fantasy: book vs. series? - Page 2 - Writers Forum

Rambling Sage · 12-04-2007, 09:47 PM

dont you guys think that trilogies, in a general sense, have reached a very predictable, structured plot progression/cycle?
i like series of stand alone books because they tell many different stories in one world.

wouldn't it be better to tell a story in one book, unless it would be exceptionally long, because then, like VaguelyAmusing said, the story wouldn't be interrupted and the plot, underlying themes, and overall message would flow smoother and have a larger impact on the reader. Because dont you think something is lost when you have a break in reading a story because you need to obtain the next book or, for that matter, wait for it to come out?

and please, let's not start the whole harry potter debate, there are other threads for that.

Talia_Brie · 12-04-2007, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

Nothing inherently wrong, but with an eye to publication I'd suggest one writes a stand-alone book that has the potential to become a series. A publisher will love a series if the first one's successful, but they don't know until it hits the bookstores.

I agree with this. I don't mind reading a trilogy, or a longer series. I've stuck with the Wheel of Time all the way through (and now stupid Robert Jordan's going to die before he finishes it. Grrrr).

But I still think it's easier to sell a single book. You can build it into a series if it's good enough, and popular enough.

The other option, of course, is to write the whole series, then try to sell the entire thing. But I can't imagine a lot of publishers would be willing to take that risk at the moment either.

lordofhats · 12-05-2007, 12:03 AM

A popular thing in video game trilogies recently has been to have the first game be capabel of standing alone. That way if the game bombs there is no commitment to a trilogy and the players who actually bought the game won't be cheated. Some games have broken with this (Assassin's Creed most recently). Typically these stand alone entries feel complete but are left with some loose ends (Halo, God of War, Heaven Sword, Mass Effect, KoToR). That way the games can always be returned to later.

I think its a good idea. If people become interested enough with the first entry than finish up the trilogy or series. If they arn't you've got a title capable of surviving on its own.

WriterDude · 12-05-2007, 04:31 AM

As for Harry Potter, I read the first five and got bored. If you skip all the endless talking, the stupid classes, the whining, quidditch and whatever and leave only the interest part that has something to do with the plot itself, three books should be more than enough. If Lord Of The Rings could (and even that was a bit too long), why can't Harry Potter?

And as for loose ends, I kinda like them if they are not too obviously included just to justify a sequel. Horror movies in particullar is a big issue. Here you go fighting the monster all the way through the whole movie, finally kill it and... nope, here we go again. Except we won't, as the end credits starts. Video games have thankfully been spared of this (haven't played Assassin's Creed yet, and now I'm not sure I will), but I would feel ripped off with an ending like that. I finally beat the game, killed the last boss and in the end I haven't really done anything as the boss just returns? *sigh*

And btw I tried to wach Titanic a few days ago on TV. I watched it seven times in the movie theatre and a few times on dvd and absolute love it. The problem is the tv-version had seven commercial breaks, most in really stupid places like during a dramatic scene when the ship was about to sink. It screwed up everything and ruined the movie. A book is in many ways like that. If I like it, I want to read it from start to finish in one go, or at least decide for myself when I should take a break. I read the Dhamon Grimwulf trilogy from Dragonlance, but had to wait an entire year before I got the third book. That almost ruined everything. I got really into the story, loved the characters and wanted to finish it all, but nope. Third book unavaliable.

Tsaeb XIII · 12-05-2007, 05:43 AM

Some stories are better off for being split into more than one book. For example, Matthew Reilly's Seven Ancient Wonders felt rushed, as though it was two books crammed into one. However, it was compressed, rather than having an incredibly large book which was really two stories published as one. It's sequel, The Six Sacred Stones, on the other hand, has been split into two seperate books, It has a cliff-hanger ending, but the story was no made no less enjoyable by this, and another sequel, currently in writing (one would hope), is a direct continuation. Even though these aspects have been stated in this thread as generally negative, in almost all regards, The Six Sacred Stones is far superior to Seven Ancient Wonders.

Personally, I'm happy to read a series, as long as the characters are enjoyable. Trilogies are fine, just as long as they somehow justify the use of three books, rather than two or one.

Ilasir Maroa · 12-06-2007, 12:09 AM

Trilogies... The type of series that every lazy-bum fantasy writer does because Tolkien did it. Trilogies are often wonderful, when written by a talented author. It's the ones written by the bad writers that you have to watch out for. The only decent reason for a trilogy is thematics. Not "because trilogies are what fantasy is written in."

Kane · 12-13-2007, 03:50 AM

Steven Erikson dove right in as a beginning writer with a ten book series. He's on book seven so far, and I've enjoyed reading them all. All the books are obviously set in the same world, with many familiar characters, but each book is a standalone book with a beginning and end. As with anything else in the book writing field, I think it all depends on the writer's skill(in all areas of the story-telling). If you have to ask, you may not be ready to be a professional writer. I say this with all respect. Only that I think a professional writer should know what he wants to do, and why he wants to do it, and is able to accomplish it, whether it be one book or twenty.

Rambling Sage · 12-13-2007, 06:01 PM

o do not worry i am not looking to be a professional writer, just merely curious