posted
I'm not done with my first novel. Not by a long shot. I haven't even finished the first draft, and that doesn't include filling in the bare-bone scenes, figuring out how to get from E to Z (I pretty much have A to D down pat), or properly connecting disjointed and disarranged events.
So why an I already thinking of and plotting the sequal? There wasn't even supposed to be a sequal. Out of Tadara* was supposed to be a standalone novel, yet here I am, plotting the lives of my characters ten years after the end of OoT.
Does this happen to anyone else? Is this the beginning of the dreaded Robert Jordan Disease, or as it's also known, Goodkind's Disease?
CVG
*--Tentative title. Thoughts?
[This message has been edited by cvgurau (edited May 01, 2006).]
posted
I wouldn't worry too much about doing a Jordan as long as your stories have a clear plot for each one. Personally I don't think that Jordan's problem is the 11 novels- it is that nothing happens in half of them. I like to know what happens to my characters in the future and that those that survive continue to have adventures.
Posts: 303 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing wrong with it. It means that you're characters are alive in your mind, and that's a good thing. A sequel that follows the later adventures of the heroes of a good story is always welcome (even if occasionaly disappointments happen). As long as the first book is a complete narrative in itself, you're fine.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's all good. You should always leave your audience wanting more, right? I mean...in a good way. And if a publisher likes it and wants you to stay in that world then you've got a starting place. Publishers tend to like series. Also, it's good to have this world all nice and fleshed out in your head for when an editor asks you to do a revision. And then another revision.
Regardless, write down your thoughts anyway. They may be fertile ground for something else, somewhere further down the line.
Oh -- and do yourself a favor and don't marry yourself to a title. Chances are, it'll just end up getting changed anyway. I speak from experience. Don't let it break your heart.
posted
All I have is a plot and the first page (and a bad one at that)plus a few scenes to a story and I already have a sequel or two planned out in my head. First book: MC accepting their changeling state. Second bood: start of what I would tentatively call the changeling War. Third book: predictable end of changeling war. BTW, the only series longer than four books worth the reading is... never mind, I can't think of one. Good kind lost me after his fourth book. Same with Jordan.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should always leave your audience and yourself wanting more. I seem to have come up with several interconnected story lines with at least one major viewpoint character per, and don't see how I'm to write one of these novels without giving away part of what happens in another--*sigh*.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, if the ideas are flowing, let them flow! Take the inspiration as it comes.
I did enjoy the million books in the trilogy Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but perhaps that isn't "fantasy" per se. And, I wouldn't recommend reading them all in a row.
You know, I was in the fantasy section of the bookstore the other day, and I picked up something that looked interesting only to find it was the 4th book of a series. I put it back, thinking, "Nah, that's too much work." After repeating the process several times, I moved on. Anyone else put off by too many books in a series? Perhaps I'm a bit jaded at the moment, because the last two series books I read were cliffhangers, and, quite frankly, I appreciate at least a pseudo ending.
posted
wryd1 -- The Prydainian Cycle by Lloyd Alexander. Five books I've often read in one sitting. And I have to admit Harry Potter's still got me hooked...
Posts: 280 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My latest idea-interesting-enough-to-write-down has a beginning scene, and an end scene---but no middle, no way to decently hook the two together properly. Ah, well. When I'm a bit more rested (my vacation started yesterday and I can sleep during the night again), I'll write down the beginning and end and toss the result into my files. And then move on.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would not work on a sequel if I were you.. unless you weren't planning on selling these novels. Most novelists suggest that once you finish a novel, you go on to something completely unrelated, since you don't know how well the original will or won't sell.
At least that's the advice I've heard. While Orson Scott Card and Micheal A Stackpole and Timothy Zahn and Robert Jordan can get away with doing that, authors who are not sold will find it much tougher to get "in."
That said, I plan on doing my books for just podiobook consumption and through lulu or whatever. If you're not planning on going traditional, ignore what I just said
quote:You know, I was in the fantasy section of the bookstore the other day, and I picked up something that looked interesting only to find it was the 4th book of a series. I put it back, thinking, "Nah, that's too much work." After repeating the process several times, I moved on. Anyone else put off by too many books in a series? Perhaps I'm a bit jaded at the moment, because the last two series books I read were cliffhangers, and, quite frankly, I appreciate at least a pseudo ending.
I do this all the time. If a book I find interesting enough to pick up in a bookstore or library is part 2 or 3 or more of a series, I put it back unless I can find Part 1.
And I hate major-plot cliffhangers at the end of books.
posted
There needs to be a distinction here between a "series" with numbered volumes and a series that is not numbered and does not have to be read (or published) in any particular order.
It seems that you are suggesting something more like the latter. That is, your sequel will be complete in itself but revolve around characters from an earlier work.
This is completely different from a single story that has to be told across twelve volumes.
posted
I've read a few advice books and articles that warn against the dangers of perpetual outlining. (I think Stephen King mentioned it in On Writing.) I know that I sometimes find myself enjoying the free flowing and brainstorming outline process more than the actual nuts and bolts and hard work of writing down a scene. The critique goes something like this: if what you're writing can't hold your interest, and you already want to work on the sequel, maybe your main work and/or idea isn't good enough to maintain your interst (or that of a future reader).
That said, it's hard not to write down new ideas that excite you. I think the key to finishing anything is to not get too distracted by the new ideas and to stay focused on your current work as best as you can.
[This message has been edited by Mig (edited May 02, 2006).]
posted
I know that the first real novel I had the idea of working on started out as one book.
Then it there was enough that I realized it might need to be split into two books.
Three books makes more sense than two books, and the story of the father is exciting and detailed enough in my mind that that would be the first book, and the son would be the second and then the other side of the coin as the third.
Quite a long time later I realized that the problem was the MC's father was trying to steal the spotlight. He was demanding his story told. I am debating writing his story (and shelving it) or just taking him out behind the the building and shooting him.
Overbearing pushy characters try to derail a writer, but we hold their life in our hands....
The point is: Yes it has happened to me but it was a story trying to run away with itself. I jot down the key points but I focus on the story I started out writing. The finishing line is more important that the "what may be" of the future.
posted
Isn't it also possible a person may have what seems like one book in their mind but when written out proves so lengthy they have to break it into several, although that involves finding "leaving off" and "starting up" places in the narrative?
Posts: 283 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't remember who it was, but an author once told me in some critique/workshop, that if I'm already thinking the material I have is too much for one book and I'm not even halfway through the book.. the book is doomed. His opinion was to finish the draft, and then set it aside. Come back to it later with a big knife and take out the verbosity.
I wish I can remember who said that to me. His opinion was that if you are requiring two, three, or four books to tell a story that you originally planned to tell in one, your readers will just hang it up and not buy the/go for the second book.
I personally think that if you're not even done with the first book and you're already thinking about what happens in the sequel, your mind is not where it needs to be.
posted
I think I'm going to reiterate my previous point.
Taking several books to tell one story is completely different from telling a story about characters who could fill several books.
I don't think that the former situation has anything to do with what cvgurau described. And that's my answer to his question. He asked if noticing that his characters continued to live interesting lives outside of the bounds of the story he was writing meant that his story was doomed to meander interminably through a series of poorly structured books. I think that it's very good that he's able to clearly see that the interesting things that happen to his characters ten years before or after this book are not part of this story.
A story has a beginning and an end, independent of the entire life history of the characters. True, sometimes a story covers a character's life from beginning to end, but this is coincidental. And truthfully, it is very rare.
Your characters should be allowed to have a life outside of the current story. It's necessary to their verisimilitude. And it's necessary to the proper structuring of the story. recognizing an interesting part of the character's past or future isn't part of your current story is critical. All writers should do it whenever they deal with a really interseting character.
posted
James Fenimore Cooper told the life of a character in several books which people have read for nearly 200 years, so he did okay.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see nothing wrong with it either. Just as long as each novel is a self contained story. It may be part of a greater whole, but ultimately it must have some degree of closure or fans will starts to drop away like Jordan fans.
Serializing (which is actually a word according Mr. Webster) a novel is how many, or most, of the big name author's make their money. OSC makes most of his money off the Ender franchise (I hate using that word, but it's the word that fits the bill). Cussler has Dirk Pitt, Jordan The Wheel of Time, Martin the Song of Ice and Fire, Brooks has Shannara, Evonovich has Stephanie Plumm ... and the list goes endlessly on.
So honestly, if you ever want to write for a living, serializing your most popular storyline/characters gives you the best shot at pulling it off.
posted
I could (in fact, I do) accept a long single novel published in multiple volumes. "The Lord of the Rings" is one big novel usually published in three volumes. Piers Anthony did one called "Tarot." I think Proust's "Remembrance of Things Past" is another (I haven't read it and can't be sure).
Writing a series of novels, now, with a continuing background and cast of characters, well, normally it's a workable commercial concept, trying to nail down reader loyalty over the course of the series. But a few things come to mind about the care and feeding of such a series: I really think the writer should make sure each novel stands on its own, that there might be room for a sequel but no absolute need for one, that the reader doesn't have to have read what came before to understand what's going on in front of his eyes, that if there's plans for a big payoff at the end of the series there should still be payoff in reading only one, and that when the end is reached the writer shouldn't keep milking the cash cow for endless sequels. (Boy that's one long sentence.)
posted
The main fear I have in writing "Trilogy" works is with regards to outside sales in traditional media. If you're writing a book series and you're a new author, you run the risk of your first book getting poor sales, and the publisher not picking up the option. Now you're stuck with extra books you've written that often times contractually, you can't sell. That means all that time on those extra novels are wasted.
Yes, I know that the original poster might not mean that.. but I've seen so many authors in crit groups I'm in talk about second and third and more stories when they haven't even sold the first. You may like what you write, but that doesn't mean that everyone will. Why, as quite a few authors have put it (I think King mentions it in On Writing, and I know Sol Stein mentions it a few places), put all your eggs in one basket? If the basket falls, you lose everything.
I know and understand that well established authors who make their livings at just writing can get away with sequels and series and the like. Card, Stackpole, and of course Jordan come to mind. But many of us here haven't sold many shorts, much less a novel, and most of the popular writers that are named in these series started out selling shorts, then got picked up for a novel. It's only well after they were established that they started writing series. If I recall correctly, Card's first book was non-fiction, and his second was a collection of short stories.
Just be careful and make certain that your story is self contained and complete. I'd hate for someone to work so hard on something else and end up not having anywhere for that effort to go.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
