# What's the "made-up word limit"?



## Mindfire (Nov 28, 2012)

Does anyone know about how many invented words or names can you expect the audience to tolerate? I ask this because I find myself with an increasing number of invented words and names for people, places, creatures, items, concepts, etc. I try to avoid making up words wholesale unless its absolutely necessary, but even so my glossary list would be fairly long. Is this a problem?


----------



## Ireth (Nov 28, 2012)

I don't think it would be a problem, as long as the text makes it clear what each made-up word refers to. If a story introduces me to a hergyl (something I invented off the top of my head just now), but doesn't explain what that is or at least looks like, then I'll be confused. But if I get a description of people hunting one for its thick bearlike pelt or ivory tusks, that would be much better.


----------



## CupofJoe (Nov 28, 2012)

Ireth said:


> I don't think it would be a problem, as long as the text makes it clear what each made-up word refers to. If a story introduces me to a hergyl (something I invented off the top of my head just now), but doesn't explain what that is or at least looks like, then I'll be confused. But if I get a description of people hunting one for its thick bearlike pelt or ivory tusks, that would be much better.


I suppose the other half of this, is not using made-up words for things that are themselves mundane and well known just to make something seem fantastical... If we find out the a hergyl has ivory tusks, big ears and a long nose; and its huge and grey... oh, look its an elephant [sorry Ireth for co-opting you beast]. 
Personally I don't mind archaic or unusual words for mundane things such as "pachyderm".


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 28, 2012)

Limit < X, where X is the number of made up words where the reader is bored or confused 

In all honesty, my preference is for as few as possible, and I like to see them limited to things or concepts that don't have an adequate English word to identify them. Like Ireth says above, don't call a rabbit a smeerp.


----------



## Ireth (Nov 28, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Limit < X, where X is the number of made up words where the reader is bored or confused
> 
> In all honesty, my preference is for as few as possible, and I like to see them limited to things or concepts that don't have an adequate English word to identify them. Like Ireth says above, don't call a rabbit a smeerp.



CupofJoe said that, not me.  A hergyl =/= an elephant (or even a woolly mammoth), at least in my head. XD


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 28, 2012)

Ireth said:


> CupofJoe said that, not me.  A hergyl =/= an elephant (or even a woolly mammoth), at least in my head. XD



Oops...yes, you are correct. It's a good point


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 28, 2012)

I, too, have a low tolerance.

You're already probably using made up names for people, cities, regions, and kingdoms.  Add to that concepts and creatures and things, and it all becomes unintelligible and distracting pretty fast.

I'd disagree somewhat with Ireth, though.  As long as you don't have too many words or overuse the technique, I think it CAN be effective, if done correctly, to introduce a made up word with only the barest of contextual clues.  You then build the picture over time.  I'd prefer that to: The hergyl, a beast with tusks much like an elephant, lumbered through the forest.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Nov 28, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> As long as you don't have too many words or overuse the technique, I think it CAN be effective, if done correctly, to introduce a made up word with only the barest of contextual clues.  You then build the picture over time.  I'd prefer that to: The hergyl, a beast with tusks much like an elephant, lumbered through the forest.



I agree with this. I like a sprinkling of invented terms in a book, if only to remind me that I'm reading about a world that is 'other', in some sense. It's possible to do it carefully, so that the reader can work out more or less what the word means.

So: 'There were apples, peaches and glokken in a bowl on the table' is fairly self-explanatory.

But: 'Look out, there's a druikstrum coming!' tells you nothing. Should the character duck, climb a tree, reach for garlic or pray?


----------



## Ireth (Nov 28, 2012)

PaulineMRoss said:


> I agree with this. I like a sprinkling of invented terms in a book, if only to remind me that I'm reading about a world that is 'other', in some sense. It's possible to do it carefully, so that the reader can work out more or less what the word means.
> 
> So: 'There were apples, peaches and glokken in a bowl on the table' is fairly self-explanatory.
> 
> But: 'Look out, there's a druikstrum coming!' tells you nothing. Should the character duck, climb a tree, reach for garlic or pray?



Exactly this. I do much the same thing in my Faerie books, like this exchange:

Fiachra reached into the small leather pouch at his waist, hidden beneath his feathered cloak.  Withdrawing his hand, he held up a tiny bottle of clear glass filled with a dark blue liquid, the color of his own blood.  "A taste of this will subdue her quickly."

His father frowned.  "Is that juice of _fuilsocair_?"

"It is.  The berries were not fresh, but good enough."


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Nov 28, 2012)

I wouldn't use too many in the beginning of your story; it might overwhelm your reader. As the story progresses and your reader becomes more familiar then try adding more. If you use too many before the reader has a chance to become familiar with what they mean, then they might start mixing up words and become confused. I read a book once and within the first fifteen pages all of these made up terms were being thrown at me and I had no idea what I was reading and I put it back on the shelf. Shame though, it seemed like a nice story.


----------



## Zero Angel (Nov 28, 2012)

As a teacher of mathematics, which is its own language, I would warn that it is difficult for most readers to pick up new words--on the other hand, for a proficient reader, it is easy to understand context. You have to figure it out yourself. Even if you subscribe to the minimum amount of words theory, it's not a bad idea to have context when you bring back a word you haven't used in a while. Similarly when you are doing a sequel and "reminding" the reader about the events of the first. 

An example of what not to do in regards to the reminding is the anime show Inu-yasha. You really don't need flashbacks to events that happened earlier in the episode. I think the principles are the same. You need to find the balance between their understanding versus "trusting" them to understand. If unsure, err on the side of trust. 

As far as overloading, if you find that you feel the need to explain something frequently, then you should probably describe it differently or better or make it stick in their heads more the first time around (or whenever it becomes important).


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 29, 2012)

> Similarly when you are doing a sequel and "reminding" the reader about the events of the first.



I'm of two minds on this one.  When I'm reading a new book and it's been two years since reading the previous novel in the series, a little reminder is probably good.  When I'm rereading the series, I absolutely hate it.

I think I'm going to do a quick chapter at the beginning of my sequels entitled "What Has Gone Before" or something.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Nov 29, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think I'm going to do a quick chapter at the beginning of my sequels entitled "What Has Gone Before" or something.



YES! If only everyone would do this. If a reader needs reminding, the information is there, if they don't, they can dive straight in. The idea was good enough for Tolkien, after all.


----------



## Devor (Nov 29, 2012)

I'm of the same problem, Mindfire.  Not only do I have exotic names and made-up beasts and concepts which need similarly exotic names, but I'm writing in a setting where many of the real world concepts are going to be foreign to readers and have foreign names as well.  Do I use _broadsword_ and _scimitar_ or _jian_ and _dao?_  How about _Pachinko_ or _Pinball?_  For the most part, I've decided to avoid foreign words for every day items as much as possible, but something about these examples in particular makes me want to make exceptions.  Should I?

I've also been looking closer at the appropriate fashion styles lately, and I've been trying to figure out how much is too much.  I think _Kimono_ sounds familiar enough to many people, but then will people relate their wearers too much to Japan?  Would I also have to use words like _Deel_ and _Hanbok_ to describe other fashions?  I'm not particularly thrilled about describing clothes, and I keep thinking that some of these words would help readers to fill in the imagination - if I can figure out where to draw the line.  Which is, where?

I was intending to start a thread on this when I saw Mindfire's.


----------



## Mindfire (Nov 29, 2012)

I completely understand, Devor. I've just encountered another problem: tomahawks. Now, tomahawks are *awesome*. But I worry that if I depict my forest-dwelling Mako warriors as carrying "tomahawks", people will cry racism, stereotype, or culture theft. But I have this indelible image of the Mako in my head as tomahawk-carriers. (To make matters worse, they use bows and and have what could be crudely described as "nature magic".) It's a dilemma.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 29, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> But I worry that if I depict my forest-dwelling Mako warriors as carrying "tomahawks", people will cry racism, stereotype, or culture theft.



Why? Are you going to look at every single object that appears in your story, determine the cultural origin of it, and make sure you aren't using something of one culture with another culture? As for stereotype, tomahawks were used by both native Americans and by European settlers. The tool/weapon isn't a stereotype in and of itself. If the rest of the depiction of your character is a caricature, then it might add to it but barring that I think you're fine. Racist? How, exactly?


----------



## Mindfire (Nov 29, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Why? Are you going to look at every single object that appears in your story, determine the cultural origin of it, and make sure you aren't using something of one culture with another culture? As for stereotype, tomahawks were used by both native Americans and by European settlers. The tool/weapon isn't a stereotype in and of itself. If the rest of the depiction of your character is a caricature, then it might add to it but barring that I think you're fine. Racist? How, exactly?



Because they might think I'm perpetuating the stereotype of Native Americans being forest-dwelling warriors in tune with the natural world? Idk, I tend to err on the side of caution. Perhaps I'm just getting paranoid.


----------



## Devor (Nov 29, 2012)

"Tomahawk" would be enough, for some people, to connect your nation to the corresponding Native American groups, which encourages people to see any shortcomings or stereotypes seen in these people as applying to the real-life equivalents, which . . . is stupid, and not worth worrying about.  However, if you have knowledge that readers are actually offended by something you write, take a second look, because I think there's a good chance it's badly written.

And I say that from more perspectives than one - I've been told not to see certain movies or read certain books because of political or religious messages that I would hate, and half the time I don't even see them, let alone care about them.


----------



## Zero Angel (Nov 29, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm of two minds on this one.  When I'm reading a new book and it's been two years since reading the previous novel in the series, a little reminder is probably good.  When I'm rereading the series, I absolutely hate it.
> 
> I think I'm going to do a quick chapter at the beginning of my sequels entitled "What Has Gone Before" or something.



I definitely err on the side of not reminding. It was very frustrating to me though to get beta readers of Book 2 coming back with their first impression and saying, "Oh I had completely forgotten that guy was _that guy_. Maybe you should remind us of that?"

Another issue with the "what has come before" chapter though is what is important to include? If you only include things that are relevant to the new book, then they will be a GIGANTIC spoiler for people that read it in the sense that they can extrapolate why you included such and such minor detail. This happened to me while watching the television program Castle the other day. They only have a recap at the beginning of the episode when it is a "sequel episode" (whether it is the follow-up to the previous episode or the last season's or two years ago or whatever), and then they include information in it that are relevant to the new episode. 

Still, in principle, I very much like this idea. One of my favorite TV shows, Supernatural, started every episode with "The Road Thus Far" recap (which thankfully became able to be turned off in later seasons). (Aside: Is that show still on the air???)

One other strategy I use is my website. I have the WotA Wiki (which is sparse still) as well as my author website and a gigantic pile of information that anyone that wants can read through. I try to avoid spoilers though. 

Manga does the "story so far" bit regularly in their graphic novel versions, and they also include character profiles. How do people feel about that? ("that" being character profiles at the beginning of sequels or at the end of the story?).


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 29, 2012)

> Another issue with the "what has come before" chapter though is what is important to include?



I would include a two to three page summary of the entire book.  I can summarize a chapter in a sentence if I need to.  Really, you're stripping out all the characterization and emotion and relating just the facts.  That doesn't take a lot of space.


----------



## Zero Angel (Nov 29, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I would include a two to three page summary of the entire book.  I can summarize a chapter in a sentence if I need to.  Really, you're stripping out all the characterization and emotion and relating just the facts.  That doesn't take a lot of space.



How about once you get to Book 3 or Book 15? This is one of the nice things about having a glossary at the end though. You don't have to include stuff and if people don't remember they can just look in the back. In fact, I think I can sell myself on the idea of having a "road so far" synopsis as an appendix to future books. 

I'm steadily moving more towards the include-everything-and-the-kitchen-sink mentality when it comes to book extras. Timelines, maps, synopses, character profiles, drawings. Unfortunately that doesn't translate well to print unless you have an ultra-super-special edition version.

Going back to the OP, what do yins think about having new words as hyperlinks to the glossary during their first appearance? Or should this just be something you do on shelfari and hope people highlight enough to enable Xray on your book?


----------



## Christopher Wright (Nov 29, 2012)

OP: eleventy-pants times. Any more than that is just too much.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 30, 2012)

> How about once you get to Book 3 or Book 15?



Book 15 is a horse of a different color as my largest planned series at the moment is 4, but, for book 3, I'd just make the summaries shorter.  For the book 1 summary in book 2, I'd hit the highpoints of the journey to rescue Ashley.  In Book 3, I'd eliminate between breaking out of jail and the rescue.


----------



## Rullenzar (Nov 30, 2012)

If your words are described well and at a reasonable pace of new words being dished out there isn't really a limit in my opinion. One more thing to add would be make sure these words are used on a regular basis so the reader becomes more familiar with them. I found myself a little overwhelmed in LOTR when I first read it with all these random made up words being tossed at me, most of which only ever showed up once leaving it pointless. The only aspect it played to was making the world seem enormous and real but it came at the cost of my confusion. I'm sure I'm not the only one who experienced this.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Nov 30, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> How about once you get to Book 3 or Book 15?



If you get to book 15, your series is too long.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Nov 30, 2012)

Also, xkcd tackled this question a few years ago 

xkcd: Fiction Rule of Thumb


----------



## Mindfire (Nov 30, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Also, xkcd tackled this question a few years ago
> 
> xkcd: Fiction Rule of Thumb



They're a comedic website though, so I wouldn't take their advice seriously. Plus, Lord of the Rings, and all of Tolkien's other works, completely screw up that chart.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 30, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> They're a comedic website though, so I wouldn't take their advice seriously. Plus, Lord of the Rings, and all of Tolkien's other works, completely screw up that chart.



I think it is a good chart. It says "probability," after all, so that leaves open the possibility that some very good authors will do it well, while acknowledging that you're more likely than not to screw things up if you go down the path of a lot of made-up words


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 30, 2012)

I think the chart is pretty accurate for fantasy.  It doesn't even intersect the y axis, implying that the best book is going to have some made up words.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 30, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> If you get to book 15, your series is too long.



I would love to write a WoT/SoT length series, but I can't imagine ever doing it.  I'd get bored with the characters and world long before I finished it.


----------



## Ghost (Nov 30, 2012)

I think it depends on what's going on in the story and the context of the words. Based on the usage, readers will have a glimmer of the meaning even if the nuance isn't there. You can add as many as you like, but there's always potential to lose the reader along the way, especially in the beginning or when made-up words are concentrated in a short span.

I finally read _The Lies of Locke Lamora_ by Scott Lynch. The book confused me for a few chapters because of the unfamiliar words. Lynch didn't slow down the narrative to define new terms, and I understood the characters' actions as they moved about their city. Although I didn't have a good grasp on names and titles, but I knew what was happening. Without that, I would've been hopelessly lost. I became immersed in the world as the meanings became clearer. Because the characters and their actions intrigued me, I had a higher tolerance for the unusual names.

I haven't read _A Clockwork Orange_, but my understanding is that it's heavy on strange words and phrases. (And the Look Inside feature shows how much that's true, even in the first paragraph.) The foreignness is intentional, though. It's probably not a useful model, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

I think the key is for the slang, the names, and the idioms to be integral to how these characters view their worlds. Making it an essential part of the furniture, without adding emphasis, looks like one strategy for dealing with the problem. I think the made-up word limit is higher when the characters and the story itself are engaging, the context provides hints, and each term is used more than once.

Of course, authors also use _real_ words that aren't in my vocabulary.  It's only distracting to me when the author seems to be a thesaurus addict or if they use too much technical jargon.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Dec 3, 2012)

I actually don't know if LotR would qualify in the "too many made-up words" department, because what xkcd was railing against was using made-up words in place of perfectly-good real words. Most of the regular things in the world had the same names as things in our world. Except oliphaunts. 

Names like Aragorn, Sauron, Galadriel, AndÃºril, and Gandalf don't count. Most of the made-up names for things also have English equivalents. Sure, they're called the NazgÃ»l, but that's their name in the Black Speech of Mordor; their English name is "Ringwraith," which, while made up, is just a compound of two real words. The DÃºnedain are called Rangers; lembas is called waybread.

It also helps that all the terms in all the various languages are linguistically rigorous. The "mith" in mithril, Mithrandir (the Elves' name for Gandalf), and Mithrond (the Grey Havens) are all from the same Elvish root. I think Tolkien also did a good job in not introducing too many terms at once, and always explained them when they came up. One bad habit of some authors is to introduce a made-up word without explaining it, and without giving enough context for its meaning to be obvious. You can introduce all sorts of made-up crap as long as you take the time to explain it.


----------



## Zero Angel (Dec 3, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I actually don't know if LotR would qualify in the "too many made-up words" department, because what xkcd was railing against was using made-up words in place of perfectly-good real words. Most of the regular things in the world had the same names as things in our world. Except oliphaunts.
> 
> Names like Aragorn, Sauron, Galadriel, AndÃºril, and Gandalf don't count. Most of the made-up names for things also have English equivalents. Sure, they're called the NazgÃ»l, but that's their name in the Black Speech of Mordor; their English name is "Ringwraith," which, while made up, is just a compound of two real words. The DÃºnedain are called Rangers; lembas is called waybread.
> 
> It also helps that all the terms in all the various languages are linguistically rigorous. The "mith" in mithril, Mithrandir (the Elves' name for Gandalf), and Mithrond (the Grey Havens) are all from the same Elvish root. I think Tolkien also did a good job in not introducing too many terms at once, and always explained them when they came up. One bad habit of some authors is to introduce a made-up word without explaining it, and without giving enough context for its meaning to be obvious. You can introduce all sorts of made-up crap as long as you take the time to explain it.



To provide a counterexample though. LotR had wayyy too many names to remember--especially ones that were not relevant. And I never remembered the foreign names of objects the first time through either. In fact, without context of how things were being used I wouldn't have been able to make it through the book when I read it. 

Granted, I was tiny back then and it's possible I wouldn't even blink at a read-through today (even if for the first-time), but I somehow doubt it. I consider myself an ADHD reader and if something isn't relevant I skim it. If something is introduced early for apparently no point to come up later with a point (the inverse of Deus Ex Machina), I'm still usually taken aback as though it was actual Deus Ex Machina. Am I like most readers? Probably not, but I would err on the side of ADHD before erring on the side of competence.


----------



## michael.harrel (Dec 3, 2012)

One of my favorite uses of the Wall of Made-Up Words method is at the start of John C. Wright's "The Golden Age". It's a two page introduction to the setting which serves to completely disorient the new reader. Everything gets explained at a much easier pace in chapter one and following, but the initial introduction has incomprehensible jargon coming at you left and right.  It left me completely at a loss, and, perhaps surprisingly, eager to figure out what the heck he was talking about.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 3, 2012)

michael.harrel said:


> One of my favorite uses of the Wall of Made-Up Words method is at the start of John C. Wright's "The Golden Age". It's a two page introduction to the setting which serves to completely disorient the new reader. Everything gets explained at a much easier pace in chapter one and following, but the initial introduction has incomprehensible jargon coming at you left and right.  It left me completely at a loss, and, perhaps surprisingly, eager to figure out what the heck he was talking about.



It should be noted that not all readers will react the way you did, and such a technique is not to be relied upon, especially for new writers.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 3, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> It should be noted that not all readers will react the way you did, and such a technique is not to be relied upon, especially for new writers.



I'm pretty sure it was Wright's debut novel. Worth checking out.


----------



## michael.harrel (Dec 4, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> It should be noted that not all readers will react the way you did, and such a technique is not to be relied upon, especially for new writers.



Oh, certainly -- YMMV, in the reading or the writing.  However, I'm pretty sure the effect is deliberate in Wright's case, so it might be helpful for writers attempting the same, if it feels appropriate for the story.  Not a technique to rely on, but there is a place and time for it, of course.


----------



## SeverinR (Dec 6, 2012)

Tolkien's "made up" words seem to be endless, and people tolerated it well.


----------



## SeverinR (Dec 6, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> If you get to book 15, your series is too long.


I tend to agree with you, but
Conan has 50 books and many short stories.


----------



## Devor (Dec 6, 2012)

So, what do people think of using foreign words, like _jian_ for a type of broadsword or _deel_ for a type of tunic or robe, if they imply relatively minor distinctions that the English words don't?  Or should I start a new thread?


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Dec 7, 2012)

SeverinR said:


> I tend to agree with you, but
> Conan has 50 books and many short stories.



But they weren't really a contiguous series, were they? I gather that you could pick up any of those and be just fine. If you start reading _A Dance with Dragons_ you'll be completely lost as to all the characters' motivations (since they're based on the things that happened in the previous books).


----------



## Zero Angel (Dec 7, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> But they weren't really a contiguous series, were they? I gather that you could pick up any of those and be just fine. If you start reading _A Dance with Dragons_ you'll be completely lost as to all the characters' motivations (since they're based on the things that happened in the previous books).



What about things like the "main storyline" of Dragonlance novels? There's an entire saga there composed of 3-5 series. Does this count as one (too) long series in your estimation?

Similar with the Drizzt saga?


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 7, 2012)

I think what he means is 15 books to tell one story is too long. Imagine if LOTR had been 15 books. The plot would have moved like a glacier.


----------



## Graylorne (Dec 7, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> I think what he means is 15 books to tell one story is too long. Imagine if LOTR had been 15 books. The plot would have moved like a glacier.



Imagine the 45 films that would've made...

But yes, I think series like Jordan's and Goodkind's are too long. Not only for the reader, but certainly also for the author.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 9, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> I think what he means is 15 books to tell one story is too long. Imagine if LOTR had been 15 books. The plot would have moved like a glacier.



If you want a tightly focused plot, probably.  If you can make an audience care about your characters and want to keep reading about them, more power to you to keep that money flowing in as long as possible.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 9, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> If you want a tightly focused plot, probably.  If you can make an audience care about your characters and want to keep reading about them, more power to you to keep that money flowing in as long as possible.



Yeah, because fantasy writers should be encouraged to take even _longer_ to finish their books than they already do.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 9, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Yeah, because fantasy writers should be encouraged to take even _longer_ to finish their books than they already do.



I meant by extending the series to more and more books, not longer as in length of book or length of time to publish.


----------



## SeverinR (Dec 10, 2012)

A well written book will leave the reader saddened that the story is over, and the characters will not return.
But better to leave them wanting more then to have them feel the characters are over used. Much like a house guest leaving before they overstayed their welcome.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 10, 2012)

SeverinR said:


> A well written book will leave the reader saddened that the story is over, and the characters will not return.
> But better to leave them wanting more then to have them feel the characters are over used. Much like a house guest leaving before they overstayed their welcome.



Better in what sense?

From an economic standpoint, the author has a built in audience for those characters, an audience that may be less likely to buy a new book/series.


----------



## Zero Angel (Dec 10, 2012)

Ehh, I agree you always want to leave them wanting more, but my current plans for WotA (which is my main series) will consist of 3-5 quadrilogies. Even with that many books, I believe at the end fans will be left wanting more. 

I've written the last 100 pages or so of the entire thing, and that is the goal I am working towards. Should be done in 30 years or so...less if I can ever manage to make writing a full-time gig.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 10, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Better in what sense?
> 
> From an economic standpoint, the author has a built in audience for those characters, an audience that may be less likely to buy a new book/series.



That's not necessarily true. You're forgetting the "brand name effect". If people like something by an author, they're more likely to buy that author's other works regardless of whether the characters are the same. Plus, there's also a Third Option here: the Sequel Series, as popularized by kids cartoons. Surely the audience for your series will also be interested in another series set in the same world even if it doesn't focus on the same characters, or includes the old characters only in a background role. Examples of this would be Avatar: the Legend of Korra, and Rick Riordan's Heroes of Olympus, the sequel series to Percy Jackson.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 10, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> That's not necessarily true. You're forgetting the "brand effect". If people like something by an author, they're more likely to buy that author's other works regardless of whether the characters are the same. Plus, there's also a Third Option here: the Sequel Series, as popularized by kids cartoons. Surely the audience for your series will also be interested in another series set in the same world even if it doesn't focus on the same characters, or includes the old characters only in a background role. Examples of this would Avatar: the Legend of Korra, and Rick Riordan's Heroes of Olympus, the sequel series to Percy Jackson.



I haven't done any market research on this; I can only go by my own behavior.

I think it goes by tiers.  If I like an author a lot, I'll buy anything he writes.  If I like him okay, I'll buy whatever sounds interesting.  If the writing is a bit off but I got drawn into the series, I'm going to finish the series unless he totally screws the pooch, but I doubt I'll consider much else that he wrote.

It seems logical to me that it's economically advantageous to draw out a series that is doing well.  A) You have a built in audience that's already invested in the characters.  B) You are not necessarily going to attract a reader who read another one of your books.  Unless that reader loved you, he'll make his decision based on whether or not the current book sounds interesting.  C) Whenever someone buys the first book in the series, the possibility is high that they'll now buy all the books in the series.

I think that tie in series and sequel series are easier to market than a new world, but it still seems to me that the original series is the easiest until it goes completely to pot (see Goodkind, Terry).  Speaking of whom, I bought 13 books even though I stopped enjoying it that much after about 7 or 8 just because I liked the characters and wanted to know what happened.  To me, that seems like a pretty strong testament for the power of the series.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 10, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I haven't done any market research on this; I can only go by my own behavior.
> 
> I think it goes by tiers.  If I like an author a lot, I'll buy anything he writes.  If I like him okay, I'll buy whatever sounds interesting.  If the writing is a bit off but I got drawn into the series, I'm going to finish the series unless he totally screws the pooch, but I doubt I'll consider much else that he wrote.
> 
> ...



I see your point. But it seems to me that the longer you draw out the series, the more you run the risk of:
A. Jumping the Shark
B. Your audience feeling that the idea has gotten stale

Every new entry to an extended series is a gamble in that respect. It might be better to quit while you're ahead.  Of course, it also depends on what your series is like. If your series is itself a kind of story arc, like Lord of the Rings (3 books, 1 story), Avatar (3 seasons, one story), or Narnia (7 books one overall story... sort of), then tacking on more books to the end of that arc is more likely to feel tacky. Especially if the arc had a satisfying conclusion of its own. If your stories are more episodic and have little to do with each other however, then extending the series may feel more natural.


----------



## Zero Angel (Dec 10, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> It seems logical to me that it's economically advantageous to draw out a series that is doing well.  A) You have a built in audience that's already invested in the characters.  B) You are not necessarily going to attract a reader who read another one of your books.  Unless that reader loved you, he'll make his decision based on whether or not the current book sounds interesting.  C) Whenever someone buys the first book in the series, the possibility is high that they'll now buy all the books in the series.



And if your series is movie-likely, then you're not just talking about getting more sales, but millions of dollars of rights for each book. 

I object only to the use of the words "draw out". I think series should be as long as they need to be. If they need to be 987245789235 books long and you're able to do that then that is spectacular. If they need to be a single book long then that is how long they should be. Personally, drawn out things are anathema, but I have no aversion to lengthy works/series.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 10, 2012)

> A. Jumping the Shark
> B. Your audience feeling that the idea has gotten stale



Seems like it would come down to an calculation of risk vs. reward.  What is the chance of going too far, what would that cost you in future dollars, how would it impact sales of future projects, etc.



> I object only to the use of the words "draw out".



It's widely considered that Robert Jordan "drew out" WoT.  Did it pay off for him?  I don't know.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 10, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> It's widely considered that Robert Jordan "drew out" WoT.  Did it pay off for him?  I don't know.



Considering that his books live in infamy for their length and he died before the series could be completed, I'd say no.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Dec 10, 2012)

I'd like to think that I'd tell a story that needs telling and not milk popular characters just because I could. I'm not in that enviable position, alas, so I can only speculate.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 11, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I'd like to think that I'd tell a story that needs telling and not milk popular characters just because I could. I'm not in that enviable position, alas, so I can only speculate.



I'm not saying that it's a good think to milk your series.

I do think that, at some point though, economic considerations have to start becoming a priority if one wants to move from being a hobbyist to being a professional.  Right now, I make a good living at my day job, so I can write what I want.  If I were dependent on writing for my livelihood, however, I'd necessarily need to make decisions on what to write based on expected profit.


----------



## Zero Angel (Dec 11, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> It's widely considered that Robert Jordan "drew out" WoT.  Did it pay off for him?  I don't know.



Did he do that on purpose though? I assumed (especially since he knew he was dying) that he was doing his damnedest to finish the last decade or so of his writing. I think he drew it out only because he got in a rut and let his skill wither. I have nothing to base that on other than personal opinion of course.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 11, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> Did he do that on purpose though? I assumed (especially since he knew he was dying) that he was doing his damnedest to finish the last decade or so of his writing. I think he drew it out only because he got in a rut and let his skill wither. I have nothing to base that on other than personal opinion of course.



No idea.  Did he do it deliberately or did the success of the series go to his head?


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 11, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> No idea.  Did he do it deliberately or did the success of the series go to his head?



I got the impression that things just kept spiraling out of control. He had the basic idea for the story early on, and then as it progressed he went deeper and in more detail with respect to various plot elements, subplots, characters, and so on, to the point where he had a massive undertaking in hand.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 11, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I got the impression that things just kept spiraling out of control. He had the basic idea for the story early on, and then as it progressed he went deeper and in more detail with respect to various plot elements, subplots, characters, and so on, to the point where he had a massive undertaking in hand.



Note to self: trim the plot-hedges.


----------

