the end. If the book sells, people will ask for a sequel, even when the book itself seems to be a complete story by itself. Either "what happens to these characters?" or "what happens in that universe? Before or after."

You shouldn't leave too many loose ends at the end hoping that the editor would want it to be a series, but enough room for you to do so if asked. I'm sure if your story is strong and you leave enough to the imagination, the editor would be happy to ask "do you have others planned?" I'm sure when Rowling first pitched her first book, she didn't say "BTW, this is only the first book of a 7-book series." Instead, I bet the editor is SO impressed with the first book she would no doubt ask, "Are there any more?"

So don't dread it... if you build it, they will come.

[Flawed Creation]

I don't deliberately leave loose ends, but neither is it possible to resolve all the problems of an entire universe in one story. in Flawed, there are a few things which are mentioned but unimportant to the story. one character comes from an undiscovered island. this island is not important to the story of flawed, and where he comes form doesn't really matter. in a sequel, that island would make an appearance.

at the end of my WIP, the war that it chronicled is over. the victor is clear, and pretty much everyone surviving has been reconciled to the current state of things.

there is room for a sequel because people still aren't completely satisfied in life. also, there are other characters about whom stories can be told.

but the story of the book "flawed" is definitely complete. it follows the protagonist to his death, and the completion of his task.

[maestrowork]

No story resolves everything.

[Jamesaritchie]

"The editor is your first reader. If you don't clue them in, how is the bookstore reader going to know?"

There shouldn't be anything to clue the editor or the reader in on. That's the point. The novel must be able to stand alone. When I read the first Harry Potter book, I assumed there would be sequels, but only because the book was so good and sold so well.

But the way the book ended, a sequel wasn't necessary in any way. Rowling didn;t have to clue the editor in on anything. If she'd written the book that way, odds are it never would have been bought.

She simply told a good story with good characters, and she did tie up the ending of that particular story.

And you have to remember what an editor does for a living. They know more about novels than many writers will ever learn. If you have to clue an editor in on anything, you have a very poor editor.

But the thing to remember is that editors do not want series from new writers. Editors want novels that can sell and satisfy readers, even if a second novel is never written. It's never a bad idea to write novel that has room for sequels, but the story in that particular novel must be tied up neatly at the end, and it must be written so that it will give people a satisfying read, even if you never publish a sequel, because odds are you probably won't.

But editors know. You don't have to clue them in. Editors also know what they want and what they don't want from new writers, and new writers need to know this, as well.

[Kempo Kid]

And since that's what I have, I'm OK.

And I'm not a new writer. (Should I just make that as my signature?) Unless you count sixteen years in the field as "new," which is plain silly.

[HConn]

Maybe you should change your handle to "Kempo Grownup."

[Kempo Kid]

Hey, I'll always be a kid at heart.

And for your information, I started when I was four. ;)

[Jamesaritchie]

To editors and agents, a "new writer" is anyone who hasn't published a novel before, regardless of age or experience.

[Kempo Kid]

Well, that's ridiculous. That's a "new novelist." I have published everything BUT novels, and in professional publications.

I'm certainly not new at this.

[Flawed Creation]

someone said earlier in the thread that editors don't want a "one-bbok wonder" but this is not inconsistent with not wanting series from new writers.

what I editors want is someone who will continue to write novels so that later books will hopefully seel more copies. in genereal each successive book by a given author should seel more than ones before, at least if the author is gaining popularity.

this doesn't require that the books be in a series. as long as they are written by the same author, any fans of the author will be interested.

[Kempo Kid]

So many novelists write so many novels in the same fictional world, though, that I have to assume it's a popular way to go.

One thing I do wonder, though. After a couple books in the same fictional world, some authors will come out with a "prequel" or a book that goes back in time to when the whole thing first began. I have to wonder if that's their first book, unwanted initially but now dressed up and allowed out.

[mr mistook]

If not, thats something to keep in mind when writing the first book I guess.

[Gala]

Interesting take.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>it works because Rowling is a blasted genius<hr></blockquote>

I tried reading her first book twice. Couldn't get into it; don't get the hysteria, and she ain't a genius imho. Millions of readers disagree with me.<img border=0 src="http://www.absolutewrite.com/images/EmoteShrug.gif" />

I think she intersected with that magic continuum of hard work meeting opportunity. Same as Dan Brown, and that guy who wrote Bridges of Madison County.

I wish them all well.

I appreciate Rowling in particular because she's got people into books, and kids reading very long books. Cool.

[seeb55]

But in the mean time, the imagining of that next novel is taking my attention away from the work at hand.

I have a similar thing happen to me. What I do is keep a file for the possible future book and everytime I have an idea of how something from the curent book I'm working on might play out in another episode of the series, I scribble the idea down and toss it in the file. That way my mind can rest assured that I won't forget a good idea and now I can return to focusing on the book at hand. If subsequent books never materialize at least you haven't wasted too much time on them. And if your first book does warrant a series, you've got a file full of stuff to play with.

[tjosban]

Hello everyone! :grin I am new to this site and this forum, but I really have enjoyed everything I have read thus far.

I too developed an excellent (imho) novel idea, that could potentially lead to a line of books (think Cornwell's Kay Scarpetta line of books). The topics for other books keep appearing in my head even though. I have barely begun the first one.

Two or three thoughts that I have developed:

* Just an FYI: Rowling did know she was writing a series when she started. If you read her web site, she talks about how the whole thing came to her and she knew how everything should pretty much go from the beginning.

* Follow seeb's idea to jot down ideas as they come or if several book topics are coming at once, perhaps create an outline that tells where storyline fits in the time line of novels.

* One of the things I have noticed from reading good series/sequels is that I am left wanting to know and caring about what happens next to a character. If I don't feel that, I am not reading an excellent book that deserves more to it.

* One of my recently discovered favorite authors, created a site and an ebook that contained information about writing. She has written several series/sequels and trilogies. One of the things she said was that even if the first book didn't take off, to get the second published if possible because if it is a success, it might spark interest in the first one and make it successful.

Just some random thoughts I had while reading this thread. Hope it helps. :jump <----my mood today

TJ

[Jamesaritchie]

Yes, Rowling envisioned a series, but she also wrote book one so it didn't have to be part of a series. That's the important part. Book one stood on its own feet, and would have been fine had there never been a book two.

It's fine to envision a series, fine to plan for it. It might even be a great idea. But it isn't fine to write a first novel that must be part of a series because odds are at least a hundred to one that there will be no series.

If the first book doesn't sell, writing a second with the same characters set in the same world is a good idea, but it, too, will have to be a standalone, and it can in no way depend on that first, unsold book to make sense.

[katdad]

My principal writing of late is on my series of private detective novels. I've finished the first two, and I'm 30,000 words into the 3rd.

I've also outlined the general plot ideas for several more books in the series.

What I intend to do is to have my principal protagonist (the private detective) undergo an epiphany that will help him develop into a better person. He starts out pretty shabby inside.

So a series for me is a great opportunity. I have continuing plot threads and character arcs.

[zerohour21]

I'm kind of wondering about all these established rules for a number of reasons.

1. Earlier in another thread, when I mentioned my novel that was 190,000 pages (which I've managed to shorten to 184,000 pages ooh wow, big difference) that could be looked at as a trilogy of smaller stories that form one big epic story (if its good enough to be called epic, and I don't know if it is or not, though the few people who have read it or read portions of it said they liked it), and I asked if it would be better to do it as a series, then people said yes, that was fine if they could be their own self-contained stories. But now in this thread people saying that publishers don't want ideas for series from first-time publishers?

2. Someone else mentioned in this thread that a lot of successful authors break all these rules that people here have mentioned and they were very successful and still made it work but you'd be hard pressed to come up with an example of a successful author who followed all the rules, because then if he did, it wouldn't be something you'd notice that he followed all those rules, only that his stories were good.

3. Stephen King's Dark Tower volume I could not have stood on its own had part 2 never been published. There were too many unresolved issues, especially with all the prophecies at the end. Yet he was able to pull it off just fine. Granted, by 1982, he wasn't a new author, so I guess maybe if you do want to do a series and want people to know its a series, make sure you're already an established successful author?

4. If Part I of your series failed and is total crap, is it really going to matter that it could stand on its own, given that once it will be out of print no one is going to care about it and everyone will eventually forget about it anyway? So it doesn't have a satisfying ending; the fact that it failed to engage the readers interest to begin with is probably a bigger problem than the fact that it ended in a cliffhanger that will leave the characters and readers (who, need I remind you thought the story was crap anyway) hanging forever.

[Aramas]

I must be an atypical reader. I'm not interested in shelling out for an anorexic volume that I can read during lunch. I want some meat, or at least the appearance of it. The absolute minimum I will even consider is 400 pages, but 600 is better. If it happens to be the first volume of a dozen then even better - if I like it I know that I'll have something to read for the next month or two.

Then of course there's the 'neverending stories' like 'Wheel of Time' and 'Wizards First Rule' (people are stupid), and you just know that the author is going to keep trotting out another installment every couple of years until (s)he croaks leaving millions of readers hanging. I can live with that.

My favourite authors in recent years have all published longish first novels that were the first book of a series (Robin Hobb, JV Jones, Cecelia Dart-Thornton etc). In fact, I would go so far as to say that first fantasy novels should be part of a series.

I've noticed that most writers' forums are jam-packed with advice that should be under the sub-heading 'How to be a Hack'. Such naysayer gems as 'Pay Your Dues', 'Learn Your Craft', and let's not forget the delightfully oxymoronic 'Study Creative Writing' (lol - study is perhaps the most effective way of destroying creativity).

My mother had a very rough childhood, but all she ever wanted to do was write novels. 'Who do you think you are', said the naysayers. 'Get a real job'. 'You have no education'. 'Don't be so stupid'. 'You think you're better than us'. And of course, the unspoken 'Get back down here in the mud with us Ordinary People'.

She made the mistake of listening. After finishing high school at night she took on a journalism cadetship. Then part-time university for a BA, then a MA. Eventually she became junior editor at a newspaper weekend-magazine sweatshop.

A decade later she was three months off finishing her PhD, and was managing editor at a major publisher. She hated all of it. She hated studying, hated her job and hated the wasted years. She had bought a villa in Indonesia and was preparing to retire there to write. She died of a brain aneurism at 46, never having finished the novel she started in her teens.

What might she have done if she hadn't listened to the naysayers? Perhaps her book would have been crap, but at least she would have been doing what she loved all along instead of spending three decades on a hamster wheel to nowhere.

If you want to write, then write what you love. Write a book that you would want to read. Don't let the insecurities of the naysayers drag you down. They want you to be like them so that they may more easily justify their mediocrity. Don't whore yourself. Don't become a hack.

On the other hand, some of the most successful best-selling writers are hacks, and are certainly whores :)

[mr mistook]

I'm starting to gather not only that the Fantasy genre is the strongest tide in underground literature, but that the series format is more or less difinitive of the genre!

In this newbie's opinion, I'd side with the veterans and take the advice that it's a mistake to run to a publisher saying, "I have a huge series on my hands!"

Play to the bias of the publisher, and if you're a genius, you'll outsmart them in the end anyway. :D