# Writing a Series



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 10, 2016)

So, I have a question for anyone on here who has written a series, particularly one that is a continuing story and not several stories linked together.

Did you draft the entire series at once and then go back and rewrite/revise, or did you draft and rewrite/revise each book individually? I'm suspecting for almost everyone the latter is the case. However, I'm thinking it would be better for me to deal with the entire series as a cohesive whole, instead of drafting, rewriting and revising each book as a seperate unit. Any advice?


----------



## Malik (Jul 10, 2016)

Personally, I think you'd lose your mind trying to revise multiple books at the same time. Right now I'm editing down the first book in my series and even minor tweaks are having a butterfly effect on my sequels. It's a Rubik's Cube.

But if you can do it in one fell swoop, do it. There's no correct way to write fantasy and don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise.

On a personal note, I read your fight scene. You have tremendous talent. If you were to bang out nine hundred pages in a row at your current level of craftsmanship, not even going for style but just typing till your hands bleed every day until you hit THE END at Book Three, and then go back and revise, starting on Book One Page One and working out the kinks of the whole series for another couple of years, and then start back at the beginning, revising _again_ -- because you'll need to -- and _then_ do it once more with a good editor, you'd end up knocking out a couple of million words all in all over the next 5-6 years. 

It would take some doing -- that's a thousand words a day, which is steep, so you may be looking at ten years to pull this off -- but brother, you'd have some chops when you were done. I hope you do it, because I would read the hell out of whatever you came up with at that point. 

Look around. The genre needs more people who have put that kind of time and effort in.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 10, 2016)

I'm writing a series, and I'm taking something of an in between approach. On the one hand, I've got the first book done, painfully cut down to 125k, revised, and off to an editor, but before I finished, revised ? times, and sent to an editor, I also wrote the ending of the trilogy, and I'm writing the end of book two as we speak, and fleshing out certain concepts to make sure that I'm not leaving out important seeds in book 1. I've already discovered one since sending to an editor, very small blurb in book 1, but important oh, about 800 pages later. And the big thing, if it gets popular, it will be a great debate point for readers, with a distant pay off, LOL.

As Malik said, there's no right answer. One thing, if looking at a freelance editor, that 500k word bomb is gonna cost, LOL. And on a first novel, a paid set of professional and objective eyes might just be worth it. Not that you'd have to send in all 500k, heh heh.

Do what you feel works. But heck, I edit what I wrote one day the next, and reread constantly, so I'm not going to finish more than 5-10k words without giving it a pass here and there. I usually get back into a POV by reading/editing the POV's storyline.


----------



## troynos (Jul 10, 2016)

I'd say do a pretty tight outline for the entire series.  Where you expect characters to evolve, where they end up, major points, etc..  but leave yourself room for organic changes as you write because as we know, characters have a habit of deciding they want to do something that you hadn't originally planned.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Jul 10, 2016)

If it is a continuing story, would it be more like a trilogy than series? 

Each book, even thought a main storyline may continue, should have a complete and satisfactory story arc. Otherwise it could be just like taking a 300,000 word epic and dividing it into three books or a 400,000 word epic and dividing it into four books.

Some of it may depend on the route to publication you hope to take. If the traditional route, seeking a publisher, complete one novel and start sending it off, then work on completing the next while it's seeking a home. If you intend to self-publish, some authors prefer to get all of the books in like a trilogy finished so that they can be released in quick succession. Even with that, I would edit/revise/complete one book at a time. 

There could be a concern that by the time you reach the end of book three, there is something that you want to change in book 1. I can tell you that pulling things out or adding things in isn't necessarily that easy. There is the ripple effect, in that an event of significance will likely have an impact elsewhere in the novel, and making those changes could require more changes and ripples. The bigger project you attempt with this the more complex and daunting the task can end up being.

Those are my few thoughts. Good luck as you move forward, whatever route you take.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 10, 2016)

Malik said:


> Personally, I think you'd lose your mind trying to revise multiple books at the same time. Right now I'm editing down the first book in my series and even minor tweaks are having a butterfly effect on my sequels. It's a Rubik's Cube.
> 
> But if you can do it in one fell swoop, do it. There's no correct way to write fantasy and don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise.
> 
> ...



Back when I had a writing habit, 1,500 words a day was about what I was able to reasonably manage. However, I didn't write daily. Typically I would write for about 3 days a week, spend the rest letting my inspiration replenish, reading, doing non-writing-related things. My mind needed the down time. 

Ten years is about what I'm looking at for the series I'm writing. I'm not really basing that estimate on anything, it just sounds right to me. I'm planning 4 or 5 books. (the original plan was 4. However, once I started doing serious, detailed planning, and working out the subplots and stuff, I realized I might have to stretch it to 5. Anyway, the material I was planning on using for book 4 and the latter half of book 3 could use more developing the way I see it, but...I'll see how things go.) If I estimate each book at an average of 130,000 words (again, not basing this on anything except the fact that I've written 80,000-90,000 word works before and I have a feel for how much 130,000 words is)...5 books is 650,000 words. 

So, 52 weeks in a year, 3 days a week, 1,500 words a day means 234,000 words in a year. 650,000 words for the whole series means I could be done with at least the first drafts of all five books in under 3 years. 

I ought to add a year to account for writer's block, backtracking, the flu, distractions, and death in the family. A little under 4 years. Sounds pretty reasonable to me, actually. Now, it'll take me at least that long and probably much longer to get them rewritten and revised. For each book, if I'm being honest, probably twice the time it took me to write it.  Putting me at about 12 years total for the whole project. 12 years is more than half the time I've been alive, so it's...a little intimidating. 

I want to have the whole series written and revised before anything gets published or even submitted for editing, though. I want to have the freedom to go back and make changes earlier in the story until I'm satisfied with the whole of it. 

Now that I'm articulating this, it's seeming to me that it's definitely best that I write them all first and then revise them all, rather than writing and revising each individually. But...it's nice to see how others do it. 

Also, thanks for your very high praise of what you've read of my writing.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 10, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I'm writing a series, and I'm taking something of an in between approach. On the one hand, I've got the first book done, painfully cut down to 125k, revised, and off to an editor, but before I finished, revised ? times, and sent to an editor, I also wrote the ending of the trilogy, and I'm writing the end of book two as we speak, and fleshing out certain concepts to make sure that I'm not leaving out important seeds in book 1. I've already discovered one since sending to an editor, very small blurb in book 1, but important oh, about 800 pages later. And the big thing, if it gets popular, it will be a great debate point for readers, with a distant pay off, LOL.
> 
> As Malik said, there's no right answer. One thing, if looking at a freelance editor, that 500k word bomb is gonna cost, LOL. And on a first novel, a paid set of professional and objective eyes might just be worth it. Not that you'd have to send in all 500k, heh heh.
> 
> Do what you feel works. But heck, I edit what I wrote one day the next, and reread constantly, so I'm not going to finish more than 5-10k words without giving it a pass here and there. I usually get back into a POV by reading/editing the POV's storyline.



I relate. I always end up doing plenty of editing as I go. I am extremely prone to backtracking, which can make it hard to move forward.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 10, 2016)

troynos said:


> I'd say do a pretty tight outline for the entire series.  Where you expect characters to evolve, where they end up, major points, etc..  but leave yourself room for organic changes as you write because as we know, characters have a habit of deciding they want to do something that you hadn't originally planned.



I'm constructing a mental outline. Planning out the conflicts, relationships, major deaths, things like that. Writing it down makes it too concrete, though, leaves little room for organic growth. 
Problem is, with a project this extensive, I can't have any better than a very foggy idea of what happens in book 4 when book 1 isn't even finished.


----------



## Malik (Jul 10, 2016)

If you're writing like this at 24, then you could be a monster at 36 and you could change the world at 40. Put words in a row every day, keep reading, and never quit.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 10, 2016)

TWErvin2 said:


> If it is a continuing story, would it be more like a trilogy than series?
> 
> Each book, even thought a main storyline may continue, should have a complete and satisfactory story arc. Otherwise it could be just like taking a 300,000 word epic and dividing it into three books or a 400,000 word epic and dividing it into four books.
> 
> ...



A trilogy is a series with exactly three books, a series just means multiple books, usually more than three because there's already a word for that, trilogy. Yes, it's a continuing story (the books couldn't stand alone) but each book has its own plot and arc of course. 

When I think about the story, however, I think about it as one complete story, rather than 4 or 5 individual stories. I have the main plot and subplots that span the series worked out, but I'm still working on the details. I'm thinking it would be best to write it all at once, then revise it all at once, as if it were one story. 

I do intend to traditionally publish. That's actually one of the reasons I want to write and finish all the books as one story. I've read far too many series where the first book was great, then, due to deadlines and publishers' expectations, the story went downhill fast and soon was no longer worth it. I figure there's a reason why the first book is typically the best of the series when it should be the opposite. I would like to be able to spend all the time I need on each book, as well as the freedom to backtrack and change earlier books if need be. I'm thinking the best way would be to write them all, revise the first and start looking for a home for it, and meanwhile work on revising the others...But I'm thinking rather far ahead. 

However, no one seems to do it this way.


----------



## WooHooMan (Jul 10, 2016)

TWErvin2 said:


> If it is a continuing story, would it be more like a trilogy than series?



Trilogy is just a series with three parts.  They're special because three is a magic number.

Anyways, if I have a story with a beginning, middle and end, I keep it to one book.  My series tend to be the same characters (and/or setting) but different plots so planning the whole thing at once doesn't do me much good.  Especially if the first story is a dud and I want to pull the plug on the series.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 10, 2016)

Malik said:


> If you're writing like this at 24, then you could be a monster at 36 and you could change the world at 40. Put words in a row every day, keep reading, and never quit.



I'm a teenager, actually.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 10, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I'm a teenager, actually.



^Something I hate saying since people tend to question your abilities no matter what they've seen you can do if you say it.


----------



## ThinkerX (Jul 10, 2016)

We get quite a few novice authors through here with aspirations of writing long fantasy series.  My recommendation, stick with the short stories at the outset.  Learn the craft, learn how to complete a tale. Explore your world by writing about your world.  'Showcase' is littered with prologues and first chapters.  Occasionally, I see a chapter two or three posted there.  But rarely anything much higher.

For you, I would suggest participating in 'Top Scribe' - I'm about to post the next in that series, or signing up for Caged Maiden's Seafarer's Flash.

That said, I have been plugging away on a series of six novella's (35,000 - 45,000 words, or very roughly 100 - 130 pages) for several years now.  At least that's what I tell myself.  It might end up being a trilogy, or even a single monster tome.  Whatever you call it, I'm on book five now, as part of my NaNo project.  One thing I have learned: best not to release volume one of a trilogy or series into the world without having at least a rough draft of the last book in hand.  All too often critical little things in later books necessitate changes to the first book.


----------



## Malik (Jul 11, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I'm a teenager, actually.



**** it. I quit. Anyone want a website? Cheap.

J/K.

*GO. TO. COLLEGE.* Holy shit, man. 

Write your ass off until you leave for college, and then write every spare moment the whole time you're there.

Major in English, or linguistics, or comparative lit, or theology; anything that forces you to read critically and write extensively.

Then get a professional writing gig with an editor whom you can't stand, who marks up everything you do. Bonus points if they do it in front of you while clicking their tongue disapprovingly, and it's even better, still, if they call you into their office a few times the first year to have long conversations with you involving extensive use of the word "frankly." And keep working on your series the whole time. 

Do this thing. For the good of humanity, do this.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 11, 2016)

ThinkerX said:


> We get quite a few novice authors through here with aspirations of writing long fantasy series.  My recommendation, stick with the short stories at the outset.  Learn the craft, learn how to complete a tale. Explore your world by writing about your world.  'Showcase' is littered with prologues and first chapters.  Occasionally, I see a chapter two or three posted there.  But rarely anything much higher.
> 
> For you, I would suggest participating in 'Top Scribe' - I'm about to post the next in that series, or signing up for Caged Maiden's Seafarer's Flash.
> 
> That said, I have been plugging away on a series of six novella's (35,000 - 45,000 words, or very roughly 100 - 130 pages) for several years now.  At least that's what I tell myself.  It might end up being a trilogy, or even a single monster tome.  Whatever you call it, I'm on book five now, as part of my NaNo project.  One thing I have learned: best not to release volume one of a trilogy or series into the world without having at least a rough draft of the last book in hand.  All too often critical little things in later books necessitate changes to the first book.



^What I was talking about when I said people question your abilities when they learn you're young. I've completed many novel-length stories--they were terrible, mostly, but I have a good grasp of how a story works. Then again, you're right that writing a long series is a huge commitment not to be taken lightly. 

You talk about the first few chapters of stories being posted in showcase, but nothing higher. I know why--I must have 30-40 novels I wrote the first few chapters for, but nothing higher. Several I got about halfway through. A few that I completed. 

My mother keeps telling me I should write short stories, not because she thinks I'm incapable of anything more, but because she thinks the satisfaction and experience of completing something every now and then would help me. 

I definitely agree about having a draft of the last book before submitting the first is a good idea. 

And yeah, getting involved in challenges sounds fun!

Edit: Sorry if that first part came off as a little abrasive. I know you're trying to help.  I just want to say, being young doesn't make you a novice any more than being old makes you an expert.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 11, 2016)

Teenagers can be in college...

College is overrated, live, write, live some more, write some more, keep at it. If college happens in the midst of that, meh, so be it. Drink a lot, heh heh. But hey, college keeps a lot of folks from counting as unemployed in the fed's numbers, LOL.



Malik said:


> **** it. I quit. Anyone want a website? Cheap.
> 
> J/K.
> 
> ...


----------



## Malik (Jul 11, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Teenagers can be in college...
> 
> College is overrated, live, write, live some more, write some more, keep at it. If college happens in the midst of that, meh, so be it. Drink a lot, heh heh. But hey, college keeps a lot of folks from counting as unemployed in the fed's numbers, LOL.



I respectfully disagree. The self-pubbed market is brimming with terrible writers -- we're talking books with _there cat set over their_, or _for all intensive purposes_ -- who think that "the school of hard knocks" is enough, and who would be readable if they'd only gotten an education. Or, as is often the case, if they'd gotten an education but taken it seriously while they were there and learned how the language works and why. 

I work with "educated" people _every. Goddamned. Day._ Who can't put together a coherent written sentence. And I see "authors" with zero grasp of language mechanics, publishing wincingly bad books, who have degrees. 

Typing is not writing, any more than hammering is finish carpentry. Writing is a skilled trade, and English professors are master craftsmen who pass on the art. There are self-taught geniuses in every skilled trade, but your odds of success are much better if you get a master to teach you.

With this guy's talent, it would be criminal if he has the opportunity to get the education and the tools he needs to really be competitive, and he doesn't take it.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 11, 2016)

This conversation has taken a bit of a turn away from the original question, but it's worth continuing.

I also read your fight scene excerpt in the Showcase. I agree with Malik that it's quite good, even for someone with much more life experience. And, in present tense no less, which is somewhat unusual and shows a willingness to reach beyond the norm. 

College may not help you directly with writing (though most colleges do offer some creative writing courses), but it may. It is like any other life experience, and you may find it useful. It all depends on you. However, when it really comes down to it, the only way to get better at writing is to write. Whatever else you're doing to satisfy the demands and expectations of life aren't really a primary concern for being a writer.

Go to college, or don't. You should probably make that decision independent of your writing aspirations. There are plenty of professional authors who did, and there are scores who did not. Steven King worked a horrible job at a hotel laundry, struggling to keep food on the table before he finally broke out with _Carrie_. Patricia Cornwell has a degree in English. John Grisham was a practicing lawyer. I'm certain each one of those authors would say their prior experiences inform and aid their writing.


----------



## Ankari (Jul 11, 2016)

TAS, the one common denominator is that they all went to college. Steven King graduated with a BA in English. He even worked as a teacher in highschool for some time (I think as an English teacher).

I went to college but never finished. To this day I intend to return to round off my experience/knowledge. One of the greatest benefits as a writer is constant feedback from a professional. Also, from what I've read, you can make some pretty decent connections that funnel through the same classes/college.

If it's within everyone's ability, I'd recommend completing a degree relevant to your chosen area of interest (meaning, you may want to take a physics degree with a minor in English if you're a sci-fi author).


----------



## SeverinR (Jul 11, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Teenagers can be in college...
> 
> College is overrated, live, write, live some more, write some more, keep at it. If college happens in the midst of that, meh, so be it. Drink a lot, heh heh. But hey, college keeps a lot of folks from counting as unemployed in the fed's numbers, LOL.


I disagree also, to a degree. 
Wordsmiths need to know how to use the tools of their trade.
I don't think anyone needs a degree.  I do think a good study of writing and proper sentence structure is important.
It is like anything else. The more you learn the better you can work the art.  
I think maybe if you paid attention in elementary school you might be good. But as I said, the more you know the more you can do.
Story telling is the art, sentence structure is the brush strokes, vocabulary is the paint, understanding the language is the canvas.  I don't believe someone with a masters degree can tell a better story then someone with only the right college classes.
They just know more. 

I learned only what I had to, to pass the class. I've had to go back and look at all the basics again.  

Many famous books are written poorly. So you can write without learning it, but the art is trying to "perfect" everything, so that people won't notice the imperfections.


----------



## SeverinR (Jul 11, 2016)

Back on the subject of series rather then trilogy.
I have a series planned. I have three books of the series started or initial foundation.  It is about mentalists and the various "abilities" and "gifts" the individuals have and how they manifest.
I think a trilogy is good for most, but I think some books can be a series.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 11, 2016)

Ankari said:


> TAS, the one common denominator is that they all went to college. Steven King graduated with a BA in English. He even worked as a teacher in highschool for some time (I think as an English teacher).


Granted, and I agree with your follow up comments.

However, there are plenty of renowned authors who did not earn a degree. 

William Faulkner, Jack Kerouac, Truman Capote, Maya Angelou.... The list goes on and on.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 11, 2016)

Calm down guys.   College is part of the plan. I don't think you need a college degree to be a good writer, though. It's just hard to find a job that pays well enough for you to make a decent living with nothing but a high school degree. I'm thinking more in terms of--what if it takes me longer to write my books than I think? What if it takes me 5 years' worth of rejections to get it pubbed? How am I going to make a living?--rather than going to college specifically to improve my craft. 
College seems a bit far away at the moment, though. Heck, I have to get out of high school first. 
On an unrelated note, how am I already a senior member after having been here for less than three weeks??


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 11, 2016)

SeverinR said:


> Back on the subject of series rather then trilogy.
> I have a series planned. I have three books of the series started or initial foundation.  It is about mentalists and the various "abilities" and "gifts" the individuals have and how they manifest.
> I think a trilogy is good for most, but I think some books can be a series.



True, but trilogy just doesn't work for this story. Throughout all the planning the story has had four major arcs rather than three.


----------



## Malik (Jul 11, 2016)

Five years of rejections is nothing. My book has been rejected 47 times in 25 years. Granted, I've gotten better since I started.

On the other hand, professional writing gigs that I initially took "to pass the time" have helped my fiction writing immensely.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 11, 2016)

Agree with Malik again. 

Five years is nothing. Nothing.

Some famous & commercially successful authors take 5-6 years to write a new volume to a series. GRRM, anyone?

Take as long as you need to write the story you want to tell if that suits your goals.


----------



## Russ (Jul 11, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Ten years is about what I'm looking at for the series I'm writing. I'm not really basing that estimate on anything, it just sounds right to me. I'm planning 4 or 5 books. (the original plan was 4. However, once I started doing serious, detailed planning, and working out the subplots and stuff, I realized I might have to stretch it to 5. Anyway, the material I was planning on using for book 4 and the latter half of book 3 could use more developing the way I see it, but...I'll see how things go.) If I estimate each book at an average of 130,000 words (again, not basing this on anything except the fact that I've written 80,000-90,000 word works before and I have a feel for how much 130,000 words is)...5 books is 650,000 words.
> 
> So, 52 weeks in a year, 3 days a week, 1,500 words a day means 234,000 words in a year. 650,000 words for the whole series means I could be done with at least the first drafts of all five books in under 3 years.
> 
> ...



It is important to distinguish and understand why you are writing and what role you want writing to play in your life before answering a question like this one.  IIRC from your previous posts you want to be traditionally published.  Let me assume for the moment you want to make a living at writing or generate reasonable income from writing.

Based on what you are telling us the best alternative for you is to do an outline for the overall series to keep you organized, and then write, revise and finish the first book before moving on to the second one, more or less.  There is no reason for you to not work on the second book before the first is done, but it would be a bad choice to try and get the whole thing done, polished and ready to go over a 4-12 year period before you send the first book out to agents or editors.

The first and best reason is that you could be wasting your time.  You could be writing an unsaleable series (no matter how clean your prose) and you could waste 4-12 years of your life doing it.  It is better to know that after say, year two then year eight so you can stop wasting your time.  You are going to be  very different person 4-6 years down the road so the first book may be way behind you when you get the series done.  This is especially true for a younger person.

The second reason is that you are missing opportunities.  Let us say that you finish book one after year two and when you do there is a good market for your kind of book.  You submit it and sell and get to work on the other ones.  Say that window closes at year five and you finish at year six, you have missed the opportunity for the sale, potentially.   Now let's say that the window only opens in year five and you finished book one in year two and have it sitting in a drawer with it's former rejection slips.  You can pull in out and send it out again or your agent can let you know about the new opportunities to sell it again (this has happened quite a bit).

The third reason is that he process may well be longer than that.  After you are finished all of that writing etc on your own you then have to add on a period of time for getting an agent and then selling it, and then getting it published.  That process could easily add two or more years to your math.  It strikes me that it would be very difficult thing to maintain the project for now 6 to 14 years.  That should be intimidating, no matter how old you are.

From a pure business perspective the finished first book in an asset sitting around not making you any money.

So if you want to be traditionally published and/or want to be making some reasonable income from this series within a reasonable event horizon you should whip book one into shape and start getting it out there sooner rather than later.

Don't worry too much about the problem of writing to deadline.  Deadline is very good for many authors.  The authors I was seeing last week (many of them ridiculously successful) were asked about their muses and most of them said things like "fear", "hunger" and "the IRS".  Lots of great books are done on deadline.  And if you are not  pain in the ass most publishers will cut you some slack on getting the stuff in a little late.

Four books is a quartet by the by.

People will always give you exceptions to the rule.  Moorcock took forever to write the Pyat quartet, GRRM and Rothfuss are very slow in getting books out.  But there are reasons their publishers cut them that slack.  Those reasons may well not apply to you.  Learn to think like an acquiring editor if you are thinking about your book in a traditional publishing sense.

On the college issue...I am a big fan of both higher education targeted at your career (or not) and gathering life experience.  No reason you can't do both at the same time.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 11, 2016)

Russ said:


> It is important to distinguish and understand why you are writing and what role you want writing to play in your life before answering a question like this one.  IIRC from your previous posts you want to be traditionally published.  Let me assume for the moment you want to make a living at writing or generate reasonable income from writing.
> 
> Based on what you are telling us the best alternative for you is to do an outline for the overall series to keep you organized, and then write, revise and finish the first book before moving on to the second one, more or less.  There is no reason for you to not work on the second book before the first is done, but it would be a bad choice to try and get the whole thing done, polished and ready to go over a 4-12 year period before you send the first book out to agents or editors.
> 
> ...



Making money from my books, though it would be nice, isn't my main objective. I would write them anyway if I never made a single cent from them. I would write them anyway if they were never published, in fact. I'm going to fight hard for success, but it's not what motivates me. 

The main reason I want to try to write the whole series at once is that I know I'll want to go back and tweak and revise the thing as a whole. Growing up you change a lot as a person, and your writing changes. though it's a series, it's probably best to think of it as one whole story. Will I still feel the same about this story 8 years from now? I don't know. I don't know at all what's going to happen. But I don't want to put it out there before it's really ready. 

About deadlines...Lots of people work best under pressure. I am DEFINITELY not one of those people. That's why I'm leery of deadlines. If I could get over my anxiety, deadlines and I would have a better relationship, but as of now, expectations from without regarding my writing tend to paralyze me.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 11, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> The main reason I want to try to write the whole series at once is that I know I'll want to go back and tweak and revise the thing as a whole. Growing up you change a lot as a person, and your writing changes. though it's a series, it's probably best to think of it as one whole story. Will I still feel the same about this story 8 years from now? I don't know. I don't know at all what's going to happen. But I don't want to put it out there before it's really ready.



The answer is... likely you won't feel the same, but no matter how you go, if you publish (unless it is posthumously, heh heh) I think you'll have to accept that your work was part of you "captured" at that moment in your life. Brains change. At 25 life looks a lot different, 35, 45, etc... More important to be sure you're aren't missing plot and other info that you'll kick yourself for later, LOL. 

It's entirely up to you is the final answer.

My for instance is with a character who either commits suicide or is murdered, if I didn't look way forward, I wouldn't know that I want his set of gambling dice to be missing so I can use them a book and a half later.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Jul 11, 2016)

WooHooMan said:


> Trilogy is just a series with three parts.  They're special because three is a magic number.



While we may be playing with semantics here, the structure of a series can often differ from the structure of a trilogy, including content, closeness of theme and plot continuation, with an overall arc, etc....yes, 'magic' numbers can play a part, but a series that contains three books isn't necessarily a trilogy.


----------



## Miskatonic (Jul 12, 2016)

I have the main plot points for the entire series tentatively mapped out but I'm starting from the beginning as far as writing goes. I could see it taking 8 books to finish but who knows at this point. I'm fairly certain that the first half should fit in 4 books. First book building up to the start of the war, second and third books dealing with the war, and the final book leading up to the big event that sparks the second half.


----------



## Holoman (Jul 13, 2016)

It's important to remember as well that the first book should function as a standalone novel as well as the first of the series. So it should have its own plot and resolution at the end. Think of Star Wars, you could just watch the first movie and you would feel it had a satisfying ending: the main threat (Death Star) was destroyed.

Otherwise you will struggle to find a publisher that will agree to publish an entire series, and readers aren't very forgiving of reading a whole novel that is just build up to an actual story.

I made this mistake when first outlining my series, the first book just built up to something happening but it didn't function at all as its own novel with a resolution. I had to do a major rework. I think of it like this, at the end of the first book the good guys should have won the battle conclusively, but the war isn't over.

Harry Potter is another great example of how each book in a series can function as separate stories in themselves.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 13, 2016)

Holoman said:


> It's important to remember as well that the first book should function as a standalone novel as well as the first of the series. So it should have its own plot and resolution at the end. Think of Star Wars, you could just watch the first movie and you would feel it had a satisfying ending: the main threat (Death Star) was destroyed.
> 
> Otherwise you will struggle to find a publisher that will agree to publish an entire series, and readers aren't very forgiving of reading a whole novel that is just build up to an actual story.
> 
> ...



In Harry Potter, each book had its own story, but there was also a continuing story running underneath through all the books. In the first book, Voldemort was momentarily vanquished, but not defeated for good. A series is a continuing story made up of smaller stories, pretty much. Which is what I'm trying to do.

My first book couldn't function as a standalone, but again, neither could any book that's the first of any series. There's a reason it's a series.


----------



## Holoman (Jul 13, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> In Harry Potter, each book had its own story, but there was also a continuing story running underneath through all the books. In the first book, Voldemort was momentarily vanquished, but not defeated for good. A series is a continuing story made up of smaller stories, pretty much. Which is what I'm trying to do.
> 
> My first book couldn't function as a standalone, but again, *neither could any book that's the first of any series.* There's a reason it's a series.



No, that's not true. Harry Potter #1 functions as a standalone novel, Voldemort is defeated at the end and Harry could have had a perfectly quiet life after it. There is no big issue unresolved. Rowling left the possibility for a longer spanning story but it wasn't a necessity. 

Lots of books do this like The Final Empire, The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe, The Hunger Games, Discworld. The main plot question of the first book is answered at the end of it. The over-arching storyline is secondary to the plot in the first book, and only takes over in later books when the author and publisher knows the series is selling and will continue to have loyal fans.

Unless you are already a published author, it is a lot easier to find a publisher willing to accept a single book with series potential than a series that only functions as one. Committing to publish a series is a big risk for a publisher, and these days things like The Lord of the Rings are much harder to get published.

It's possible but why make things harder. Getting published is hard enough.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 13, 2016)

Holoman said:


> No, that's not true. Harry Potter #1 functions as a standalone novel, Voldemort is defeated at the end and Harry could have had a perfectly quiet life after it. There is no big issue unresolved. Rowling left the possibility for a longer spanning story but it wasn't a necessity.
> 
> Lots of books do this like The Final Empire, The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe, The Hunger Games, Discworld. The main plot question of the first book is answered at the end of it. The over-arching storyline is secondary to the plot in the first book, and only takes over in later books when the author and publisher knows the series is selling and will continue to have loyal fans.
> 
> ...



Except that Rowling had all seven books planned out and was writing parts of them concurrently with the first (as I'm doing) 

As for the first book of my series being a complete, self-contained story that completely resolves itself without any sequels--if it was possible, without damaging the story severely--I would do it, I suppose. I don't want to change my story for the sole reason of making it more publishable. If my only reason for writing was getting published, I would be writing teenage vampire romance or something. 

Anyway, the amount of books I've read with blatant cliffhanger endings leading to a sequel is quite large. If publishing a series is such a big risk, why is practically every fantasy book a series? (I can't even think of more than one fantasy standalone at the moment) Not to mention that it's clear that the first book wasn't written as a standalone, then the author decided to make a series of it--it was intended to be a series from the get-go. I was under the impression that when an author publishes the first book in a series, their contract is for the entire series. Maybe I'm speaking from my experience with successful books that don't represent the "average" author's experiences? Mine's not a cliffhanger, it has a resolution, but it wouldn't quite work as a standalone, either. 

Anyway, I'm writing the whole series whether they get published or not.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 13, 2016)

Is it even plausible to publish your story without making sacrifices that ruin what you originally wanted it to be? Is publishing the highest goal or does the story come first?


----------



## Chessie (Jul 13, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> My first book couldn't function as a standalone, but again, neither could any book that's the first of any series. There's a reason it's a series.


Incorrect. A series is defined as a group of books with one theme/plot that connects them all, but each book has it's own storyline and resolution that stands alone. The main theme would be, for example, farm boy becomes a powerful wizard and kills the dragon at the end of the series, which would be book #whatever. Each book then would have its own plot/theme that ties into the main plot of the series. So book #1 could start with farm boy training to become a paladin and by the end of book 1, he passes a test and beats a wicked wizard trying to sabotage him or whatever. Ending on cliffhangers is a different conversation though.


----------



## Holoman (Jul 13, 2016)

I am not saying the first book is written with the intention of being a standalone, of course they are all written with the intention of being a series, but they are not written in a way so that the series is necessary. Even if the over-arching plot line is unresolved, it doesn't give the reader the impression that things are not resolved. Instead it gives the reader that feeling of release of the tension that the book has built.

Two contrasting examples would be Lord of the Rings and The Hunger Games. In Lord of the Rings, when you have finished Fellowship, the story is not over. Frodo is still in the middle of his journey, which is the central plot line, and if a reader stops there they do not get the satisfaction of the release of the tension that has been building. In fact the whole thing practically ends in disaster! But even so, there is mini resolution. The Uruk'Hai that have been chasing them are dead.

Contrast with The Hunger Games, the over-arching plot is to rebel against the oppressive state and overthrow it. But the first book is not written with that as its central plot, instead it is the hunger games themselves. The question is will Katniss survive, and will she kill Peter? That is resolved at the end of the book. The author focusses the attention on the smaller plot for that book in order to give resolution. But the over-arching plot is far from resolved leaving the rest of the series open - even though the reader doesn't _feel_ like a lot is unresolved.

This is a good example because if you've seen the film Battle Royale, it was a very similar film, but it did not have this over-arching plot line. There was a sequel eventually made, but it functioned perfectly well as a film on its own.

The difference between these two is that one was published recently, and the other a long time ago. I honestly think LOTR would have a lot of trouble getting published today, especially if it was someone's debut novel.

Structuring your novels like this doesn't mean drastically changing the story. As an author, you have control over how you build the tension. If you build too much tension into the over-arching storyline in the first book and it's left unresolved then the reader wont feel very satisfied. But, if you focus the tension on the area that _will_ get resolved, and skilfully build just enough tension in the over-arching to make the reader want to read the next book, then you can give the reader both satisfaction and the hunger for more. In reality, not a huge amount of tension is needed to make readers want to carry on. What you need is essentially a great first book, if they enjoy it and enjoy the characters, they will keep reading just to continue the enjoyment.

As for cliff hanger endings, I can't actually think of a single debut novel with a cliff hanger ending. I can't see why any publisher would touch it with a barge pole. An author that has a fan base and many published works can probably get away with it, but it risks really irking fans. I know they leave a sour taste in my mouth and if I do feel compelled to buy the next book, I wont be buying any other books from that author unless I really enjoyed it.

Cliff hangers can work in novels beyond the first because at that point you have a more dedicated reader base. Like JK Rowling does great in the later Harry Potter books. They aren't really cliff hangers but hooks that make you want to read the next one.


----------



## Creed (Jul 13, 2016)

When readers buy a series, it's because they're looking to invest time and emotion into a work of fiction. But they still want complete and wholesome payoff at the end of the first book. It's pretty much essential that the first book be able to act as a stand alone, and for your question about publishing the answer is no. Publishers pick up the first book and see how it sells, and how the readers enjoy it.

That's the danger you're facing. The complete, isolated arc should be able to connect with the next book, but that should not be it's selling point. Only if the first book is successful, then the publisher will keep running with the series.

I'd recommend listening to the Grim Tidings podcast to hear how many successful authors have gone about their first books (you may even recognize a fellow Scribe). The above cautionary tale recently happened with Michael Fletcher's _Beyond Redemption_. I haven't finished it so I can't comment on the payoff, but he's still looking for someone to take his second book, or he'll self-publish.

For the original question, I'd recommend the complete edit, but with some hesitation. I've been planning a series for years and writing novellas and short stories within its Universe just to explore it. But as I do that, I world-build, and I get more intimate with the world, and I'm constantly discovering new things. These inform the overarching quartet, and important changes come up every once in a while. Even the occasional epiphany. Whatever you do, just be prepared to edit (and I know you are! )

Edit: Of course, this post assumes an intent to publish, which you state may not be your goal.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 13, 2016)

Not entirely true. If you're writing epic fantasy there is a different expectation, and deals are made for two or three books with new writers. It's a bit like Hollywood... if you think you've got a hit, you lock in actors, writers, and crew for sequels... in the long run it saves you money. If a pub likes a writer, signing them for multiple books keeps you out of bidding wars down the road if the book/writer is successful. And let's face it, a new writer is going to get what up front? 5k per novel? 10k? If you sign a 3 book deal 15k up front, 5k now, 5k on second, 5k on third, with no guarantees of pub without meeting their sales/quality, what risk have they really taken? Now, pubs jumping on a fifteen book freight train? Well, no, but you don't want them to, you want to renogitate after the first few take off, heh heh.

Whether or not a reader looks for a payoff in the first book is debatable depending on definition. A cliffhanger would be horrible (IMO) but there are lots of ways of having a satisfying ending without a classic Star Wars IV stand alone option. 



Creed said:


> When readers buy a series, it's because they're looking to invest time and emotion into a work of fiction. But they still want complete and wholesome payoff at the end of the first book. It's pretty much essential that the first book be able to act as a stand alone, and for your question about publishing the answer is no. Publishers pick up the first book and see how it sells, and how the readers enjoy it.
> 
> That's the danger you're facing. The complete, isolated arc should be able to connect with the next book, but that should not be it's selling point. Only if the first book is successful, then the publisher will keep running with the series.
> 
> ...


----------



## Creed (Jul 13, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Not entirely true. If you're writing epic fantasy there is a different expectation, and deals are made for two or three books with new writers. It's a bit like Hollywood... if you think you've got a hit, you lock in actors, writers, and crew for sequels... in the long run it saves you money. If a pub likes a writer, signing them for multiple books keeps you out of bidding wars down the road if the book/writer is successful.



Those big deals absolutely happen, but that is the exception in today's market, not the rule. The rule is that author's get signed on for one book with the publisher getting _the right of first refusal_ for a sequel. This way they avoid both bidding wars and commitment to a risky new series. Risk is the enemy in a business dependent on the public's ever-oscillating desires. Another way to minimize risk for the OP: maybe having the series (semi-)completed before handing to a publisher would be best.

I should add that this is mostly the rule for new authors, though the Grim tidings podcast features many "old hats" with first books in a series, with a sequel not signed yet. Just last Friday, for example, Anthony Ryan and his _Draconis Memoria_ trilogy/quartet (he's not even sure how many books it will be). You can be rest assured that Steven Erikson got signed on for the whole Kharkanas trilogy, though.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 13, 2016)

It's all a crapshoot. But you have to write the story how it works, first and foremost. Having partials on books 2 & 3 in a trilogy is a good bet, this is one place where outliners would have some advantage, too. If they love your writing, and they can see the how you plan to finish this thing, they are more apt to buy in. If I sent in my book 1, and they said, ok, clearly this leads to something, but what? I can send them the MC's end of the trilogy, here's the last 30 pages of the MC in the trilogy... It's finite, and they know whether I have an ending they think works. Even though I don't have an outline, per se, I could also send the start of book 2, the end of book two, the start of book 3 as well as the end of book 3. If you write well enough, they'll probably trust you to fill in the blanks.

The biggest question is how complete does a first book need to feel? That's what makes me nervous. My first book has both a clear sense of ending, and continuing. This part of the story is over, it has arced, it is complete, there's a tragic heroine, the MC loses her, loses his island, but between them they have saved the people to fight another day... but there is no doubt whatsoever that the greater arc isn't finished. I'm not entirely sure how it will play, LOL.

I really wanted to write a true stand alone, but it just wasn't the story burning a hole in my head at the time. So, if I can't interest folks on the first books because it's a trilogy set up, my next project will be the stand alone.


----------

