The Cliffhanger

[Benjamin Clayborne]

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

Set theory, technically.

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.

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

Depends on the hook.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.