How can you sufficiently distinguish your UF series?

I don't think we'll ever get tired of series fiction with a continuing protagonist. Naming them like that is just for convenience.

When I think about the UF I still follow, I find they've got a disturbing level of similarities that I hadn't ever noticed. However, it's not exactly a life-changing realization, because it's sort of the cliche, anyway:

Loner MC makes friends, builds a family unit, and carves out a safe-haven/home worth having, while fighting interesting monsters by being clever, on the side. By the time the series diverts from this, I'm already (usually) invested in the characters enough to go along for the ride.

See: first few Anita Blake books before they started being shelved PNR, I mean). Kim Harrison's Hollows series, Seanan McGuire's October Daye books, Cassie Alexander's Eddie Spencer books, Simon R. Green's Nightside series, Jim Butcher's Dresden Files. Anne Rice's well, just about everything. Buffy: the Vampire Slayer.

It's not anything groundbreaking about them that keep me buying the books and turning the pages. It's a familiar, comforting story. You might be alone now, but you're one random vampire attack away from having a place to belong. I think a lot of readers are looking for that message, which is why things like Harry Potter resonate/stand out - it's the same story. A boy who has nobody and nothing finds family, friends, and a home. He's vulnerable, and young, and has magical, amazing adventures, and does the right thing even when it really sucks. For someone who reads to escape, that's the most comforting story out there.

I think the thing that distinguishes a story is the way you write it. If you're going to break a plot down to it's most basic elements, there's not much variance in stories told since the dawn of time. It's better to figure out what you like in a story and try to sure you write something you'd like to read. If it's fun, interesting, and well told, it will attract people. Tell it in your own voice, and it will be original. At least as original as any work can be.

Raivnor said:

I think the thing that distinguishes a story is the way you write it. If you're going to break a plot down to it's most basic elements, there's not much variance in stories told since the dawn of time. It's better to figure out what you like in a story and try to sure you write something you'd like to read. If it's fun, interesting, and well told, it will attract people. Tell it in your own voice, and it will be original. At least as original as any work can be.

Click to expand...

I'll second this. Look back far enough and you'll find there's very little "true" originality anymore; what matters is if you put your own spin on the story and present it in your own way. A reader can overlook a mild lack of originality if they're enjoying themselves.

I think what makes a story stand out is not avoiding the clichés but using them effectively - subverting them in a clever way. For example, in Firefly, Joss Whedon subverted the 'Mexican standoff' cliché a number of times, most notably in the infamous Mal shoots the hostage taker without any preamble scene. The cliché is the gateway drug - we buy the book and read it because we expect things to happen in a certain way - love triangles, unrequited romances, quests for long lost objects, love with a paranormal creature etc - but we are looking to the author to tell us something new about that. it is all in the spin.

It's like we know that the MC will end up in a romance with the other MC, even if it looks like this is impossible and has many blocks in the way. That is how the story is supposed to go and we actually get disappointed if it doesn't (despite all protests to the contrary, it seems flat when the expected does not happen). What we want to see is how the characters achieve it and making that interesting is the challenge.

Who do you want to differentiate the series for? It's important because what works for a reader is not necessarily going to get you an agent. So the path you're planning to take may change the answer.

As an example, there's a niche trade in paranormal romance with unusual shapeshifters. It's not that the werehedgehog story is really unique in the tropes it uses. It just swaps out werewolves for werehedgehogs. But there's reader interest in that, for someone pursuing self-publishing.

For an agent, swapping out the creatures isn't going to fly. You'd need much more solid worldbuilding, to persuade them it's more than a gimmick. (Something I wish I'd done in my query was include more worldbuilding... because though it's usually recommended not to do so, I think at least one agent assumed having Bigfoot was just a creature swap, which means rejection.)

A question I've often asked myself. I have an idea for an Urban Fantasy series, but have focused on other writings because the market seems so flooded
It probably isn't any more flooded than any other genre but the perception of it is there
My idea was to have a much more down-to-earth and very-flawed protagonist. Someone with flaws that are still almost considered taboo for mainstream fiction

I think you differentiate if by your characters and how they interact with the world. There's plenty of characters out there that aren't overly represented in urban fantasy. For example I can count on two hands how many uf books I've read with a POC as the main POV character. Or characters in their late 30. Every character brings different experiences to the table that helps form their actions, so I don't think we've quite reached the end of the line yet. Plenty out there to explore in the territory of magical cities.