• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Writing a Series

SeverinR

Vala
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

Vala
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

Staff
Moderator
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.
 
Calm down guys. :p 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??
 
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

Auror
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

Staff
Moderator
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

Istar
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.

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.
 
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.

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

Myth Weaver
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.
 
Last edited:

TWErvin2

Auror
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.
 
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

Troubadour
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.
 
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.

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

Troubadour
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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?
 
C

Chessie

Guest
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

Troubadour
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.
 
Last edited:

Creed

Sage
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.
 
Top