For book/ebook authors, publishers, & self-publishers
All Good Things in Threes?:"Trilogies or More-igies"
Views: 134
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Glenn Stuart on
-
Hi Paul. This is really interesting, because it is exactly what has happened to me! When my book 'The Well of Constant Despair' was published, some people asked me if there was going to be a 'follow-up'. I immediately said 'no!', even though I had deliberately left the ending ambiguous. This was not a deliberate ploy, merely a dramatic one. At the time, I had no plans to continue with the tale, I felt it was done. Besides, I had other projects to concentrate on. But the more people asked me, the more I considered it. Seriously. But there was a problem. A sequel would have to not only extend the story - which would be difficult - it would need more characters, more settings, much more depth...so I hit on the idea of a prequel. Why not bring in all those aspects in a story that took place before 'The Well...'? The more I thought about it, the more excited I became. I've got to be honest, I hardly ever think about the marketing aspects. It's only the story-telling that interests me. Yeah, old fashioned, but that's me, sorry to say! Anyway, I began to lay out the story, bringing in all the things I have mentioned. A new character drove the story; I set it in the same place, but forty years earlier, in the Seventies. This worked well, because the 'villains' all had their pasts centred around the Second World War. In 1970, they'd be around 45-50, which was perfect. The more I thought, the more excited I became and 'The Accursed Dawn' was born. 'The Well...' does not have to be read after 'The Accursed Dawn'. It was, after all, born before the prequel. And neither does the Accursed Dawn have to be read first. Both stories stand on their own. However, I now had a real problem. The Accursed Dawn asks an awful lot of questions, not all of them answered in The Well. It was obious I would have to write a sequel. A trilogy was so born! It has taken on a life of its own, developed out of a single story, with no conscious plan to create three stories, inter-linked with each other. But this is precisely what I have done. 'Death's Dark Design' is with the publisher now and should be out in the summer. I absolutely loved writing it and, according to my publisher, they are absolutely loving reading it! So, something which was very vague to begin with, has grown into something that I am actually very proud of. I hope readers are too! This has to be the way, I feel. Let the story dictate - even if it means creating ten books, or even more! But, for this particularly storyline, three is definately it. Although, the ending, again, is just a tad vague...Maybe, just maybe...
The Accursed Dawn will be published at the beginning of May and will be available from Amazon.
I hope you like it! -
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Doerwang on
-
Thanks for the really facinating reply Glenn. I don't think that I am the first to observe that all stories start in the middle. Even "backstories" have backstories. I recall that when George Lucas first sat down to write the sreenplay for what would become Star Wars, he began sketching out an extensive back-story simply to fertilize the garden of his own imagination, not thinking at that time that much of that back-story would become "front-story."
-
-
Permalink Reply by Aurelia Sands on
-
Good question. I know that some people already have preconceived numbers of books in their stories, but there are definitely others who do not. I personally let the story take me where it may, otherwise, it totally flops. One of my contracted authors, though, is beginning her undertaking of a three-part series. Each focuses on a family member and their contribution to the story. I personally don't believe in a series limit, but I do, however, believe that if all the loose ends have been tied, the story must end and not be dragged out forever.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Darrell B Nelson on
-
I envisioned some complex political, economic struggles for the solar system in the 22nd century. So I wrote "The Setting Earth" and placed the action on the Dwarf Planet Ceres as a spot to start, with the plans of branching out into the rest of the solar system. The scale of the story demanded at least a trilogy.
Before getting into the next in the series I decided to work on a different novel and 5 chapters in I found myself writing the prequel to the series I envisioned. So I think the scale of the story determines the number of books. -
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Whiteway on
-
The reason the trilogy is so common is that it is based on the three act method of storytelling. It's old as the hills, but it works!
Mark Whiteway, author of the "Lodestone" series -
-
Permalink Reply by Steven M Moore on
-
Hi Paul,
In general I recommend that writers follow the rule that their novels, whether they are considered part of a series or not, should always stand alone. As a corollary to that rule, I also recommend that no one should set out to write a series. This constrains the creative process. For marketing, it might help if book #1 was really successful and you can say book #2 is a sequel. The jury is out on that.
It is probably more common that sci-fi novels are contained in the same literary universe--e.g. the Man/Kzin and other Larry Niven stories in Near Space, the missing alien universe of Asimov's robot and Foundation series, etc. My series The Midas Bomb, Full Medical, Soldiers of God, and Survivors of the Chaos, all sci-fi thrillers, didn't start as a series, the last three were written first, and Full Medical has a branch-off, Evil Agenda, the serialized novel found at my website. Even my YA novel is contained in the same literary universe.
I believe the temptation to write series and reuse literary universes stems from both familiarity and the desire to explore places and characters more profoundly. If it happens to have a plus for marketing, that's just a bonus.
r/Steve Moore
-
-
-
Steve,
I couldn't disagree more strongly. If my story had not been conceived as a series from the outset, it simply would not have had the complexity of interweaving plot lines that my readers seem to enjoy so much and that keeps them coming back for more!
Mark Whiteway - Author of the Lodestone Series
-
-
-
Hi Mark,
OK, OK, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I have a right to my opinion and you have a right to yours.
It is possible that the fantasy genre is different. However, if you were writing in a genre that I often read in, I would feel swindled if your book didn't stand alone. Maybe we have different meanings about "standing alone"?
The bottom line: there are no rules (I shouldn't have used the term). If you prefer to conceptualize a series (trilogy or whatever) and it works for you and your readers, go for it--by all means! I prefer to not be constrained.
BTW, as a reviewer, when an author tells me his or her book is a sequel to X, I simply turn it down--unless, of course, I have read X. I'm not sure how other reviewers react if the book isn't stand-alone. Maybe a poll is in order.
Take care.
r/Steve Moore
-
-
-
Steve,
Well, it would depend on how you define "standing alone." I suspect that is in the eye of the beholder. Did you feel "swindled" at the end of Fellowship of the Ring because no-one managed to get the ring back to Mt. Doom?
My book is really one huge story, split into several parts. I suppose I could have written it in one 1500 page volume, but that didn't seem very practical.
You can read Book Two or Book Three of my series and it will make perfect sense, although the experience is more enjoyable if you start with Book One. In point of fact, though, I don't know of anyone who starts mid-way through a series, so I do find the argument an odd one.
FYI, my series is SciFi, not Fantasy. By definition, this particular genre involves a lot of world building. I find it interesting that you think of that approach as being "constrained," whereas in fact it's the exact opposite. "Word painting" on such a huge canvas can be extremely liberating.
There are clearly readers who enjoy this kind of epic storytelling. There are others who prefer a quick beach read. Everyone's different.
However, as a reviewer, I would hope that you would approach each book with an unbiased mind. I'm sure that's the case.
You mention how other reviewers would react if a book isn't "stand alone"? So far, I have had some fifty independent reviewers read my series, including a number who would not normally pick up a SciFi book, and not one of them has given anything less than four stars. You can read some of them for yourself on my Amazon pages. Is that sufficient of a poll for you?
Kind Regards
Mark
-
-
-
Mark,
OK, we're probably treading on the thin line between sci-fi and fantasy here. When I read the first line of the description of your book, "Ail-Kar, a white-hole portal from another universe, rains meteoroids onto the surface of the planet Kelanni. But the so-called "lodestones" behave according to different physical laws, transforming Kelanni's society," this is pure fantasy to me. Different physical laws? White-hole portal? Come on, guys!
I tend to favor hard sci-fi. Even Vernor Vinge writes fantasy to my way of thinking. But that's just my opinion. You're entitled to call your stuff anything you like. Moreover, I don't care what you call it as long as your readers are entertained and you're having fun writing. Go for it.
All the best,
Steve
-
-
-
Steve,
Fantasy? You think?
White holes are actually theorised from general relativity, as is negative matter (the "Lodestone" of the title). Negative gravity, negative inertia, positive electrical charge. I could go into the math but I don't want to bore you or my readers, or detract from the story. Different universes would most likely obey different physical laws. Many of Stephen Baxter's books are predicated on that and he's as hard-SciFi as you can get.
FYI I spent a number of weeks painstakingly researching the physics before I put pen to paper, even down to the astronomical and physical parameters that would govern a tidally locked world such as Kelanni. I can tell you that its year is 186.5 earth days, for example. Because I keep those facts hidden and choose not to bombard my readers with them doesn't make it "Fantasy".
Here's an interesting question for you. If negative matter (Lodestone) has negative gravity, why does it fall downwards in a planet's gravity and not up? The answer is fascinating and quite mathematically elegant.
Perhaps your knowledge of physics is not as great as you think it is? Consider that, the next time you dismiss a Science Fiction writer's work as "Fantasy."
Mark
-
-
-
Mark, Mark, Mark,
Everything in your spiel is theoretical conjecture. Mathematics is not physics. I've probably forgotten more mathematics than you'll ever know, but physics, real physics, is driven by experiment. I, for one, believe that many a CERN physicist is going to be embarrassed when they don't find the Higgs boson, a mathematical and theoretical construct that is much more important than the theoretical constructs you have mentioned.
Your scientific immaturity is showing, my friend, if you believe all theoretical constructs have something to do with reality. That doesn't mean that it doesn't make a good story.
I apologize for calling your stuff fantasy. You're a great sci-fi writer and I bow before you. And please pardon me for joining in this discussion. I'll buzz off now and return to my reading of recent CERN results. Don't expect me back. I don't have the time for this!
BTW, I find Stephen Baxter about as boring as a sci-fi writer can get. Just my opinion, mind you....
r/Steve
-
Book Marketing Bestsellers
About
Recommended Website
Music
© 2024 Created by John Kremer.
Powered by
