Writing a series

[thedarknessrising]

Last night, I had a dream that inspired me to turn my single novel into a trilogy. Now, I've never written a series before, so this is an entirely new challenge ahead of me, and I'm really looking forward to it.

My question is: should I write a book, edit/rewrite it, write the next, edit/rewrite that, and then write,edit, and rewrite the last book, or should I write all three books first, and then edit and rewrite after I've finished the first drafts? What has worked best for you guys?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I never understood how writers can say how long a potential series may be until they've completed at least the draft of the first book.

I'm not saying you don't have a good idea of length. You know your story. I don't. But, for my writing process it seems an impossibility to say I'm writing a trilogy or a seven book series from the get go. When the first book is done, I might have a stronger idea of the length required to tell the full, envisioned story.

Keep that in mind when considering my advice.

I recommend you write one book. Edit, revise, and perfect to the best of your ability. Keep notes on all the rest along the way.

The reason for that advice is that stories usually change during the writing. Characters change because we know them better at the end of a book. There's just too many changing variables to predict length until you have a good chunk of the overall story written.

 

[BWFoster78]

I agree with TAS.

I'd would suggest, though, that you think a lot about the rest of your series before publishing the first book, at least in general terms. If the final battle of the third book is going to be against the bad guys from Kingdom A, it'd be cool to mention that kingdom in your first book.

 

[thedarknessrising]

I'm putting a lot of clues as to what the third book will be about in the first one. The thing is, the whole story was going to be one book. But the dream I had last night presented me with a lot more details than I had thought of when I was awake and actually working on the book. I decided to stretch the story to three books, just to give myself some wiggle room, but the story might be able to be told in two books. I'm gonna have to see how book two plays out.

 

[ThinkerX]

I am writing a series of close linked novella's....

...except, at first, I envisioned them as full length novels, not novellas. But the natural length of the first tale fell short of novel status.

Currently, I have written the second draft of the first novella, and 95% finished the first draft of the second novella. in a couple of weeks, I hope to start on the third in the series (and at this point, there could be as many as six, total).

In the process of writing the second novella, I made some decisions that will necessitate going back and adding material to the first novella. (will help fix a weak opening, among other things). Dang good thing I didn't publish yet...especially as I strongly suspect writing the first draft of novella three will mean making further tweaks to novella's one and two.

As to the length, I have discovered that most of my larger idea's put to paper work out to about novella size.

 

[SugoiMe]

Hi thedarknessrising. I was in a similar boat a couple years ago. Got to chapter 6 and realized it was going to take more than one book to complete the story. I'm still in the middle of writing it, having just completed my second draft of the second book. So here's my experience:

I used NaNoWriMo as a kick starter to write the first draft of the first novel (by hand; I like a good challenge). I then spent the next year typing it up/editing and got that finished before the next year's NaNoWriMo and wrote the second novel. Then I went back and edited the first novel again, checking for inconsistencies and info dumps, and now I just finished typing up/editing the second book.

So what I'm getting at here is don't revise, edit and publish the first novel before you've written the whole works. Or at least have a very good idea of how your story is going to progress. That's my suggestion. Like others have said, characters change, and I find mine did slightly while I was writing the second book, which made for some changes to the first one. No doubt the same will happen with the third.

If you're dividing one story into a trilogy, I recommend establishing three pivotal moments to serve as your climaxes for each book. That'll give something for you to shoot for.

Hope that helps!

 

[Philip Overby]

When I first started writing novels about ten years ago I would often plan to do a whole series before finishing the first book. Those books remained unfinished because I wasn't ready to tackle something that big. I still think I'm not ready to tackle a huge series as of yet. A trilogy, maybe.

I would suggest writing the first book, let it simmer, and then edit it to completion. If you're self-publishing, I might recommend finishing all three books to completion before releasing them, that way you'll already have the books ready to launch, you'll just have to work out other details. If you plan to traditionally publish, I'd tell the publisher you're planning for the first book to be part of a trilogy. I could be wrong, but sometimes if you already have all three books published and they really like your work, they may sign you to a deal for multiple books.

I also echo the idea of having your trilogy mapped out completely beforehand. This will help with continuity and connecting the arcs over the course of three novels. But if your intentional is to break up a bigger work into three, then you probably already have it all figured out, I'd assume.

 

[MineOwnKing]

Last night, I had a dream that inspired me to turn my single novel into a trilogy. Now, I've never written a series before, so this is an entirely new challenge ahead of me, and I'm really looking forward to it.

My question is: should I write a book, edit/rewrite it, write the next, edit/rewrite that, and then write,edit, and rewrite the last book, or should I write all three books first, and then edit and rewrite after I've finished the first drafts? What has worked best for you guys?

Professional editing takes time. During editing, things change in ways you cannot plan for.

I think it's best to complete volume 1 until it's polished before writing volume 2.

If self-publishing, I would try to have the rough draft of volume 3 complete before publishing the fully edited and polished works of 1 and 2.

I like to read 3 star reviews on Amazon. A common complaint that I read is that a certain book in a series is too short for the money.

So, I would recommend your books be in the 100,000 word range.

Another common complaint is finishing a book with a cliffhanger. People like to read each novel as a possible stand alone but with the same world or characters.

It's also a wise marketing strategy to make volume 1 permafree.

 

[TWErvin2]

First, the term trilogy is not necessarily interchangeable with the term series. A fantasy trilogy and a fantasy series are structured differently.

There's no real answer as to which would be better...write all the way through to the end of the trilogy (say 325,000 words) or one book in the trilogy at a time (say 110,000 words). The word numbers could be longer or shorter...but I think it depends on your endurance, so to speak. Many folks find it a challenge to do the first draft for a single novel. There would be a benefit to completing one project--a tangible accomplishment.

It would also depend on your intended strategy for publication--self-publish, finding a publisher (and possibly an agent to that end) or if you're just writing for yourself and have no desire to make the final work(s) available to the public.

I will say that once you release/publish the first book, what has happened is in many ways locked in. If a character dies in the first book and you find out that that individual is necessary for something to happen in the third book...well, it could be a real challenge. There are less extreme examples, but it would take some serious acrobatics to overcome in later books if once a character or event has been established in something published. Yes, if you self-published, you could unpublish, fix/alter, and then re-release, but for those who've read the first book already, that would be sort of unfair to them, as I see it.

I would suggest, if you're a slow writer--or you don't have a lot of spare time to write, that I wouldn't release that first book until you're well into the second, or better (if you opt to self-publish). Submitting to publishers, which will take time to find one (in most cases) and then for the first novel to reach publication, maybe not so much waiting after finishing the first...if you go that route--one book at a time as opposed to all three at once.

 

[SeverinR]

I write a lot of "coming of age" stories, I am writing two different series.
It's easier to continue on in these stories and they may or may not need to be hinted at in the first book. Because when we come of age, things change drastically.

In one book, I can mention the common enemy, because the special school knows about them. The book is of a teen learning to deal with psi ability. Book two is meeting the world with his Psi ability. Book three is bringing other psi children to a proper education rather then winging it or being taken in by the evil psi group.(book three will probably have a budding psi-confessor.)

in my other series, its dealing with a young adult elf arriving at the time of hatching of a military dragon's egg and the bond that forms between the three. Book one is dragon baby years, book two-dragon teens-eww! Book three facing the military world as an adult dragon team.
This one, they live at the dragon nest, so the enemy is always hinted at.

In this form, I don't believe they would be limited to a trilogy. Was thinking another good story for the psi book, would be a dragon psi. In psi ability, the more advanced the mind, the less common mind magic is. Because they usually focus on arcane magic before the mind magic reveals itself (around puberty). Elves with psi ability are rare (1 in 1000 elves), dragons with psi ability are that much more rare, 1 in 1million dragons). But the beings with the more advanced minds are stronger psi mentalists. (Stastically, sex has little difference, except humans tend to think of females as weaker, so fewer female humans are known.)
I believe either series could have endless stories or spinoffs.
But each book must be written individually but with a future in mind. Also any significant editing of a book, must be followed up in the other books if it changes them. Also many series books are written as a free standing book, so that a reader that buys the book without reading the first book, won't have wasted their money. (Ie quick introductions are repeated, and back story from previous book is rehashed.) If done right, even the reader that read the books in order will enjoy remembering the back story, and will catch any mistakes, so make sure it is accurate.

 

[skip.knox]

Why not just write the story? Worry about how to sub-divide it later?

 

[Miskatonic]

If you are planning to write a series I would endeavor to make each book a nearly complete story in and of itself, even if some things must be resolved later on.

 

[Ronald T.]

I'm working on Book 3 of an epic fantasy series intended to end somewhere between Book 6 and Book 10. Book 1 (at 155,335 words) is complete with final editing done, and soon to be E-published. Book 2 (at 197,386 words) is finished and I'm now doing the final edit. I'm also writing the third book (at 420 pages, so far). And in my experience as a reader and writer, I believe there must be an overall story arc that encapsulates the entire series, just as there is in a single novel.

That means the author should have at least a minimal idea of where the series is headed and where it is likely to end. It need not be set in cement, but the rough form should always be there in the back of the writer's mind. If the author has no idea of that ending, then how do they know where they are going. Without a goal, the series has the potential to wander aimlessly. And somehow, I don't see that as a road to success.

For me, it seems that each book in a series should have it's own story arc within the greater arc. But I don't believe that each series book can stand completely on it's own. Each book must have certain issues brought up and dealt with, but at the same time, there must be a cliff-hanging element at the end, just as there often is in a single stand-alone novel at the end of each chapter. Otherwise, what's the motivation for a reader to continue reading, or more importantly, for a reader to buy the next book?

By definition, a series book requires an on-going story line -- one that stretches from the beginning of book one to the final page of the last book. If not, then I don't see it as a series. They become individual stories that happen to contain the same characters in the same world. In other words, they are more like Robert E. Howard's Conan books -- each one about the same character and world, but each with their own story (books that I love, by the way). I see a series as something like Robert Jordan's WoT series, in which the reader is pulled along a linear story line, with each book leading logically to the next.

But what do I know? I'm just a hermit in the woods.

As always, my best to all of you.

 

[Mythopoet]

By definition, a series book requires an on-going story line -- one that stretches from the beginning of book one to the final page of the last book. If not, then I don't see it as a series. They become individual stories that happen to contain the same characters in the same world. In other words, they are more like Robert E. Howard's Conan books -- each one about the same character and world, but each with their own story (books that I love, by the way). I see a series as something like Robert Jordan's WoT series, in which the reader is pulled along a linear story line, with each book leading logically to the next.

But what do I know? I'm just a hermit in the woods.

As always, my best to all of you.

Actually, by definition a "series" is a sequence of books that share characteristics and so are identified as a group. This definition applies primarily to books that either are stand-alone books that can be read in any order but share setting, characters, etc. (like Discworld, Conan, many mystery series...) or to books that do make changes over the course of the series and so have a series arc, so to speak, but also have internally resolved plots in each volume (Harry Dresden, Harry Potter, Artemis Fowl...).

Fantasy "series" that are basically one long story chopped up into easily published bits are really more like a "serial" which is an ongoing work published in parts. They aren't really a "series" proper. But we've kind of appropriated the name anyway. So at this point, the term is equally valid for either format.

 

[Ronald T.]

I will bow to your knowledge on the subject, Mythopoet.

However, I will share one more thought.

In books like the R.E. Howard Conan novels, I think a reader can take them in almost any order, much like the David Gemmell books, and still receive the full benefit of the story. But, when you mentioned the Harry Potter books, could the same be said of them? Or would a reader loss something in reading them out of order? It seems to me that the definition of a series (as it is with a "serial") requires the necessity of linear passage, from book one to the final book.

I could be wrong though (I remember I was once, a very long time ago).

Thanks for your input on this issue, Mythopoet. It's welcome food for thought.

 

[FifthView]

And in my experience as a reader and writer, I believe there must be an overall story arc that encapsulates the entire series, just as there is in a single novel.

I like looking at television series as a general guide to the concept of "series." My favorites almost always have one overarching arc for the whole season while also having self-contained arcs in each episode. Example: Smallville. This approach has actually become more common—thankfully. But some series I like are more episodic, without an overarching arc for the season, like various Star Trek series.

Examples of both types abound in fantasy literature, although I think the former is more represented. As for the latter type, I like, for instance, Robert Asprin's Myth Adventures series.

So....

By definition, a series book requires an on-going story line -- one that stretches from the beginning of book one to the final page of the last book. If not, then I don't see it as a series.

I disagree with this ^. In fact, some of the more episodic types, like Myth Adventures, actually show a progression for the characters from book to book even if there is no overarching story arc for the whole set. Perhaps this is just a signal for a different type of series, if character (and relationship) progression is viewed as a type of overarching arc, that would distinguish this approach from a set of books that are far more discrete in nature.

I suppose another comparison along these lines can be made with movies. The Jason Bourne movies vs. James Bond movies vs. X-men and Avengers movies. What would we make of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, in which there are discrete movies (stories) but all are leading up to the Infinity Gauntlet story?

 

[Mythopoet]

I will bow to your knowledge on the subject, Mythopoet.

However, I will share one more thought.

In books like the R.E. Howard Conan novels, I think a reader can take them in almost any order, much like the David Gemmell books, and still receive the full benefit of the story. But, when you mentioned the Harry Potter books, could the same be said of them? Or would a reader loss something in reading them out of order? It seems to me that the definition of a series (as it is with a "serial") requires the necessity of linear passage, from book one to the final book.

I could be wrong though (I remember I was once, a very long time ago).

Thanks for your input on this issue, Mythopoet. It's welcome food for thought.

That's why I distinguished between series that can be read in any order (including Conan) and series that do have an overarching chronology (including Harry Potter) but are also contained stories in each volume. Maybe I didn't state it clearly enough. Both are series by definition. And the Robert Jordan version is different from both. This goes back to The Lord of the Rings which Tolkien wrote as one long story but which his publisher broke up into parts for publication. Admittedly, when published all together (as it sometimes is) LOTR is a bit unwieldy. I can't even comprehend on omnibus volume of The Wheel of Time.

 

[FifthView]

My question is: should I write a book, edit/rewrite it, write the next, edit/rewrite that, and then write,edit, and rewrite the last book, or should I write all three books first, and then edit and rewrite after I've finished the first drafts? What has worked best for you guys?

I think that what others suggest is a good idea. Write, edit, finish the first book, first.

What type of trilogy you are envisioning will make some difference in how you plant the seeds for succeeding books in your first book. I also planned to write only one book when I first conceived of my current WIP. The problem for me was this: In the early stages of conceiving this book, I had at least three different story ideas that I liked very much, and I wasn't sure exactly which I'd pick for my book. I eventually realized that I could do all three if I write a trilogy, and this gave me a much clearer idea of which would need to be the first book–if I in fact ended up writing the trilogy. The other two could come later. I haven't actually decided to in fact write the next two books, I'm not 100% on the idea of a trilogy, but I'm leaving the possibility open and planting some discrete bread crumbs in the first book that will add to the story in the first book but won't take center stage. If I write all three, the books will tie together and give a much larger scope to each as a whole, but the first book has a limited scope and a story arc that can stand on its own if I decide not to complete the next two.

 

[Ronald T.]

I see a series as a single concept -- whether it is a trilogy or twenty books -- with a primary overriding story arc. Within that greater arc, I see each book...with its own story arc...as if it were a single chapter in a much longer story.

I see that concept as a linear entity, one that moves logically from one portion to another, whether that be a single book in a series, a single chapter in a book, or a single episode in an on-going TV series with an intimately connected story line.

Star Trek. the TV series, is not what I mean by the term "series". It was simply an accumulation of stories about the same characters, unlinked by any sort of linear connection. You could see them in any order and still receive full enjoyment. In the kind of "series" I'm talking about, that wouldn't be possible.

And, by the way, I see nothing about the Bond movies that suggest the slightest concept of a series. They are individual stories with the same characters. Which is completely different from what I consider a series. A perfect example of what I mean by "series", whether in book form of television, would be the TV series -- Marvel's agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. This is a series that can leave you lost if you miss even a single episode. It would be like missing an important chapter in a book and wondering why nothing makes sense.

To me, a series requires linear continuity. Without that linear aspect, they are merely books about a particular character or world.

But what do I know? I'm just a hermit in the woods.

As always, my best to all of you.

 

[K.S. Crooks]

I like the George Lucas method of writing a story almost as a stand-alone. However, knowing you have sequels in mind placing certain details in the first book that will be relevant or identifiable in the sequels. It help if the first book is able to stand mostly on its own to give the reader or publisher a sense that something has been completed. Once the first novel is accepted by people is it easier for them to accept a blending together of the sequels.