Comments on: Committing Series

By: fritz freiheit.com » Friday link dump

fritz freiheit.com » Friday link dump — Fri, 02 May 2008 20:30:03 +0000

[…] Committing Series at SF Novelists […]

By: Laura Reeve

Laura Reeve — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:32:00 +0000

Thanks for this post, Lyda. You’re not the only one who’s uncomfortable “committing series.”

I did it without forethought or intention. My first military SF novel was written as stand-alone and I got a 3-book contract, where they specified that all the books center on the same character and universe. I thought, “Sequels, great, yippee!” Then I got the cover copy and art (which, as a new author, put me on the ceiling for a while) and I finally read it carefully. At the top of the cover, it said, “First in a Brand New Series.”

Uh-oh. I sobered. As Marie says, there’s a distinction between structuring a series versus writing linear sequels. I reworked book #2 quite a bit before sending it in (due today, thank goodness that’s over!). Unfortunately, I’m not sure I’ve got a grip on how to keep a character series fresh and interesting, so I’m devoting significant thought to book #3.

By: Chris Coen

Chris Coen — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:15:15 +0000

As a reader, I prefer to start a series, in any of its iterations, at the start. While it may be true, as Simon suggests, that TV shows (or series(es) of books that are similar in structure) often have longterm subplot arcs that don’t bear directly on the main plot in each episode, for myself I prefer to watch those subplots build, the better to appreciate their final payoff. That payoff is something the scattershot reader is, I think, going to miss. The Spenser mystery novels are standalones…but half of the pleasure I get from reading them is seeing how Spenser’s relationships with friends and with Susan, his girlfriend, are affected by the main plot of each book and how these people grow and change.

As a writer of fantasy yet to be published, I have to admit that Simon’s comment about fantasy series “inevitably” being one long story presented in three acts makes me uncomfortable. Which is not to say that I disagree with the observation in general. I’d like, however, to hope there’s more room for individuality than that.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:44:52 +0000

When you use the phrase “committing series” is that meant in an ironic way, said tongue-in-cheek as if you are “committing murder?” I’ve heard the phrase before, and that was my first thought. It occurs to me now that it could also be said straightforwardly, as in “committing to write a series.”

By: Soni

Soni — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:16:20 +0000

For a great insight into how to do a non-series very well, I suggest Dick Francis. He wrote a gazillion mysteries, and only a few of his protagonists appear in more than one book. The core of his oeuvre was the horse racing world and crime. Everything else was up for grabs - protags could be jockeys, owners, newsies and even a caterer in the latest book.

I think there’s going to be a resurgence in “series” created out of many stories written in a Universe, world or timeline that aren’t sequentially or even directly related, but that orbit around a central event or world. Scalzi’s Old Man’s War books and rumors of “sequels” to Cloverfield being alternate viewpoints of the same events come to mind.

By: Simon Haynes

Simon Haynes — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:45:28 +0000

There are series books and sequels. The latter can be a problem if they’re published over a lengthy span of time (e.g. the Tamir Triad, or the Harry Potter books), because I tend to forget what happened in the earlier one.

A book series is more like a regular TV show - same major characters facing different challenges, a guest spot or two and perhaps a thread which runs through the lot but which isn’t central to the plot. Technically, you should be able to read the books out of order (after the first) and still enjoy them all. It doesn’t matter whether the series continues or comes to a sudden halt, because each title should be completely self-contained.

Fantasy trilogies are inevitably one long story presented in three acts. Once complete, there’s the option of a follow-up trilogy or two (e.g. Stephen Donaldson’s Thomas Covenant books), but they’re not usually direct sequels.

A series, on the other hand, can go on forever. Long live the series

By: Karen Wester Newton

Karen Wester Newton — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:34:24 +0000

Very true about different kinds of series (serieses?). Look at mysteries. Most of them can be read in any order; the only “series” aspect is that they have the same detective and setting. The commitment to read the books in order is what makes me dislike a long series (i.e., a single story printed in multiple books). Anything more than three books is just too difficult—to much overhead to remember the plot and characters’ names, and too long a read without true resolution.

By: Marie Brennan

Marie Brennan — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:45:03 +0000

I think it’s worth bearing in mind that “series” can cover a broad spectrum of types. The Lord of the Rings was a single book cut into three for practical reasons. A true trilogy is often more like a three-movement sonata, with distinct parts, the first of which might stand on its own, but the second requires the third for resolution. Or connected books, but each can more or less be read on its own. Or episodic adventures, where the protagonist and maybe some secondary characters carry through, but each story is completely free-standing. Or writing in different corners of the same world, with different characters.

I’m not going to try to outline all of my own preferences as a reader or a writer, but the readers who tar “series” with a single brush are overlooking a lot of these distinctions, and the writers who cringe at the thought of one kind might have a lot of fun with another.

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:33:23 +0000

Diana (@5): That’s a little odd, my experience seems to be the opposite - it’s becoming more of a problem.

With shelf-space in the sci-fi/fantasy section coming under more pressure as more and more books appear to be published each year, I’m guessing the shops ditch stuff faster and if the shops aren’t going to stock it for so long, the publishers presumably have cut back on printing it for so long.

I’m in the UK, maybe it’s different elsewhere.

By: Diana Pharaoh Francis

Diana Pharaoh Francis — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:17:32 +0000

I’m committing series right now with my Crosspointe books (as opposed to trilogy which to me is more like one book broken up into three parts). In the Crosspointe books, what binds them together is the growing political unrest and intrigue. I’m trying to make them stand completely alone, often with new characters taking the main stage, or minor characters from other books stepping up. This is kind of an experiment for met because I don’t have an endpoint for the story in sight. Maybe I should clarify that. I do have a culminating series of events I want to get to, but when I think of history and culture, there’s always new conflicts rising, new big events on the horizon. The story of the culture doesn’t end, but it develops and changes as the culture does. So I’m playing with that idea of various threads in the history coming together.

I actually in my head liken it to one of those disaster movies where you follow the stories of 25 different characters until they converge eventually.