fantasy: book vs. series? - Writers Forum

Rambling Sage · 12-03-2007, 09:58 PM

in general, would you say you prefer reading a fantasy series or single book? Which do you think end up being better written as far as plot, character development, etc?

WriterDude · 12-04-2007, 06:34 AM

Depends what you mean with series. If you mean a continuing series like Wheel Of Time, I thought it was too long and boring to read. (I stopped about halfway through book 1). If you mean a series of stand-alone books that takes place in a fantasy world (like Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Warhammer etc), I love it if the world is "realistic" (as in everyone are just regular people living their regular lives just like in real life) and has a great history. It's supposed to be an old world, after all. Just because you invented it yesterday, it doesn't mean it was first populated yesterday.

Just please, no more trilogies. I'd rather have a single, long book.

slayerofangels · 12-04-2007, 06:38 AM

Depends. Some trilogies are well put together, with rich histories and well developed characters. But just as many seem to just drag on.

Overall, its hard to choose, as the Warhammer books are generally part of a series, yet those are very, very good.

VigorousMastication · 12-04-2007, 06:45 AM

I've unofficially boycotted trilogies and series for some time now. If you can say what you want to say in a single book, don't stretch it out to three. Too many fantasy authors try to write a trilogy, not because they have to, but because Tolkien did it.

JohnN · 12-04-2007, 07:38 AM

I agree with writer dude. Standalone books! That make up a series can work. But a to be continued would piss me off.

Erik Buchanan · 12-04-2007, 08:14 AM

I prefer standalone books myself, especially since I do a lot of my shopping in second hand bookstores and can never find a complete trilogy, dammit.

Now, since I'm writing the sequel to my first book, Small Magics (now available to be ordered from bookstores or purchased online at Amazon.com), I should make it perfectly clear that sequels are some of the finest literature ever written, and anyone who doesn't by the sequel to Small Magics will be missing out on one of the finest reading experiences of their life.

Of course, that's just an author desperately promoting his work, so only pay enough attention to make you buy the book, then move on

.

The key for me is likability. If I like the characters enough in the first book, I'll read on. If they bore me, I'm really not going to care if there's a second or third or whatever.

And as a note, publishers love trilogies and series, because people tend to go back to reading things they know. If the first book sells, it's far easier for the publisher to sell the second book, then to market something new. Annoying, but there you go.

WriterDude · 12-04-2007, 09:00 AM

If you can say it in one book, by all means do so. If you can't, can you say it in a longer book? And best of all, can you write it if it's that long? Sure you love your book when you start writing it, but it's easy to loose interest along the way. Even a trilogy should be worked on as a single book in three parts, after all. Besides, what would happen if you wrote the first two books in a trilogy and lost interest? The publisher would force you to write a conclusion you don't want to write, so the entire trilogy would suffer greatly for your lack of interest, which again just upsets the fans of your book and disappoints them too. This again means they probably won't buy your next book.

Having it as a stand-alone series on the other hand lets you focus on one book at a time, and even if you get bored of the characters, you can just create new ones and write a different story in the same world.

DavidGil · 12-04-2007, 09:01 AM

The problem is with beginning writers plotting trilogies I think. There's nothing inherently wrong with writing a series in my view.

Mike C · 12-04-2007, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidGil

The problem is with beginning writers plotting trilogies I think. There's nothing inherently wrong with writing a series in my view.

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.

alanmt · 12-04-2007, 12:43 PM

I like a series; if I like the first book, and its characters and world.

With one caveat.

Each book in a series should be stand-alone. A story in its own right, with beginning, middle, and end, and capable of being read enjoyably even if its the only book of the series you pick up. If the story in it is part of a bigger story, that's okay. But no cliffhangers. No lack of resolution of the book's crisis.

I read a book because I want a story.

Not a 500 page chapter.

WriterDude · 12-04-2007, 01:01 PM

Take a look at Harry Potter. Did she really need to write it over seven books? Personally, I think a trilogy would have been much better. There really wasn't much of importance going on in book two to six that justify spreading it over five books other than it would sell more copies and make more money. And for that exact reason, I seriously doubt we have seen the last of that universe. Harry, perhaps, but there will be more. Maybe a spin-off evolving around his parents when they were young, or a Voldemort novel, perhaps. I just seriously hope we won't see a Lord Of The Rings 2...

playstation60 · 12-04-2007, 01:22 PM

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something, but a series of books is typically a story broken over the course of (x) books, right? Which I take to mean that while to be considered a book it has to have all the classic elements, beginning, middle, end, but a good SERIES will make the reader want to read the next book. If everything is wrapped up, all loose ends tightened, why pick up the next one?

Writerdude, I think it's time you go and reread HP, because there's plenty that goes on in books 2-6 that needs to be said and you cannot just sum the entire Harry Potter story up in 3 books.

Ilasir Maroa · 12-04-2007, 08:14 PM

A series is indeed a story told in "x" number of books, but a really good one can have a smaller ending that wraps up each book enough to make the reader feel like they've gotten somewhere. If it ends in a cliff-hanger just so you can have another book, it can be very annoying. Personally, I love series and stand-alone books. I like to read a series so that I can enjoy more time with good characters. I like a stand-alone because it feels more compact. The problem with a stand-alone is that it could end to early for me...

VaguelyAmusing · 12-04-2007, 08:29 PM

Well, as long as something is well-written and whatnot, I'll read anything. But series make more money, and people on tighter budgets may be more inclined to buy large volumes. But more loose ends need to be picked up at the end of individual books, whereas in a large book, you can go on longer and longer and not need to worry about those loose ends. There are hundreds of points that could be made on this particular
subject.

I'm personally more inclined to get a large book and read it cover-to-cover without interruptions. Then I don't have to worry about how much money I'll spend, or about losing one.

lordofhats · 12-04-2007, 09:31 PM

I like standalones. My problem with them is that when I really get into it and it ends I'm sad to know I'll never see the characters or the world again. In a way that does sort of make the story all the better.

I like series' but as with any good series it will eventually become boring (I'd Say Orson Scott Card should have stopped at Ender's Game... yeah)

I love trilogies because its a great number for a series. If well written it is great and by the end of the third book I feel satisfied enough with the story that I can move on.