- Joined
- Dec 21, 2005
- Messages
- 11,708
- Reaction score
- 1,763
Okay, so I've just read book 3 in a 7 volume multi-volume novel, and I find no satisfying resolution, just a "...to be continued" type of ending. What kind of likelihood do think I will expect that volume 4 will be any different, or volume 5, or volume 6. I'll have to put out my money and invest my time in those books, not to get satisfying reads, but just to prepare me for book 7 when it will all be tied together. Because, like you said, jumping to book 7 will not make any sense unless I read books 4-6. If I find book 3 unsatisfying, what is the incentive to keep reading, or to keep shelling out my cash?
If you find it unsatisfying because the story falls flat and you don't care about the characters, then you have every reason not to buy the next volume.
But the readers who like these kinds of stories read them because they love the world, the characters, and the story, and they'll happily go wherever it takes them. It's not about getting to the resolution; it's about the journey. I know readers of a certain very popular multi-volume work who sigh with relief every time they realize that the next volume to be published is not also going to be the last one.
Obviously this only works if the story is so deeply immersive and compelling that it makes such a journey worthwhile.
It really doesn't take much effort to have some kind of satisfying resolution in a novel-length book, whether it's in a series or part of a multi-volume novel. I'm trying to appeal to anyone who wants to write the latter, to think about giving some type of satisfying resolution in every single volume, and I don't buy the argument that the multi-volume novel mechanism prevents, or even discourages this. Of course, there will be an overarching plot that drives the full treatment, but we writers have around 100,000 words or more to provide some subplots or substories that can be tied up, in a satisfying way, in each and every single volume.
A writer can deliberately structure it that way, yes. But there are those like Tolkien (and like me) who simply wrote a very long book, which, in his case, the publisher refused to print as one volume. Don't know if you've ever read The Lord of the Rings, but there are no resolutions until you get to the third volume. There are, however, turning points, which is where the publisher divided the work into volumes.
Here is what I consider a money grab--when the author makes no attempt to provide a satisfying resolution to any aspect of the story at the end of a volume, instead relying solely on incompleteness of the major story arc as the lure to get the reader to buy the next book. And I'll stand by my descriptor of that as being a blatant money grab. And yes, I will hold the author responsible.
Unless they say so, how do you know they're doing it as a money grab? Some stories just take a lot of room to tell.
I'd certainly like to know if you think that all multi-volume novels fit within that description, or if you think that this description is a necessity to writing multi-volume novels or an unavoidable consequence of producing them. Because I don't buy that either.
In the multi-volume stories I've read, there's generally some kind of smaller narrative arc within each volume. This arc might be concluded (though leaving much else undone) at the end of the volume, or it might simply represent a milestone in the main arc, stopping at a major turning point. I've seen it done different ways.