# The Cliffhanger



## MystiqueRain (Aug 19, 2012)

1) Do you like cliffhangers?
2) How much is too much?
3) What about cliffhangers at the end of a novel with a sequel?


----------



## TWErvin2 (Aug 19, 2012)

No, I do not care for cliffhangers.

For me an novel should have a complete story arc, unless it is established as a trilogy, and even then what I would call a cliffhanger (something huge built up to by the end of the novel, but the novel ended just before resolving it) should not be how a novel I would choose to read would end.

If an author wrote a cliffhanger, I would not pick up the second novel to discover how it ended. Why would I, because I'd expect the next novel to end as a cliffhanger. For me it's a tactic to get me to buy the next novel. Further, I would not recommend the novel to others. Why would I recommend a novel that, at the end, is unresolved?

I guess it might work if the novels were released in quick succession or all at once. Most publishers don't do this, but if someone self-published, this could be accomplished pretty easily.

While that's my two cents, I'm sure there are varying opinions.


----------



## Penpilot (Aug 19, 2012)

Depends on what you mean by cliffhanger. If you do it from chapter to chapter. I don't mind. But if it's from book to book, I generally hate it. Now if I know for a fact that the second book, is coming out, I may tolerate it but I think the main arc of a book should be finished within that book. If the author wants to leave subplots open, I'm fine with that, but if I don't get a satisfying ending, I'm not picking up another book until I know the series has been completed.

It's happened to me more with TV shows than books but I hate it when things get left on a cliffhanger and the tv series or book series gets cancelled.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Aug 19, 2012)

I like cliffhangers as long as the ending is somewhat satisfying. Like the ending of the Fellowship of the Ring, that to me was a fine cliffhanger ending. I can't remember what novel it was that I read but at the end of it the main character walked through a hallways and it said he saw a bright light and then "he saw it." That was the end. I was so disappointed.

I am writting a series and the ending of the first novel, it has the main character being banished by his comrades because he is using forbidden magic (but in his view it is necessary to use it) and he accidentaly killed one of his close friends in an experiment. They are all trying to acomplish a single goal but he believes he can do so with this kind of forbidden magic. He vows to avenge his fallen friend and to acomplish his goal. There are a lot of other things that happen prior in the novel and the ending changes certain alliances and sets up the stage for the next installment. I don't believe that that would be a bad cliffhanger ending. I know a lot of people think that the first novel in a series should be standalone but for this project it just wouldn't work.

Sorry if it seems I am hijacking the thread here but what do you think about my idea? I know I am being vague but i'm trying not to spoil anything and I really don't have all the details set in stone yet. The second novel actually takes place in an undecided amount of time after the first novel. This way the MC has had time to strengthen his powers.


----------



## ShortHair (Aug 19, 2012)

To be honest, I see cliffhangers as nothing more than a marketing gimmick. Why would I buy a book, with the expectation of a complete story and a satisfying escapist experience, if I knew I had to buy another book or two to see how it all turns out? If it says on the cover that it's the first volume of a trilogy, then I can make my decision based on that. If there's no warning, then you have what Spider Robinson called a _sneaquel_.


----------



## MystiqueRain (Aug 19, 2012)

Hmm...so what would you constitute as a "complete cliffhanger"? Like...if a book is part of a series, obviously there'll be untied ends to the plot and plenty more to discover (or there wouldn't be a point the next books)--so wouldn't each book in the series technically end in a "cliffhanger" that makes readers come back to see what happens next? At least it would be an ending left unsatisfied until all the questions are answered, right? 

What would be a good ending to such books? I know in Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling ends each book with Harry going home for the summer, but there are plenty of mysteries to be solved that brings readers back for more. I guess the question would be, how "cliffhangy" is good enough without it being unsatisfying?


----------



## Marlyn Almyr (Aug 19, 2012)

I think the main story arc of a book needs to be finished in one book because otherwise I feel like the author is trying to force me to buy two books instead of one. I don't think there is any reason to end a book before the main story arc is finished. But with that said, sometimes a cliff hanger could work. If the author finished their first book with a complete story arc, but ended it in way that introduced the next book's story arc. Like if the beginning of the next story arc made for a better ending than opening and if the author wanted to start the next book with action, but without having to go back and tell a backstory. 

Like after Dumbledore died at the end of the sixth Harry Potter book. It completed the main story arc of that book and made for a great ending but later Harry discovered the locket was a fake, so it was a cliffhanger which left so many questions unanswered. However the story in that book felt finished....to me atleast. Any how thats my two cents. 



.…And also I just have to say, Doesn't the endings of the first six harry potter technically qualify as a cliff hanger of some kind?


----------



## Kit (Aug 19, 2012)

ShortHair said:


> I see cliffhangers as nothing more than a marketing gimmick.



This. I am disappointed and annoyed to have to wait months or years to find out what happened. 

If there are sequels, it's fine to not tie up all the loose ends in the 1st book- you can leave some MINOR PLOT cliffhangers to keep me interested- but don't cheat me out of the ending to the main plot.


----------



## FireBird (Aug 20, 2012)

If you end your main plot with a cliffhanger I will not buy your next book no matter what and I will hate you forever.


----------



## Saigonnus (Aug 20, 2012)

I prefer the ending that leaves it open to interpretation (like the ending of Inception) where it's up to the watcher/reader to decide which way they prefer. I think a cliffhanger is only ggod if you plan a sequel within a fairly short period of time so people don't get too upset or think you aren't making one.


----------



## Zero Angel (Aug 20, 2012)

It depends on how often they are used. Sometimes you just want some satisfaction! 

George R. R. Martin began to annoy me terribly in Book 4--so much so that I have no intention of picking up Book 5. I can't imagine the legions of faithful fans that loved his series ten years ago and waited five years to be told "screw you" only to wait another SIX years to finish his next follow-up. In Book 4, it got to the point that I was skipping chapters to be able to find out what happened to a particular character and would go back to find out what would happen to the next particular character. Getting to the end of the book and being told that he only covered half the characters and wouldn't cover the half in THAT book until at least two books later...goodbye Song of Ice and Fire, you've annoyed me for the last time.

Also, it depends on the type of cliffhanger. If the cliffhanger provides satisfaction and merely sets up the next chapter or book, then that doesn't bother me. To me, that is called a _transition_.


Edit: I have a worse example, although it didn't sour me on the author because the books were already out and they didn't skip characters (AND THE AUTHOR ONLY TOOK A YEAR TO PUT OUT THE SEQUEL!). John Ringo's When the Devil Dances ended in what felt like midstride. It was a completely unexpected cliffhanger, and he wrote an apology afterword saying that the book got too long so he split it in two. I actually already had borrowed the sequel in the library so it ended up feeling more like a chapter break than a book break. 

In fact, I felt the same way with "the Golden Compass" movie (although I haven't read the books).


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 20, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> It depends on how often they are used. Sometimes you just want some satisfaction!
> 
> George R. R. Martin began to annoy me terribly in Book 4--so much so that I have no intention of picking up Book 5. I can't imagine the legions of faithful fans that loved his series ten years ago and waited five years to be told "screw you" only to wait another SIX years to finish his next follow-up. In Book 4, it got to the point that I was skipping chapters to be able to find out what happened to a particular character and would go back to find out what would happen to the next particular character. Getting to the end of the book and being told that he only covered half the characters and wouldn't cover the half in THAT book until at least two books later...goodbye Song of Ice and Fire, you've annoyed me for the last time.



I am also annoyed by this (although not as much as you; I read book 5 and am still willing to see how it ends). The individual stories he tells are good, but to me it's a pretty clear failure as an author if you can't wrangle your book into shape and have to radically alter the storytelling mechanism (that is, missing several major characters for an entire book) to deal with it.

What Martin _does_ write is excellent, but he's let ASOIAF get away from him. He may be an excellent author, but he's coming up short as a storyteller. I'm trying to imagine Scheherazade getting away with a six-month delay between one part of her story and the next. 

I'm interested to see how ASOIAF ends, but I also have come to realize that if I never read books 6 and 7, I probably wouldn't mind much. Books 1-3 were an excellent ride, books 4 and 5 were enjoyable if a bit of a slog; and knowing the characters' ultimate fate actually doesn't matter to me much–like they say, it's the journey, not the destination.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Aug 20, 2012)

MystiqueRain said:


> Hmm...so what would you constitute as a "complete cliffhanger"? Like...if a book is part of a series, obviously there'll be untied ends to the plot and plenty more to discover (or there wouldn't be a point the next books)--so wouldn't each book in the series technically end in a "cliffhanger" that makes readers come back to see what happens next? At least it would be an ending left unsatisfied until all the questions are answered, right?
> 
> What would be a good ending to such books? I know in Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling ends each book with Harry going home for the summer, but there are plenty of mysteries to be solved that brings readers back for more. I guess the question would be, how "cliffhangy" is good enough without it being unsatisfying?



While it can be explained, up to a point, each novel/story is a bit different. More like you'd recognize it when you see (or read it).

Take a look at novels that have been published as a series, and that you've enjoyed. Examine the story arc of each, yet how the stories with the characters and setting are connected and continue. Use those as example to guide you.

I used Steven Brust (Vald Taltos Series), Roger Zelazny (Amber Chronicles), Michael Moorcock (Elric Saga) and a couple others and read, reread and studied while preparing for and writing my series.

If you haven't read a fantasy series, then it would benefit you to pick up one or two and give them a read, paying close attention, MystiqueRain, before attempting it with your novels/series. You can learn not only about what works as a proper ending for a series novel, leading to the next, but much more, like effective dialogue, pacing, characterization, how to write action scenes, which POV is best for what story, etc.  What you learn can be modified to your writing sytle and applied to your novels.

What works in Television, such as cliffhangers, I don't think works as well with novels. Different medium, and a different audience/audience expectations.

I guess the final question to ask yourself is: "Why am I ending this novel in the series with a cliffhanger?" Is it:
To tell a good story 
or 
To get the reader to pick up and read the next novel.  

The second goal will happen if you accomplish the first goal.


----------



## MystiqueRain (Aug 20, 2012)

TWErvin2 said:


> While it can be explained, up to a point, each novel/story is a bit different. More like you'd recognize it when you see (or read it).
> 
> Take a look at novels that have been published as a series, and that you've enjoyed. Examine the story arc of each, yet how the stories with the characters and setting are connected and continue. Use those as example to guide you.
> 
> ...



I've read plenty of fantasy series, though not many lately since I haven't found the time to get into some. >< Cliffhanger endings can always be a two-way sort of thing, especially with books in series. But there's always a certain extent to which you can "cliffhang" the book. There are several book series that I enjoy that do end in a definite cliffhanger, but I know the next one has 1) a certain release date and 2) a good plot to keep me reading.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 20, 2012)

I think that a well done cliffhanger is a good technique to use.  

A book needs to wrap up significant plot points, but there's no harm in leaving a hook.


----------



## Jared (Aug 20, 2012)

I'll toss my hat in with the Hate Cliffhangers group.




BWFoster78 said:


> I think that a well done cliffhanger is a good technique to use.
> 
> A book needs to wrap up significant plot points, but there's no harm in leaving a hook.



I would personally disagree with characterizing leaving a hook as a cliffhanger. A cliffhanger is when the main character is in the middle of main-plot dilemma/point of conflict. A hook is a secondary or side thread to the main plot that is left unresolved.

To use a generic example, the Main Character is fighting the Dark Lord on the edge of a waterfall. The DL has the MC on their back, pinned beneath their foot, and has the Dark Sword of Darkness at their throat.

The cliffhanger would be to end the book here.

The hook would be to have the MC knock the sword out of the DL's hand and send it flying over the waterfall. The MC then defeats the DL and saves the day. The main plot is (presumably) resolved by defeating the DL. The hook is "What happened to the sword?" But that hook's not a cliffhanger since there's not imminent danger/conflict in the main plot.


----------



## Zero Angel (Aug 20, 2012)

Jared said:


> I would personally disagree with characterizing leaving a hook as a cliffhanger...



Your post was basically something I was about to say, so agreed! And now you've made it easier on me also for not having to post an argument =)


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 20, 2012)

> I would personally disagree with characterizing leaving a hook as a cliffhanger.



Depends on the hook.

My understanding of the term is that it derives from old serials that used to literally end with the protagonist hanging off a cliff.  I have no problem with the following:

1. Introduce protagonist, significant situation, and antagonist.
2. Kill antagonist and resolve major plot points.
3. Put protagonist in mortal danger to set up next book.
4. End book.

This resolves plot points but is a "cliffhanger."

Edit: Example:

The hero kills Evil Guy, but the killing blow sends him, unconscious plunging toward the river below.

The other characters know that Evil Guy is dead but can't find the hero's body.


----------



## MystiqueRain (Aug 20, 2012)

So what about something happens to one of the main characters near the end of the book, something dramatic and unexpected, and then the book ends? Yet most of the plot for that story would be concluded then?


----------



## TWErvin2 (Aug 20, 2012)

MystiqueRain said:


> So what about something happens to one of the main characters near the end of the book, something dramatic and unexpected, and then the book ends? Yet most of the plot for that story would be concluded then?



To answer that I'll go back to a question I asked earlier:

"Why am I ending this novel in the series with a cliffhanger?"

A. To tell a good story 
B. To get the reader to pick up and read the next novel. 

My vew is that "B" will happen if you accomplish "A"

So why would you have "something happens to one of the main characters near the end of the book, something dramatic and unexpected, and then the book ends." 

Because it is more along the lines of telling a good story or more along the lines of trying to motivate the reader to pick up the next novel you write to find out what happened?

Dramatic and unexpected and then ends? I could be wrong, but the answer appears obvious. If that's what you want to do, if you do it well, maybe with some foreshadowing and not fully unexpected, it might work. Or it might completely turn off readers.

What do you imagine readers of your first novel saying, if they spread it by word of mouth?

"Yeah, you've got to read this book. It stops right in the middle something big happening."
or
"Wait until the next book is out before you read the first. It stops right in the middle of something big happening."
or
"Don't bother reading it. It stops right right in the middle of something big happening."


----------



## MystiqueRain (Aug 20, 2012)

It's more like...because something happens to the main character that the focus of the plot changes, which in turn, also wraps up the plot of the first book, if that made any sense. So it could be considered a "hook", an event that leads to the events of the next book. The "something big" that happens would be concluded at the end of the the book though, but what comes out of it happens in the next one. Would that work?


----------



## TWErvin2 (Aug 20, 2012)

MystiqueRain said:


> It's more like...because something happens to the main character that the focus of the plot changes, which in turn, also wraps up the plot of the first book, if that made any sense. So it could be considered a "hook", an event that leads to the events of the next book. The "something big" that happens would be concluded at the end of the the book though, but what comes out of it happens in the next one. Would that work?



Maybe, maybe not.

Write the novel. See what your beta readers say once they can read the entire novel and consider the cliffhanger device in the context of the ending, or not ending. Since it's something that you're putting at the end, something unexpected and dramatic, it can easily be removed (without affecting what came before/ripple effect) if it doesn't work.


----------



## MystiqueRain (Aug 20, 2012)

It's already written, though probably not as well as I'd like it at the moment. xD We're trying to edit it through before we ask people to read the whole thing because it's so choppy at the first draft stage right now. I'll see how it works though, thanks for the advice


----------



## Zero Angel (Aug 20, 2012)

Can I just reassert that I do not think it is a good idea to have a cliffhanger at the end?

I want to walk away from each book I read feeling satisfied. 

If you feel satisfied with it (the book, story and resolution as it stands at the end of the story), then it might be OK, but I am guessing from the fact that the thread exists that you are second-guessing yourself.


----------



## MystiqueRain (Aug 20, 2012)

I'm just getting opinions on cliffhangers. You can't walk away from a book in a series (besides the last one) without completely feeling satisfied, in my opinion. After all, there wouldn't be a need for the next books if all the questions and conflicts were resolved in the first one, would there? That's why they're written in a series in the first place. But there are certain degrees of cliffhangers, like the literal "stop before you fall off a cliff" example to the "many questions left unanswered because it's a series" example. 

Personally, I feel satisfied with my ending right now because there really isn't no way good way to end it that I can think of at the moment. Perhaps, from this thread, I could find something that would be better. That's my take at least.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 20, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> Can I just reassert that I do not think it is a good idea to have a cliffhanger at the end?
> 
> I want to walk away from each book I read feeling satisfied.
> 
> If you feel satisfied with it (the book, story and resolution as it stands at the end of the story), then it might be OK, but I am guessing from the fact that the thread exists that you are second-guessing yourself.



I think it's easy to find others with the opposite opinion.  

The cliffhanger is a technique.  If you use it well, it can be quite effective.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 20, 2012)

I don't mind cliffhangers at the end of novels. But, in most cases I won't start reading a new series until all of the books are out, because I had just had it with the likes of Robert Jordan and GRRM. Once all the books are out, a cliffhanger at the end of a book isn't a real problem.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 20, 2012)

MystiqueRain said:


> After all, there wouldn't be a need for the next books if all the questions and conflicts were resolved in the first one, would there?



I don't think anyone's suggesting that absolutely everything be resolved; as was pointed out, there's a difference between a cliffhanger and an ending with loose threads. _Star Wars_ ends with the heroes winning the day, destroying the Death Star, etc. But there's one explicit loose thread (Vader escapes) and one major implicit thread (destroying the Death Star did not destroy the Empire or kill the Emperor). No cliffhanger, but plenty to build on.

Some people enjoy (or simply don't mind) cliffhangers at the end of a novel (let's call them group A); some people hate them (let's call them group B). I would submit that virtually nobody would hate a book just because it _didn't_ have a cliffhanger at the end.

If your book ends in a cliffhanger, you please group A and annoy group B. If your book doesn't end in a cliffhanger, you please both groups A and B. (This is assuming that your book is otherwise pleasing.) So whether you write a cliffhanger depends on the size of groups A and B (and keeping in mind that not everyone in group B is equally annoyed by cliffhangers; some might be a little annoyed, some might throw your book across the room and hunt you down like a dog) and about how much you care about putting people off.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 20, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I don't mind cliffhangers at the end of novels. But, in most cases I won't start reading a new series until all of the books are out, because I had just had it with the likes of Robert Jordan and GRRM. Once all the books are out, a cliffhanger at the end of a book isn't a real problem.



I'm more or less in the same place, although I obviously already fell into Jordan and GRRM's trap.  I do the same thing with TV now, too. For most shows, I'm happy to wait until it's over and then catch up. I'm really looking forward to watching Breaking Bad next year.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Aug 20, 2012)

What about the LOTR novels? Yes, they were originally all one book but you get the point. Would you consider that a cliffhanger ending between the three? 

And I hate to ask again (nobody responded) but could you take a look at my example in page one? I have a question about my novel's ending (It is the first novel in a series)

EDIT: I would say my novel is set up like the LOTR. The series is a journey (of sorts) and like LOTR it will have epic parts and conflicts in it. To me, a cliffhanger ending is there is a climactic build up and right before resolution, it ends. I wouldn't say that that is the ending to my first book.


----------



## MystiqueRain (Aug 20, 2012)

I don't think it would be a bad ending; after all, it seems to wrap up what the first book is about. The second book would focus on what happens after his banishment, would it not? 

I find my novel series to be similar in that "large story split into multiple parts" sort of way. The only reasons why they're separated are that 1) it would be way too long if I didn't and 2) each book focuses on one particular weapon and side plots that lead up to that. Sure, it would work as one big book, but it would be a heck of a loooong book. 

I was trying to avoid spoilers, but seeing as I don't have much of a choice if I want opinions...

*SPOILER?*--Read at your own risk. 

At the end of my first book, one of the main characters is kidnapped by one of her teammates--actually an antagonist in disguise. Since the focus weapon of the first book is with her, the plot cannot be centered around that weapon anymore. The main character actually doesn't come back until the end of the second book, so for most of the second book the team is trying to find her and save her, also with the goal of finding the second focus weapon. 

Right now I'm fine with how it ends, with the team's realization that the main character is truly gone. The impact on her love interest is particularly hard and it carries through the next book. But I also think it could go both ways as a cliffhanger. Sure, the main plot is mostly wrapped up but the question of where the main character is is left a mystery. Good or bad?


----------



## Zero Angel (Aug 20, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Some people enjoy (or simply don't mind) cliffhangers at the end of a novel (let's call them group A); some people hate them (let's call them group B). I would submit that virtually nobody would hate a book just because it _didn't_ have a cliffhanger at the end.
> 
> If your book ends in a cliffhanger, you please group A and annoy group B. If your book doesn't end in a cliffhanger, you please both groups A and B. (This is assuming that your book is otherwise pleasing.) So whether you write a cliffhanger depends on the size of groups A and B (and keeping in mind that not everyone in group B is equally annoyed by cliffhangers; some might be a little annoyed, some might throw your book across the room and hunt you down like a dog) and about how much you care about putting people off.



Oh my god! You're using mathematics! I'm so enthused =]

I agree that this is the case, although there is also the group C (that is contained in both A and B) that will not pick up the NEXT book in the series unless there is a cliffhanger...but I think they are a minority and I personally don't think you should write to sell.


----------



## Penpilot (Aug 20, 2012)

To me, if a book doesn't give me a satisfying ending, not necessarily a complete ending, like say the first LOTR movie, it isn't a complete book. It's just a book/story someone chopped in two. If I get cliffhangered and there isn't some sort of fair warning that this would/could happen, I kind of feel tricked.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Aug 20, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I don't mind cliffhangers at the end of novels. But, in most cases I won't start reading a new series until all of the books are out, because I had just had it with the likes of Robert Jordan and GRRM. Once all the books are out, a cliffhanger at the end of a book isn't a real problem.



Which could be a problem, especially if the first novel is published through a traditional publisher. Will the second novel in a series be published if it doesn’t sell well? Even self-published, if the first novel garners little to no interest, might it not be better to move on to a new project?



Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Some people enjoy (or simply don't mind) cliffhangers at the end of a novel (let's call them group A); some people hate them (let's call them group B). I would submit that virtually nobody would hate a book just because it _didn't_ have a cliffhanger at the end.
> 
> If your book ends in a cliffhanger, you please group A and annoy group B. If your book doesn't end in a cliffhanger, you please both groups A and B. (This is assuming that your book is otherwise pleasing.) So whether you write a cliffhanger depends on the size of groups A and B (and keeping in mind that not everyone in group B is equally annoyed by cliffhangers; some might be a little annoyed, some might throw your book across the room and hunt you down like a dog) and about how much you care about putting people off.



A logical way to assess. If only one could put a proper weight in numbers to Group A, and Group B.




Zero Angel said:


> Oh my god! You're using mathematics! I'm so enthused =]
> 
> I agree that this is the case, although there is also the group C (that is contained in both A and B) that will not pick up the NEXT book in the series unless there is a cliffhanger...but I think they are a minority and I personally don't think you should write to sell.



A little off topic but: If we're discussing no cliffhanger vs. cliffhanger, and part of the conversation is how readers will perceive and react to the novel--whether they'd enjoy, recommend, pick up the next one, etc,, isn't what's being considered writing what will better sell--unless the novel/series is going to be posted or downloaded for free?


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 20, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> If your book ends in a cliffhanger, you please group A and annoy group B. If your book doesn't end in a cliffhanger, you please both groups A and B. (This is assuming that your book is otherwise pleasing.)



This is also another good reason not to have to have prologues. Some people hate them, but I don't know of anyone who is put off by the lack of them


----------



## MystiqueRain (Aug 20, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> This is also another good reason not to have to have prologues. Some people hate them, but I don't know of anyone who is put off by the lack of them



In the end, it's up the reader's opinion. But yes, avoiding the situation altogether is a foolproof way to satisfy most readers.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 20, 2012)

TWErvin2 said:


> Which could be a problem, especially if the first novel is published through a traditional publisher. Will the second novel in a series be published if it doesn’t sell well? Even self-published, if the first novel garners little to no interest, might it not be better to move on to a new project?



Yes, and I've thought of that. I suppose it comes down to where you want to shift the burden. If I never read the first book and the next novel in the series never comes out, I'm no worse off (if it would have been an awesome series I would have read eventually, I guess I'm potentially worse off). On the other hand, if I read the first one and the sequels are never published due to lack of interest, or the author makes me wait five or six years for the next installment, then that bothers me as a reader. So I do like to pick up a series once it is complete.

Which brings me to a practice of book stores that I hate. Book 3 in a series comes out. Bookstore has a dozen copies of it on the shelf, and no copies of the first two in the series.


----------



## MystiqueRain (Aug 20, 2012)

Oh I absolutely hate when that happens, especially when I haven't read that book two. I still laugh at myself for picking up Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets before I read the first one--no wonder nothing made sense to me then. 

It's best when the author does have a set release date, even if it might be "month, year". That way I know that they haven't given up on the series. I guess that means I could be lucky; we're writing and editing at the same time so we're already up to book three and continuing. Putting it in a legible, organized, novel format is the only thing we need to do.


----------



## Kit (Aug 20, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Which brings me to a practice of book stores that I hate. Book 3 in a series comes out. Bookstore has a dozen copies of it on the shelf, and no copies of the first two in the series.



LOL. I picked up book 3 of a series in a used book store. I loved it and went looking for the first two. I went to about six bookstores one after another- with increasing irritation- and could only find book 2.  I had to buy book 2 and order book 1 online. So I ended up reading the entire series in reverse order.

Which brings up another thing.... if you're writing a series, **PLEASE** make it so that each book can stand alone. I don't like it when I *have* to read the entire series- or read it on order- to make sense of what is happening.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 20, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> This is also another good reason not to have to have prologues. Some people hate them, but I don't know of anyone who is put off by the lack of them



*snerk* Well played.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 20, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> Oh my god! You're using mathematics! I'm so enthused =]



Set theory, technically. 



Zero Angel said:


> I agree that this is the case, although there is also the group C (that is contained in both A and B) that will not pick up the NEXT book in the series unless there is a cliffhanger...but I think they are a minority and I personally don't think you should write to sell.



Yeah. Like I said, I think this group is negligible in size and can be ignored for all practical porpoises.



Kit said:


> LOL. I picked up book 3 of a series in a used book store. I loved it and went looking for the first two. I went to about six bookstores one after another- with increasing irritation- and could only find book 2.  I had to buy book 2 and order book 1 online. So I ended up reading the entire series in reverse order.
> 
> Which brings up another thing.... if you're writing a series, **PLEASE** make it so that each book can stand alone. I don't like it when I *have* to read the entire series- or read it on order- to make sense of what is happening.



What do you think about a "Previously on..." synopsis at the beginning of each volume? That way, new readers can at least get up to speed on the major plot developments, without having to read multiple large tomes. (Of course, if the fifth book is worth reading, the first one probably is too...)


----------



## Kit (Aug 21, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> What do you think about a "Previously on..." synopsis at the beginning of each volume? That way, new readers can at least get up to speed on the major plot developments, without having to read multiple large tomes. (Of course, if the fifth book is worth reading, the first one probably is too...)



"Previously on..." is really helpful- even if I *have* read the previous volume(s). It might have been a while, and it's good to have the little review.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 21, 2012)

Kit said:


> "Previously on..." is really helpful- even if I *have* read the previous volume(s). It might have been a while, and it's good to have the little review.



Cool. I'm planning to do this with the sequels to THE QUEEN OF MAGES; that way the story itself doesn't have to spend time explaining things all over again. If a new reader picks up in the middle, they can catch up; readers who are already familiar with the background can just skip it.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Aug 21, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Cool. I'm planning to do this with the sequels to THE QUEEN OF MAGES; that way the story itself doesn't have to spend time explaining things all over again. If a new reader picks up in the middle, they can catch up; readers who are already familiar with the background can just skip it.



While this may be effective as a reminder for readers of a previous work (I've seen it done, like with Stephen R. Donaldson), I am not sure how effective it will be for readers new to the series. Giving a rundown or synopsis of what's gone before, without the proper context or understanding who is who or what is what, just means you're telling the potential reader about places, people and titles that are little more than names, and relaying what those names and titles did, and where they did it, and maybe why. There is nothing to anchor it to, or to form a firm understanding.

Isn't it better to include reminders or provide appropriate background/reminders at relevant times within the storyline? The first way is easier (summary at the beginning), but I am not sure it's as effective or useful. This was an issue I faced writing the second novel in my series. I wanted it to standalone, yet compliment the first novel. It took me a almost a year to read other authors and study how they did it before I moved forward.


----------



## Graylorne (Aug 21, 2012)

TWErvin2 said:


> Isn't it better to include reminders or provide appropriate background/reminders at relevant times within the storyline? The first way is easier (summary at the beginning), but I am not sure it's as effective or useful.



This is what I did with the second volume of my Rhidauna series. By introducing a new MC in the first chapter, I gave my other MC's the chance to recount the most important happenings from the first book, without making it an infodump. Any left-over details came in following chapters.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 21, 2012)

TWErvin2 said:


> While this may be effective as a reminder for readers of a previous work (I've seen it done, like with Stephen R. Donaldson), I am not sure how effective it will be for readers new to the series. Giving a rundown or synopsis of what's gone before, without the proper context or understanding who is who or what is what, just means you're telling the potential reader about places, people and titles that are little more than names, and relaying what those names and titles did, and where they did it, and maybe why. There is nothing to anchor it to, or to form a firm understanding.
> 
> Isn't it better to include reminders or provide appropriate background/reminders at relevant times within the storyline? The first way is easier (summary at the beginning), but I am not sure it's as effective or useful.



That's the question. Is it better? There's no reason the previous-book synopsis can't be written in an engaging style that sums up the backstory enough for a reader to get the gist, and is entertaining as well.

Besides, the point of the synopsis is to let them catch up without having to read the entire whole first book. Weaving the details into the main narrative is entirely doable (and I'd certainly do some of that anyway, for particularly important things) but you can't weave in the whole first novel, either.


----------



## Jared (Aug 21, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Depends on the hook.



I think we're working off of different definitions of what a hook is.




BWFoster78 said:


> Edit: Example:
> 
> The hero kills Evil Guy, but the killing blow sends him, unconscious plunging toward the river below.
> 
> The other characters know that Evil Guy is dead but can't find the hero's body.



I would consider this to be a cliffhanger, but not a hook. The fight between the Hero and the Evil Guy isn't resolved. You don't know whether the hero lived. It's similar to (what wiki tells me) was the ending of the original Italian Job.

My definition of hook requires that the main plot be completely resolved. The hooks are then secondary unanswered questions.

A cliffhanger is either stopping the main plot at a point of danger (like in serials or chapter breaks) or tacking on the beginning of a new story after the last one ends (Hero beats Evil Guy, stands up, falls off the cliff as there's a FTB).

You may disagree with these definitions. If so, we can just agree to disagree.


----------



## MystiqueRain (Aug 21, 2012)

But then wouldn't the next plotline--if there was one--be about finding the hero? It would be a completely different plot altogether. The first one is about defeating a certain villain. The second one is the aftermath and what happened to the hero. What happens at the end of the first one is leading up to what happens in the second one. A definite cliffhanger would be hero is fighting evil guy. Just before the hero kills the evil guy and starts to fall toward the river below, the book ends. You don't know if the other characters manage to catch him before he falls, or if he lands at the bottom and has an unknown fate.


----------



## Jared (Aug 21, 2012)

MystiqueRain said:


> But then wouldn't the next plotline--if there was one--be about finding the hero? It would be a completely different plot altogether. The first one is about defeating a certain villain. The second one is the aftermath and what happened to the hero. What happens at the end of the first one is leading up to what happens in the second one. A definite cliffhanger would be hero is fighting evil guy. Just before the hero kills the evil guy and starts to fall toward the river below, the book ends. You don't know if the other characters manage to catch him before he falls, or if he lands at the bottom and has an unknown fate.



Is this in response to me? If so, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me over. I said that that cliffhanger would be starting the second plotline at the end of the first book. But that it's not a hook because it's not a secondary question separate from the main plot's resolution.


----------



## Zero Angel (Aug 21, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> This is also another good reason not to have to have prologues. Some people hate them, but I don't know of anyone who is put off by the lack of them



SOME PEOPLE HATE PROLOGUES?!

WHYYYYYY?

Unless you are talking Robert Jordan style prologues which is generally an exercise in boredom and blue balls (sorry to be crass). 

My prologue gives a sneak peak at what happened a few months before the start of the first book. Haha, I just realized that there is a literal cliffhanger (well, jumping off a cliff), and you don't find out the details of what happened after until reading nearly the entire book. 

...maybe I should shut up while I am ahead -_-


----------



## MystiqueRain (Aug 21, 2012)

Jared said:


> Is this in response to me? If so, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me over. I said that that cliffhanger would be starting the second plotline at the end of the first book. But that it's not a hook because it's not a secondary question separate from the main plot's resolution.



Oops, not sure I made that clear enough. I meant by definitions. >< That's my take on it, but everyone's definition must be somewhat different. Though I'd like to ask, what's your example of a "hook"?


----------



## Endymion (Aug 21, 2012)

MystiqueRain said:


> 1) Do you like cliffhangers?
> 2) How much is too much?
> 3) What about cliffhangers at the end of a novel with a sequel?



1) Love them.
2) Don't use them to often (not in every chapter). Becomes extremely annoying after a certain period of time.
3) I do not like that the main plot ends with a cliffhanger (I think no one likes it).


----------



## Jared (Aug 21, 2012)

MystiqueRain said:


> Oops, not sure I made that clear enough. I meant by definitions. >< That's my take on it, but everyone's definition must be somewhat different. Though I'd like to ask, what's your example of a "hook"?



An example that comes to mind is Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn. The main plot of the first book started as "rob the Lord Ruler" and then morphed into "defeat the Lord Ruler." The secondary questions that were unanswered at the end of the first book were things like what the other metals do, what other metals could be burned, what happens to the government now, and others that I'm forgetting because it's been a few years since I read it.

If we go over to the Star Wars Expanded Universe, the Wraith Squadron section of the X-Wing series ends with the squadron being moved over to Intelligence. This is a hook that's planted at the end of the book but isn't a starting of the next story (I would call Lando's "We'll see you on Tatooine" farewell at the end of Empire one of those, not a hook; basically a cliffhanger without the danger). But that question comes back to be answered in the Vong series when the Wraiths come back and you learn a bit of what they've been up to.

So there we have two examples of hooks: some that are used to spin off the plot of the next book in the series, and one that is used only to provide story world continuity. But all of them are secondary to or side effects of the main plot.


----------

