How do you decide if a story is worth continuing?

If it's something that holds your interest, that you feel you simply can't give up on until you finish it, then continue. If the thought of writing it feels like getting a root canal, you might consider starting something different. But most of us face doubts about our work, so don't feel bad. Let it sit a while and then read it over. If you think, "Hey, this is pretty good," then there's your answer.

growingupblessings said:

The question - how do you decide if your story really and truly deserves to be continued?

Click to expand...

My head could probably come up with several answers, but my heart knows only one.

If whatever passion stirred you to start the story in the first place is still there, then it's worth continuing. Be cautious, though. Passion can dissipate during the process, and it's easy to think the passion is gone due to burnout. Take a step back, away from the process, and try to feel the story as you felt it before you started writing it. Does it still stir you?

I think if you still feel the importance of your story, the urgency of your characters--you should continue. Don't confuse a tiredness at the revision process with a lack of passion for the story. We all go through ups and downs with our story, I'm sure--I know personally, I've felt so sick of a story that I had to put it aside for a while. But it's that pull that brings me back, and that's sort of how I know.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, there isn't a technical or surefire way to decide if a story is worth continuing--for me, it all comes down to that gut, emotional feeling.

If you're looking at a series I think it's important to love the characters you'll need to live with throughout books 2,3,4....

Holly Lisle has a quiz/article called Burn It, Bury It, Let It Live that addresses this issue. You may find it helpful, as long as you remember that your passion for the story is the tipping factor.

It depends -- what genre are you writing? Some are easier than others for series. Crime novels for instance, or certain types of fantasy.

A series in romance cane work (but generally you need a new couple in each book)

There are probably others.

How do you decide? Well, that;s kinda up to you.

If you don't sell (or self pub) the first...the second would be rather redundant. If this is your first novel, and you are looking to get trade pubbed, I would personally recommend doing something else. Because you may never sel the first, because writing something else will make you learn different things bout story -- all sorts of reasons.

But that is just opinion. Depends on how you work and what your goals are and..all sorts. If you are writing in a genre that supports series, why not? If you are writing in a genre that does not support series...then it could be (COULD be) a waste of time and effort. But then no writing is truly wasted if it taught you something

If I love my characters too much to let them die a slow death of starvation and thirst in a world that has simply stopped moving forward.

It's worth continuing if you've started it.

caw

blacbird said:

It's worth continuing if you've started it.

caw

Click to expand...

Judging by some series I've read (and watched), I can't say I necessarily agree with that as an unqualified, blanket statement...

Seriously, though, look at your characters and your world. Is there another story to be told there? Would you be adding value be revisiting them, or would thus just be the literary equivalent of one of those lame TV show "reunion" movies, where the audience goes wild seeing their favorite stars as their favorite characters but there's not really a point other than boosting ratings for the network?

Despite the prevalence of series on the shelves, there is absolutely nothing wrong with writing a single, stand-alone novel. Do not pressure yourself to make your story into something it just isn't. (Don't rule out revisiting it some time in the future, of course - unless there's nothing left of the world but cosmic dust at the end. Though I suppose you could always do a prequel...)

Your idea of a separate companion story, with some points of connection but most everything else being stand-alone, is worth exploring - I've seen this done very well in the past. (Most of Pratchett's Discworld works could be described like this.)

Let me qualify my statement about finishing, just a little. Any story started is worth finishing, if only to have the accomplishment of finishing it. JAR has often expressed the same opinion. A lot of writers (and I confess to having committed this sin, more than once) write a lot of beginnings, and let them trickle off into the dust like a spilled drink on a hot day in the desert. Then they go get another one, and likely spill that one, too.

caw

It also depends on how much energy you put into "starting it."

When I start a story, I don't start by writing. I start by outlining the entire thing, ensuring I have a working storyline before I even write one sentence.

It might be different for "pantsers" who could write out a few chapters and realize, eh, this isn't going anywhere. Everyone has a different process.

Like Flibble said, it depends on your goals and more. If your goal is to self-pub, then I would say continuing the series is probably a good move.

If your goal is to be trade-pubbed, I would say polish this book and move on to a whole new project. Because if this first book doesn't sell (knock on wood!) then at least you haven't put all your eggs into one basket.

If you are writing for pure pleasure, then continue writing the same series if it gives you the same amount of excitement as when you started.

Just jumping in and adding more info to the stew.

I wrote a three-book series. My very first. Didn't know WTH to do with it, so I wrote another four books. Then I was out. Drained.

So I figured, hey, y'know, people actually publish these things, and my family and friends (okay, they love me) think they're pretty good, so I maybe I should look into that.

Joined another writing forum. (All I'll say is: AW. Accept no substitutes.)

Then I joined AW and discovered at least some of the vastness of my ignorance on revision. I've been revising my three book series for seven months. It only took me nine months to write it. And I'm still not done.

So if you've got another story idea, I'd recommend (piggybacking on PutPutt's excellent advice) to explore that one. Jot down the ideas you have for the next in the series first by all means.

Then come back and revise the first one you've written. By the time you're done, the ending may change (mine did, and I would've bet money against that).

Unless it takes you years to write a novel. In that case, I'd recommend writing some shorts instead. Those can be a good place to explore new ideas, and since you can post the entire thing on SYW, you get a lot of feedback in a short period of time. It's a great growing experience.

Plus, since shorts take less time to write, you can work on those when you've reached hair-pulling stages in revision.

There's really no wrong answer to your question. You'll have to try a few different things, most likely, to find out what works best for you in terms of getting your own writing/revision groove. For me personally, I don't think I'm going to revise three-in-a-row again. Everything is looking like a great story idea. Dancing salt-and-pepper shakers. Smoking dried kale. You name it. I had a conversation with a beta about a genre that totally pisses me off, and now I have a novel idea for a book in it. It's a peculiar sort of desperation. I may have to finish this round of beta reading and write another short just to keep my sanity.

I follow Heinlein's Rules For Writing. Period. They're really business rules, and they work. I've found no other rules that do. Here's what Nebula and Hugo winning writer Robert J. Sawyer has to say about them. He's dead right. http://www.sfwriter.com/ow05.htm

growingupblessings said:

Thank you all, I have a lot more to think about now.

"Pantsers?" What is this?

Click to expand...

A plotter outlines and plans before writing.

A pantser discovers the story as they go - writing by the seat of their pants, as it were.

Many successful authors use one or the other approach, or both, or hybridize as needed.

(There is, incidentally, no requirement to wear pants when pantsing. Or a prohibition against wearing them when plotting.)

I was halfway through the sequel to my first novel when I crashed and burned. It wasn't the writing's fault; life was happening, in spades. When I came back to writing, I decided to change genres altogether. It was clear that the first book was a hard sell. So I went mainstream. I got about 1/3 of the way through that new WIP when the very first book sold. And all of a sudden, the idea of a sequel didn't seem so bad. LOL! It's hard to plunge back into that world after several years away and I can't say I'm back in the rhythm yet, but I'm working on it.

All of that to say that you never know what's going to happen. It sounds like you still love the world of the first book, so why not write a sequel? And enjoy your freedom. There is no outside pressure on you to decide one way or the other. But if you do get part way through and decide to head off in another direction, keep everything. I am so grateful for every file, every jotted note. It's making it so much easier to pick things up again.

It's a tough question, and it's something I'm struggling with also as I query my first novel. I don't know a debut fantasy writer who sold a singleton. Every one was part of a 2 or 3 novel deal, which means you'll need sequels pronto if you get an agent and your agent gets a buyer for your novel. Do the larger houses even publish stand alone fantasy novels anymore? I haven't seen one in years.

One of my co-workers has a sister who quickly got an agent for her debut novel, a PNR, and her agent quickly got her a 3 book deal with a big 5 imprint. But the catch is, they won't publish novel #1 until the sequels are in hand too, because they'll want to publish them 6 months apart. The days of fans waiting patiently for a year or more for book #2 and 3 in a series seems to be over, unless your name is GRRM or JK Rowling or something.

So she's writing frantically on a deadline while trying to take care of her kids and do her day job (her advance, while nice, but it was still not sufficient to make her quit).

So no success goes unpunished!

But if one's first novel doesn't find an agent, or if the agent can't sell it, all that time spent on an unsellable sequel when you could have been writing something new that might have sold instead.

Argh.

I'm trying to get at least a halfway decent draft of book 2 done, just in case, but then I'll turn my hand to a different project.

Jamesaritchie said:

I follow Heinlein's Rules For Writing. Period. They're really business rules, and they work. I've found no other rules that do. Here's what Nebula and Hugo winning writer Robert J. Sawyer has to say about them. He's dead right. http://www.sfwriter.com/ow05.htm

Click to expand...

I never understood his rule about never rewriting, except to editorial order. Was he really telling writers to just submit their first draft? Do editors really want authors to send their rough drafts? What if your first drafts are disorganized, horrific messes, because you're figuring out your plot and characters as you write?

What about those of us who will never get to the point of having an editor to order rewrites without lots of re-writing and polishing on our own first? Are we hopelessly broken as writers? Are beta readers, critting groups, and workshops a waste of time? Why do so many writers use and recommend them then? Do you really agree with Heinlein that successful writers all write one draft, send it somewhere, and that's it?

I dunno. It's hard to explain. With my completed novel, I kept going through phases in which I'd just hate every part of it, be unable to see beauty in it, and just give up for a few weeks. Yet for some reason, the characters/story stayed with me and I kept finding myself going back to it. Interesting how merely taking a break can be so good for the creative batteries. What ends up happening when I go back is I start reading and find myself going, "Y'know, there's a lot of good stuff here. Yeah, it has its problems but none of these said problems are so bad they can't be fixed."

In short, I can't answer that question for you. It's one of those things you have to figure out on your own.

Roxxsmom said:

I never understood his rule about never rewriting, except to editorial order. Was he really telling writers to just submit their first draft? Do editors really want authors to send their rough drafts? What if your first drafts are disorganized, horrific messes, because you're figuring out your plot and characters as you write?

What about those of us who will never get to the point of having an editor to order rewrites without lots of re-writing and polishing on our own first? Are we hopelessly broken as writers? Are beta readers, critting groups, and workshops a waste of time? Why do so many writers use and recommend them then? Do you really agree with Heinlein that successful writers all write one draft, send it somewhere, and that's it?

Click to expand...

This is such a good question that I've been pondering it for a few days. I can't speak for Heinlein and what he meant, but the "rules" put out by writers are quite different from each other, and we should just pick and choose what works for us. This is a particularly good set of rules, IMHO, but I interpret the one about rewriting to mean no excessive and compulsive rewriting. I have a list of things I go through for an edit, but once I'm done these very reasonable things that address my own personal weaknesses, then I'm done and it goes out. If I happen to notice a typo, or think of a better formulation when I just happen to have the file open for other purposes I do feel free to make that minor tweak, but THAT'S IT! No going over and over and over it just in case.

I also cheat on Rule #1. If I'm only a few sentences into a piece of flash fiction for instance and it's dying on me, I'll leave it. Or I have a charming beginning to a novel that I will never write because I don't want to for a number of reasons. I am saving it in case I can think of a way to turn it into a short story, but so far I haven't been able to think of a satisfying story arc that short. But in general, I do try to finish things, even if it results in only a very short piece.