Is this the best way to make a book series?

[srebak]

When i was writing a fantasy story, i decided to make it one among a planned book series, one that would be called "Tales of Magic and Myth". However, now, I'm having a strange new idea on how to handle it.

Originally, my story was gonna have a back and forth type of narrative: some chapters would focus on the main lead and his adventures, while the others would tell what was going on meanwhile elsewhere. But now, I'm leaning more towards the first book setting certain things up at first and then completely focusing on the main lead's story. Then, in the book to follow, I would tell the "what was going on elsewhere at this time" story.

I have to ask though, is that a good move?

 

[Terry Greer]

The idea is sound - as always it depends on the detail of how you carry it off.

Many authors do, or have done, this. Larry Niven wrote most of his early science fiction in a series that jumped all over the place held together purely by the fact they were in a shared timeline in a series that became known as 'tales of known space'.
Jack Vance wrote his Dying Earth series set in the same world history (the earth at the end of time).

It's actually quite common and is a good way to work.

It can become frustrating if someone assumes that your book is a continuation of the same story rather than an aside - but providing that is made clear then there isn't really an issue.

 

[Caged Maiden]

If I'm reading this right, you're proposing separate characters who are in the same world but have no connection to each other?

If that's the case, I'd consider what you mean for a reader to experience. In one of my books, I follow two separate groups of characters (one group in the countryside, leading rather mundane lives and dealing with their own personal problems, and one in the city, working on a plan to root out corruption in the church). The reason I'm following the two groups is because there is a crossover character between the two and he has an interest in both groups. While he's part of the group of rebels and has a big part to play in exposing the corruption, he's also marrying the girl from the country. I felt it would be too much of a shift in the story to take only the woman's POV and carry it up to the point where she became directly involved in the other group, because it would be late in the story, and the reader would have to be "filled in" on what the rebels were doing in the "past". So instead I chose to follow characters in both groups and bring them together through the male MC before his wife knows anything of his involvement in the rebellion. For me, it was important to introduce the readers to the political elements early, so the story didn't seem to shift gears halfway through.

If you have a similar crossover/ related goal between the two groups, I think it's important to show the reader at least part of your hand from the beginning. If however, you're merely concerned with a timeline, and say, your MC is traveling and gets hampered by a blown up bridge...I don't think it's necessary to show the other group blowing up said bridge for the sake of explaining it to the reader. If your groups are not coming together in proximity or cause, it's probably better to handle each "story" as its own book. While certain jumps from MC POV to alternates is fine for really difficult to explain scenes, readers tend to want stories to be cohesive for the most part.

Hope that helps in deciding. The thing is, you can write the story as you think it flows best, and let a few people read it. It's the only way you'll really learn whether your intended feelings get across or whether the reader found the story meandering or confusing because it was diluted by things not bearing direct impact on the real story they thought they were reading.

It's tricky, but sometimes you end up cutting 50k words from a book, after getting feedback that all those parts you needed to write (to flesh out your world, straighten out the politics, etc.) weren't really doing the job you needed them to do. I have a book that I split into two because it would be 250k words if I just kept writing it how I was going. It was a perfect example of following a few characters in their small scenario, and then having to include a larger journey and other people doing related but far away things. It's all one story, but even with judicious trimming, I don't think I can cut it to a reasonable length, so I decided to divide it into two books.

 

[LadyUmbranox]

It's hard to say whether this is a good move or not, because the answer to that will be dictated by how it's done.

From an editing standpoint, going this route will be more difficult and you'll have to really pay attention to detail to ensure everything adds up in the end and that your readers remain engaged throughout.

Another thing to consider is time-frame: if book two isn't released until a year or two later than book one, readers may not remember everything that happened in the first book, and there's a possibility of confusion and even frustration if they have to go back to reference book one.

That's not to say it couldn't work, though. It really depends on the content. Personally, I prefer reading the former, where the plot unravels together from different places, though readers could really pick up on the split and enjoy it. It's hard to say. I know that there were many readers who weren't fond of this in the way the last two ASOIAF books were done.

Are you planning on going the traditional route? If so, the sell might be harder. Generally it takes two years or more for a book to go from acquisition to publication, so that time-frame could be a bit of a deterrent from a sales point of view.

 

[srebak]

Okay, how about this: i do the whole back-and-forth story line, only the secondary plot will have a misleading story line; I make it seem like the antagonist was after one thing, but after that plan is thwarted, they'll hint that they had another plan in mind all along. Meanwhile, the "journey" of the characters in the main story is hinted to only be beginning.

How does that sound, too cliche?

 

[ChasingSuns]

Personally, when I'm reading, this is a great idea as long as there's a payoff. I would advise some level of interconnectedness between the stories. It wouldn't have to be the characters necessarily, but it could just be events crossing over. If you look at ASOIAF, Martin gives different POVs of characters that aren't even in the same country and haven't met each other. But... he does tie it all together with the events, and there are times when the different characters encounter each other. So I would just suggest making sure that you have a level of cohesiveness between the events in each book, at least, if they take place in the same region. If they are on different parts of a planet where the events in each story wouldn't necessarily affect each other, then you have more wiggle room.

 

[spectre]

The idea is sound - as always it depends on the detail of how you carry it off.

I agree and I think especially in poetry and scifi/fantasy this is always the case.