Then, when I wrote the second book, The Ignored Prophecy, I wasn't happy with it. It was too . . . middle. It didn't have a satisfying conclusion. I thought that I had written it with the wrong POV character and that I would have to change POV between the first and second books, and then back again. That didn't make me happy. And I really didn't like the second character as a main character. So I decided to put the two books together.

Now, coming back to it after writing the first draft of the novella which grabbed me by the scruff of the neck and forced me to write it, I'm rethinking it again. This time changing the focus of the Ignored Prophecy to a different prophecy (there are three) and keeping the same POV throughout. That would cause me to build up a third character as the antagonist—but she’s perfect for the part, any way.

I thought of just powering through to the end of the whole story and then deciding. But I’m finding that I’m getting an itch to go back and change what was book two and see how it works. And there are some things that would be different in the third book if it’s a trilogy.

Can you alternate? Let scratching the itch be a reward for powering through for a certain amount of time or pages?

I think switching off is a good thing, and to follow that itch. If that's where your energy wants to go, I think it's good to go for it while you feel inspired. The rest of your work will be there when you're ready for it, and it might even change based on what you do in the other parts.

On a more general note, I'm pretty indecisive about many many htings, and I think it really holds me back. In some of my stories I feel like there are so many possibilities I don't know which one to choose, so I end up choosing none of them, and the story languishes on my virtual shelf for ever. If I just picked one I could just go with it and see what happens, but I'm paralyzed by the fear that I need to pick the "right" one, even though consciously I'm pretty sure no "right" one really exists.

The narrative arch, not arc, arch, is one such tool. It's good for estimating what information a reader needs that a writer should provide and for estimating what is too much information, because readers bring their own experiences and interpretations to a story. What do I know about a story that readers need to know that's not making it onto the page, the narrative arch helps answers that question. What does make it onto the page that means nothing to readers, the narrative arch helps answer that question, too.

The narrative arch is a graphical representation of the unspoken conversation between a writer and readers. It's an arch, the writer on one leg, readers on the other. What a writer provides and what readers bring to a story ideally meets at the apex in most stories. Some arches are tall, others short, depending on the theme and premises of a story. Universal concepts have shorter arches, say, life, death, romance, riches. More complex or less universal concepts have higher arches.

When examining a dramatic unit, a scene, for example, I ask, what's the purpose of this scene. An opening scene's purpose is to create reader sympathy with the protagonist and the protagonist's predicament and to pose a question that the story will artfully answer, how will the protagonist address the predicament in a way that means something to readers. The information that readers need are what's the predicament and how and why does it matter to the protagonist as the vehicle readers will follow in the story. In one of my older stories, I didn't answer those questions. It didn't make it onto the page. I knew it, but didn't portray it.

Another failing, in the same story, and others, was the lack of the protagonist single-mindedly addressing the predicament. More often than not, the lack of portraying the predicament was the problem, I didn't clearly know the predicament, which handicapped the story to the point of no clear purpose for the protagonist. Digressions resulted. Again, necessary information didn't make it onto the page.

In my more recent stories, the lack has been an unstated reversal of fortune. Implied perhaps, but not portrayed, too easily open to interpretation, confusing or unintended outcomes arise.

In a nutshell, I sympathize. My advice write what you are most passionate about...unless you have a deadline from a publisher.

Now might be a good time to querry for an agent for your first novel if you haven't already.

The worst thing you could possibly do is not write. Because even if you write the wrong story, you're still getting experience.

However, if you sit at a stand still, thinking about what might be the best, you may end up sitting there for years.

Furthermore, if you find you write the wrong story... So what? That doesn't mean that all other versions of the story are automatically deleted from your brain. You can go back and redo things.

I know it sucks to decide you have to completely do it over... But look at the positive side to it. You were writing! Gaining experience and furthering yourself as a writer, is never a bad thing.

And alternatively... Maybe you're itching to write a side story, and don't know it. Perhaps a take on events in the story, from someone else's viewpoint.