Time Gap Between Books

Fullon_v4.0 said:

I'm curious what everyone thinks about time gaps between books in a series. Specifically, do you as a reader like filling in the blanks and learning about what happened over the course of a character's year(s), or would you rather a story pick up right where it left off, not missing a beat?

Click to expand...

Okay, here's the standard, and really the only, answer:

It depends on the story.

Yep, that's really it. There's no sequel to Centennial, by James Michener, because it literally covers a hundred years and tells the entire story. On the other hand, many of the Jack Reacher series by Lee Child begin immediately after the last one ended while others cover a time well prior to the last installment. Twilight continued almost immediately in each book, Harry Potter was each new school year, and Orson Scott Card's Enders Game series bounces around.

Write a good first book, write a good second book and the reader will love it however your timeline works out.

Jeff

^^^

That's really the ticket. It depends on the story you want to tell. Get that first story published (hopefully), and start writing the next one. I'm assuming you've got ideas spinning for the next novel, since you clearly have plans for a series. Some begin one right after another, like WeselFire said, and some take place years after. From what I know, King's Dark Towers span years, and seven books have been released over the last, what, thirty years? And there have been short stories released within his collections that tie directly into the Dark Tower series. Ransom Riggs's Peculiar Children trilogy starts one right after another. King's Bill Hodges trilogy pretty much begin right after another, if memory serves correct. It's really a personal thing, and as long as the story (or stories) are coherent, you shouldn't have a problem executing them, and readers won't have a problem reading them.

I like the next book to begin when the next story begins.

If the next story arc begins five years, or even twenty, or even a century after the events of the first book, don't dither around through five, twenty, or a hundred years. Those are the "dull bits" Hitchcock was referring to when he said drama was real life with the dull bits cut out. Start where and when the story starts, end it where and when it ends.

IOW, as others have said, it depends entirely upon the story.

The pace of your stories can be used to dictate the timeframe of the sequels. If the story moves quickly from event to event then having the sequel occur soon after is plausible. You may want to consider how likely it is for special/dangerous events to occur to your characters. If events happen to soon or far it may take away from the believability or excitement of the story. A good option is to not state the precise amount of time that passes between books, only state the order of events.

Sometimes time gaps are needed, sometimes not. It's all about having the best opening chapters for each book.

In book 2 of my series, it was the same night book 1 ended. Whilst book 4 began six weeks after book 3's ending.

By the way, is the time for your second novel important in the story? It would be perfectly natural to note the heat of summer in the first book and have it affect decisions, and the second has the cold of winter. I would be normal to reference an event from the first book as "Remember last Summer when we..." But rarely would anyone actually date a novel. The only real problem I would have with a novel would be if the first one celebrates a baby's first Christmas and the second starts, with the same cast of characters, on Christmas Eve of the same baby's first Christmas.

Jeff