In a serial how much info is needed to tie Book Two to Book One?

Gregg Bell

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
164
Location
Itasca, Illinois (U.S.)
I'm writing my first serial. So I have Book One done and now I'm writing Book Two. How much re-capping of Book One do I do in Book Two to reorient the reader to the story from Book One? And do I gradually add the re-capping or have it pretty much in the very beginning of Book Two? Thanks
 

Redredrose

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
101
Reaction score
24
Location
U.S.A
I'm writing my first serial. So I have Book One done and now I'm writing Book Two. How much re-capping of Book One do I do in Book Two to reorient the reader to the story from Book One? And do I gradually add the re-capping or have it pretty much in the very beginning of Book Two? Thanks

Hi Greg Bell,

I've also written two novels that are part of a series. What I found, when putting the sequel through the critiquing process, was that each one in the series needs to be written as a stand-alone novel. Why? Because readers may not have read the first book.

In the sequel, I made the rookie mistake of both assuming that readers KNEW the characters already and then added to the initial mistake by info-dumping a load of backstory in the first chapter. Luckily, I had a few patient and understanding critiquers.

So, I believe the rule of thumb on any novel, whether it be the second or the twentieth in a series, is no more than 2-3 sentences of backstory in the first chapter., and no more than 2-3 paragraphs of backstory in the next 2-3 chapters.

The information from the first novel? I think some, though not a lot, needs to be sprinkled in over the first few chapters.

Now, I write murder mysteries. I'm told that for other genre series, such as science fiction or fantasy, this rule doesn't hold as well. The only real rule is probably, does this story hold readers' attention? Is it a compelling read? Or, is it boring and are readers likely to skim or put it down.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:

Elenitsa

writing as Marina Costa
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
973
Reaction score
759
Location
Bucharest, Romania
Website
caribbeandawn1720.jcink.net
What I found, when putting the sequel through the critiquing process, was that each one in the series needs to be written as a stand-alone novel. Why? Because readers may not have read the first book.

Sometimes there can be several stand-alone NOVELS in a series, as you are saying, but sometimes there is one novel in several volumes.

Would you have read "Forsythe Saga" or "Poldark" starting from the third volume on? Or "The Three Mousquetaires", "Ivanhoe" or "Winnetou" from the second volume? The "backstory" you need to know is the first volume, which acquaints you with the characters and makes you root for them. If you start from the second volume, you won't know why they are doing what they are doing, who are they and how they are connected...

Mine, the two which you can see they are in two volumes (actually for the one happening now in the USA, a third will appear, covering the years 1805-1849, when the characters are already parents and grandparents) couldn't be read starting at random, with the second volume... There is a natural progression of the story.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,476
Reaction score
23,912
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
The information from the first novel? I think some, though not a lot, needs to be sprinkled in over the first few chapters.

This. IMHO, start the story where you'd start it if it weren't part of a serial, and only mention backstory when absolutely necessary.

Now, I write murder mysteries. I'm told that for other genre series, such as science fiction or fantasy, this rule doesn't hold as well. The only real rule is probably, does this story hold readers' attention? Is it a compelling read? Or, is it boring and are readers likely to skim or put it down.

I do write SF, and I can't speak for other authors, but I think your strategy is a good one regardless of genre. Most readers will probably want to start with the first book if they realize you've written a series, but if they pick up the second book by accident you don't want to put them off by drowning them in history they don't yet care about.
 

Redredrose

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
101
Reaction score
24
Location
U.S.A
Sometimes there can be several stand-alone NOVELS in a series, as you are saying, but sometimes there is one novel in several volumes.

Would you have read "Forsythe Saga" or "Poldark" starting from the third volume on? Or "The Three Mousquetaires", "Ivanhoe" or "Winnetou" from the second volume? The "backstory" you need to know is the first volume, which acquaints you with the characters and makes you root for them. If you start from the second volume, you won't know why they are doing what they are doing, who are they and how they are connected...

Mine, the two which you can see they are in two volumes (actually for the one happening now in the USA, a third will appear, covering the years 1805-1849, when the characters are already parents and grandparents) couldn't be read starting at random, with the second volume... There is a natural progression of the story.

Well, I don't think in general, people read Forsythe Saga or Poldark or Ivanhoe. Why? Lack of time? Smaller readership?

Like I said, it's all about whether the story flows and keeps the reader on the page. I'd say to you, Gregg Bell, that, if you put your book through the critiquing process, you'll have a better sense of how your sequel reads.

Good luck. Hope I've been helpful to you.

RRR
 

Curlz

cutsie-pie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
2,213
Reaction score
382
Location
here
Would you have read "Forsythe Saga" or "Poldark" starting from the third volume on? Or "The Three Mousquetaires", "Ivanhoe" or "Winnetou" from the second volume?
Yes ;). Is "Ivanhoe" in several volumes?? Novels should be pretty much standalone. Of course the story might pick up from the previous volume but it still needs to be sort of self-sufficient. Like if you had a separate story for each of the plagues in the Bible, or the labours of Hercules. I'm not sure somebody will read Harry Potter out of order but most probably that has happened more than once already. A recap of some sort might be needed to guide the reader whenever that's needed. It doesn't have to be a recap of the previous story in the beginning. It can be in the middle, whenever some detail is mentioned and it will be puzzling for the reader not to have some sort of an explanation. I can't think of a story where you needed an extensive explanation and recap of previous book in a series. We don't really need to know the full biography or the full history of a person or a place in order to understand their current predicament.
 

Elenitsa

writing as Marina Costa
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
973
Reaction score
759
Location
Bucharest, Romania
Website
caribbeandawn1720.jcink.net
Yes ;). Is "Ivanhoe" in several volumes?? Novels should be pretty much standalone. Of course the story might pick up from the previous volume but it still needs to be sort of self-sufficient. Like if you had a separate story for each of the plagues in the Bible, or the labours of Hercules. I'm not sure somebody will read Harry Potter out of order but most probably that has happened more than once already. A recap of some sort might be needed to guide the reader whenever that's needed. It doesn't have to be a recap of the previous story in the beginning. It can be in the middle, whenever some detail is mentioned and it will be puzzling for the reader not to have some sort of an explanation. I can't think of a story where you needed an extensive explanation and recap of previous book in a series. We don't really need to know the full biography or the full history of a person or a place in order to understand their current predicament.

Ivanhoe was in 3 volumes when I read it. The three Mousquetaires, in 2. Oliver Twist, in 2, and I think David Copperfield was in more... None of these books have a "recap" in the second volume, but simply it follows the first... Many bigger novels have a "Part one, part two" which are usually published 1-2-3 parts/ volume, but it doesn't mean that each volume is stand alone... And in the cases of "Forsythe Saga", "Poldark", "Jalna", "Pallissers" and some others, these are family sagas, so yes, "the whole biography" is to follow for motivations and so.

I have read the whole "Forsythe Saga", what of "Poldark" has been translated in my country (about 6-7 of the 12 volumes), "Jalna" by Mazo de la Roche, Anthony Throllope's Palliser series, Winnetou and all Karl May's series (yes, some of them were individual novels, but Winnetou and Old Surehand weren't, the first of 3 volumes, the other of 4 smaller ones).
 
Last edited:

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
Well, people do read series out of order. And it is more profitable to accommodate that than to ignore it. And some people, like me, just have terrible memories or read the parts years apart.
 

benbenberi

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
2,793
Reaction score
833
Location
Connecticut
Ivanhoe was in 3 volumes when I read it. The three Mousquetaires, in 2. Oliver Twist, in 2, and I think David Copperfield was in more... None of these books have a "recap" in the second volume, but simply it follows the first... Many bigger novels have a "Part one, part two" which are usually published 1-2-3 parts/ volume, but it doesn't mean that each volume is stand alone... And in the cases of "Forsythe Saga", "Poldark", "Jalna", "Pallissers" and some others, these are family sagas, so yes, "the whole biography" is to follow for motivations and so.

I have read the whole "Forsythe Saga", what of "Poldark" has been translated in my country (about 6-7 of the 12 volumes), "Jalna" by Mazo de la Roche, Anthony Throllope's Palliser series, Winnetou and all Karl May's series (yes, some of them were individual novels, but Winnetou and Old Surehand weren't, the first of 3 volumes, the other of 4 smaller ones).

The Three Musketeers, Ivanhoe, and David Copperfield are long novels that are normally published today in a single volume each. In the 19c it was conventional for long novels to appear spread across two or three or even more volumes, but none of those volumes stand on their own -- the novel is a single thing, whether it's bound as one whole or as several component segments. Even at the time a "three decker novel" was considered to be a single thing in 3 parts, not 3 separate books.

The Forsyth Saga, the Poldark series, the Palliser series, & the rest are an entirely different case -- in those, each volume of the series is a complete whole, which was published separately, sometimes many years apart, and just happen to be connected to other books by common characters or plot threads. It's very common for people to enter a series of this sort by picking up one of the later volumes simply because that's the one they happen to come upon first. With some series there are ongoing debates among readers what the best order of reading may be.

This distinction is an important one for the writer.

If you're writing a single very long novel that will be spread across multiple volumes, it's important to make sure that each volume is tightly integrated with the others. It may even be necessary to provide a "Story So Far" preface for later volumes so you can bring readers up to speed if they haven't read (or read and forgot) earlier installments without burdening the ongoing story with too much upfront backfill & infodump. I believe it's advised that writers should probably do this kind of thing only when they have a multi-volume contract actually in hand because otherwise odds are good the end of the story may never see print.

If you're writing multiple novels in a sequence, even if there's an ongoing narrative thread that carries across, it's better to treat each volume as a self-contained story, with the expectation that it will be the first one many readers are encountering even if it's the 5th one published, and provide backstory the same way you provide it in a book that's not part of a series: judiciously, as needed in the current story. Readers who have read the earlier books may have a richer experience, but readers who have not read them will still be able to follow and appreciate the one they're reading now.
 

Jennie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 16, 2018
Messages
209
Reaction score
13
Location
Here and now
The Three Musketeers, Ivanhoe, and David Copperfield are long novels that are normally published today in a single volume each. In the 19c it was conventional for long novels to appear spread across two or three or even more volumes, but none of those volumes stand on their own -- the novel is a single thing, whether it's bound as one whole or as several component segments.

Alexandre Dumas, author of "Les trois mousquetaires" actually wrote his novels as "feuilletons" that is as serials. He wrote a chapter everyday because he needed the money. His books would then be published as a whole once he had finished them. "Les trois mousquetaires", "Vingt ans après" and "Le vicomte de Bragelonne" constitute a trilogy, and each book is generally published separately.
 

Shalon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
173
Reaction score
33
Location
Canada
I'm writing my first serial. So I have Book One done and now I'm writing Book Two. How much re-capping of Book One do I do in Book Two to reorient the reader to the story from Book One? And do I gradually add the re-capping or have it pretty much in the very beginning of Book Two? Thanks

Gregg, do you plan to self-publish or go the traditional route?

Basically, if you plan to publish traditionally, and you have never published traditionally previously, then your first novel MUST be STANDALONE. There is very, very little chance that an agent or publisher will take you on unless your first novel is standalone (albeit with series potential).

If you plan to self-publish, then you can do whatever you want. In that case, I can answer your question by stating only what I prefer. I personally HATE it when someone retells part of the story in the second book. Who on earth reads the second book of a series without reading the first?

That then begs the next important question. Are you writing a series, with one gigantic story across the entire set of books (ie. Game of Thrones or LotR)? OR, are you writing serials like Cornwall or Ludlum, and there are the same characters in each book, but a different plot?

If so, then you need to find a way to provide characterization in each book in a unique and fresh way for each book. Do NOT, and I repeat, do NOT plunk in paragraphs of exposition. "In book one, this and this and this and this happened." Don't do that.

There are ways around this. For example, you can have a new character repeat some basic important information in a conversation. So for example, if in the previous book, the protag's child was kidnapped and then rescued, then you can have another character say something like, "How is Sarah doing?" and then they have a conversation about how Sarah has recovered from being kidnapped.

Lastly, if you are writing a serial, then you should read the first two books in a few successful serials and see how they do it!
 

RhysBC

Registered
Joined
Aug 11, 2018
Messages
20
Reaction score
2
I have often thought of this question as I'm currently writing a series.
In considering how to go about the problem I looked to movies that have sequels. My love of the original trilogy of Star Wars gave that answer that best suited a thought process. Consider Empire Strikes Back: there is no time wasted on recapping Han as a smuggler and Luke as a farm boy.
We are immediately plunged into their world where they are in a situations and scenes that show their personalities and friendship. Purely by giving the audience a brilliant character study of who these characters are we can take off running with them. So even if you have not seen A New Hope, we know Luke has a strange power developing and a unique weapon to the rest of the cast.
We see the rough, rouge that is still present in Han and his relationship build with the princess. And the faithful cookie by his side.
If I had seen thus movie first then I would want to see it's prequel, so too would I want to read the first novel had I come across this tale in book form.
So my thought is to think of each as almost a new work and allow characters to indicate a history through actions
 

Elenitsa

writing as Marina Costa
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
973
Reaction score
759
Location
Bucharest, Romania
Website
caribbeandawn1720.jcink.net
Alexandre Dumas, author of "Les trois mousquetaires" actually wrote his novels as "feuilletons" that is as serials. He wrote a chapter everyday because he needed the money. His books would then be published as a whole once he had finished them. "Les trois mousquetaires", "Vingt ans après" and "Le vicomte de Bragelonne" constitute a trilogy, and each book is generally published separately.

I know. My point is that each of the books has several parts/ volumes (2, 2 and 4). And while each book was stand-alone, not each volume within a book was stand-alone. You needed the previous volumes within the book to know why x thing happened and who the characters were. You needed the previous volumes for "Lord of the Rings" too, you wouldn't start reading it from the third volume.

I personally HATE it when someone retells part of the story in the second book. Who on earth reads the second book of a series without reading the first?

That then begs the next important question. Are you writing a series, with one gigantic story across the entire set of books (ie. Game of Thrones or LotR)? OR, are you writing serials like Cornwall or Ludlum, and there are the same characters in each book, but a different plot?

This was my point before as well, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. I highlighted that there are two kinds of series - one which has self-contended stories in each volume, and one who has the same story over several volumes (which is the case of my stories in two volumes, shown below in the signature).
 
Last edited:

benbenberi

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
2,793
Reaction score
833
Location
Connecticut
I know. My point is that each of the books has several parts/ volumes (2, 2 and 4). And while each book was stand-alone, not each volume within a book was stand-alone. You needed the previous volumes within the book to know why x thing happened and who the characters were. You needed the previous volumes for "Lord of the Rings" too, you wouldn't start reading it from the third volume.

The Lord of the Rings has I think confused the issue for several generations of Anglophone readers, at least, because although it is structurally a single long novel it was published as a trilogy, that is three separate books in series, not as a single novel in three volumes (which was pretty much extinct in mainstream US/UK publishing for decades before LOTR appeared) and a lot of people mistakenly imprinted on that as their ideal form of a series rather than an artifact of publication.

French editions of Dumas' musketeers books sometimes appear as single volumes, sometimes as multiples -- Vicomte de Bragelonne is often issued as 3 or 5 volumes because it is so very long -- but when this happens they are clearly labeled as Novel Name vol.1, Novel Name vol.2, etc., and it's sometimes required to buy them all as a set, not individually. In the US & UK The Three Musketeers and Twenty Years After are almost always sold as single volumes, while Vicomte de Bragelonne is not only broken up into 3 or 5 volumes, but each one is given a separate title and the naive reader may not immediately realize they are parts 1-3 of a single continuing work. (In fact the final volume, called "The Man in the Iron Mask," is often sold as a free-standing novel on its own without any indication that it's only the last section of something much longer, and publishers that do so often don't bother to print the earlier installments at all.) It can be very confusing for the unwary precisely because it's such an outlier to contemporary publishing norms.
 

Gregg Bell

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
164
Location
Itasca, Illinois (U.S.)
Hi Greg Bell,

I've also written two novels that are part of a series. What I found, when putting the sequel through the critiquing process, was that each one in the series needs to be written as a stand-alone novel. Why? Because readers may not have read the first book.

In the sequel, I made the rookie mistake of both assuming that readers KNEW the characters already and then added to the initial mistake by info-dumping a load of backstory in the first chapter. Luckily, I had a few patient and understanding critiquers.

So, I believe the rule of thumb on any novel, whether it be the second or the twentieth in a series, is no more than 2-3 sentences of backstory in the first chapter., and no more than 2-3 paragraphs of backstory in the next 2-3 chapters.

The information from the first novel? I think some, though not a lot, needs to be sprinkled in over the first few chapters.

Now, I write murder mysteries. I'm told that for other genre series, such as science fiction or fantasy, this rule doesn't hold as well. The only real rule is probably, does this story hold readers' attention? Is it a compelling read? Or, is it boring and are readers likely to skim or put it down.

Hope this helps.

Thanks Redredrose. Yes, that was very helpful.
 

Gregg Bell

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
164
Location
Itasca, Illinois (U.S.)
Yes ;). Is "Ivanhoe" in several volumes?? Novels should be pretty much standalone. Of course the story might pick up from the previous volume but it still needs to be sort of self-sufficient. Like if you had a separate story for each of the plagues in the Bible, or the labours of Hercules. I'm not sure somebody will read Harry Potter out of order but most probably that has happened more than once already. A recap of some sort might be needed to guide the reader whenever that's needed. It doesn't have to be a recap of the previous story in the beginning. It can be in the middle, whenever some detail is mentioned and it will be puzzling for the reader not to have some sort of an explanation. I can't think of a story where you needed an extensive explanation and recap of previous book in a series. We don't really need to know the full biography or the full history of a person or a place in order to understand their current predicament.

Thanks Curlz. This sounds spot-on to me:

A recap of some sort might be needed to guide the reader whenever that's needed. It doesn't have to be a recap of the previous story in the beginning. It can be in the middle, whenever some detail is mentioned and it will be puzzling for the reader not to have some sort of an explanation.
 

Gregg Bell

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
164
Location
Itasca, Illinois (U.S.)
Well, people do read series out of order. And it is more profitable to accommodate that than to ignore it. And some people, like me, just have terrible memories or read the parts years apart.

Thanks veinglory. Yeah, the time passing/memory factor does figure into it too. Like they say, 'make it as easy as you can for the reader.'
 

Gregg Bell

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
164
Location
Itasca, Illinois (U.S.)
If you're writing multiple novels in a sequence, even if there's an ongoing narrative thread that carries across, it's better to treat each volume as a self-contained story, with the expectation that it will be the first one many readers are encountering even if it's the 5th one published, and provide backstory the same way you provide it in a book that's not part of a series: judiciously, as needed in the current story. Readers who have read the earlier books may have a richer experience, but readers who have not read them will still be able to follow and appreciate the one they're reading now.

Thanks ben. That's good advice. Appreciate it.
 

Gregg Bell

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
164
Location
Itasca, Illinois (U.S.)
Gregg, do you plan to self-publish or go the traditional route?

Basically, if you plan to publish traditionally, and you have never published traditionally previously, then your first novel MUST be STANDALONE. There is very, very little chance that an agent or publisher will take you on unless your first novel is standalone (albeit with series potential).

If you plan to self-publish, then you can do whatever you want. In that case, I can answer your question by stating only what I prefer. I personally HATE it when someone retells part of the story in the second book. Who on earth reads the second book of a series without reading the first?

That then begs the next important question. Are you writing a series, with one gigantic story across the entire set of books (ie. Game of Thrones or LotR)? OR, are you writing serials like Cornwall or Ludlum, and there are the same characters in each book, but a different plot?

If so, then you need to find a way to provide characterization in each book in a unique and fresh way for each book. Do NOT, and I repeat, do NOT plunk in paragraphs of exposition. "In book one, this and this and this and this happened." Don't do that.

There are ways around this. For example, you can have a new character repeat some basic important information in a conversation. So for example, if in the previous book, the protag's child was kidnapped and then rescued, then you can have another character say something like, "How is Sarah doing?" and then they have a conversation about how Sarah has recovered from being kidnapped.

Lastly, if you are writing a serial, then you should read the first two books in a few successful serials and see how they do it!

Hi Shalon. The first book is already self published. And not to get caught up in semantics but as I understand it I'm writing a serial, where the story is continuous from book to book. My understanding is that the Ludlum or Jack Reacher novels are series. So yeah, one gigantic story across several books. And good advice about checking out how others do it. Thanks.
 

Gregg Bell

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
920
Reaction score
164
Location
Itasca, Illinois (U.S.)
I have often thought of this question as I'm currently writing a series.
In considering how to go about the problem I looked to movies that have sequels. My love of the original trilogy of Star Wars gave that answer that best suited a thought process. Consider Empire Strikes Back: there is no time wasted on recapping Han as a smuggler and Luke as a farm boy.
We are immediately plunged into their world where they are in a situations and scenes that show their personalities and friendship. Purely by giving the audience a brilliant character study of who these characters are we can take off running with them. So even if you have not seen A New Hope, we know Luke has a strange power developing and a unique weapon to the rest of the cast.
We see the rough, rouge that is still present in Han and his relationship build with the princess. And the faithful cookie by his side.
If I had seen thus movie first then I would want to see it's prequel, so too would I want to read the first novel had I come across this tale in book form.
So my thought is to think of each as almost a new work and allow characters to indicate a history through actions

Thanks RhysBC. I like this:

allow characters to indicate a history through actions
 

cool pop

It's Cool, Miss Pop if You're Nasty
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
660
Reaction score
131
Location
Texas
I'm not doing serials but I write mystery series where a different mystery is solved for each book but the romantic subplot continues throughout. I don't do any recapping. No need. My books are labeled as Book 1, 2, etc. proving it's a series you need to read in order. I'd assume a reader would read in order if not they should expect to be confused if they pick up say Book 4 and haven't read the other three. Not my problem in that case. ;)
 
Last edited:

rgroberts

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 1, 2018
Messages
135
Reaction score
14
Location
New England, USA
I've just started the second book in what I hope will become a series, and I find that I'm doing some recap, but not too much. I don't have the exact same cast of characters (there's a lot of new ones in this book), so I'm only recapping what the new characters need to know about my main character to get this story going. Or things come up when the main character experiences something that brings the last story up. Otherwise, I'm trying to treat it like a standalone novel.
 

Jennie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 16, 2018
Messages
209
Reaction score
13
Location
Here and now
The Lord of the Rings has I think confused the issue for several generations of Anglophone readers, at least, because although it is structurally a single long novel it was published as a trilogy, that is three separate books in series, not as a single novel in three volumes (which was pretty much extinct in mainstream US/UK publishing for decades before LOTR appeared) and a lot of people mistakenly imprinted on that as their ideal form of a series rather than an artifact of publication.

I have three questions: I wrote a very long novel, which I am going to self-publish in four volumes. It's not a series. I plan on publishing volumes 1 and 2 basically at the same time, and 3 and 4 a few months later. I don't want to confuse readers. Therefore, on every cover I am thinking of putting the title of the whole book, and then a subtitle that will relate to the part. Should I indicate: Volume 1/Part 1/Book 1? What would be the most appropriate. In French, we have two words to indicate "volume", it's "volume" and "tome". I am not sure what is best in this circumstance.

The second question is related to what has been written by various writers here. This is a long book divided in four volumes for practical reasons. I don't want to start over at chapter one in the second volume, but continue the first volume, that is begin volume 2 with Chapter 66. Is this something that can be contemplated?

Last question: I don't intend to summarize volume 1, could I begin volumes 2, 3 and 4 with the last three chapters of the previous volume, and then go on?

Thank you for your help :)
 

benbenberi

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
2,793
Reaction score
833
Location
Connecticut
I have three questions:

1. If it is a single novel in 4 volumes, I would label them clearly as such, e.g. NOVEL NAME, Part 1: SUBTITLE, , Part 2: SUBTITLE, etc. You could use Volume 1, 2, etc instead of Part. I wouldn't recommend Book -- that's more likely to be confusing to people.

2. If you want to us continuing chapter numbers, as long as you've labeled the volumes clearly as above that's not really a problem.

3. I don't recommend repeating chapters in different volumes. That will just confuse people, esp. if they have just read the previous one. And repeating chapters looks like a production error, signifying a carelessly created & badly edited work -- not what you intend. Either just start cleanly with the new material, or add a brief "Story So Far" synopsis before it if you want to give readers a hand.