I like a bit of a good fantasy yarn. There's soooo many titles that grab my eye and I would like to get around to reading, but the time commitment is so much of a pain.

Everything is either a trilogy or septology (made that one up, I mean a 7 book series) or something. It seems really difficult to find stand alone titles in this subject area, or Sci-Fi too? Anybody else find this?

But no, they are not as popular because publishers have seen the money that the loyal followers of a series cna rake in. Heck, how many people have continued to refuse to boycott Robert Jordon? I'll admit, it took me nine books but I absolutely refused to buy the tenth one and my husband stopped on ten and absolutely refuses to buy the eleventh. We're done. But many others aren't, and they hooked us for quite a while.

Why spend all that money marketing a new idea when you only have to market it for the first one and for the second the same people will come right on back?

It is frustrating. I, too, would love to read a stand-alone fantasy book, all contained and finished in 500 pages or so. I can't remember the last time I actually got to read the end of a story.

I like novels better than short stories because the short stories are over too quickly, I am just starting to care about the people and then it's over. The series take the opposite extreme...I'm caring about the characters, good plot, good writing...all right let's go but then I never ever get any closure.

http://www.allstarstories.com/epics-guidelines.html

It even contains a story by our very own MaryRobinette!

Though not perfect:
1. Sometimes too many characters introduced at once
2. Unnessacery minor characters [the writer seems more attached to the fate and twist of these without building in me a reason to care
3. Too much madeup langauge,
4. Bordering on a POV character withholding information
5. Obvious allegory in regards to the conflicts between Jewish, Christian, and Islamic faiths.
6. While religions are a big part of the plot, so far, I don't really get a sense of thier teachings, except where it touches on allegory. It's not like Dune, where there was a real sense of religion.
7. Lots of coincidences, though perhaps a guiding hand is behind them all.

Despite this, I find I like it. However now that I am nearing its end, I like the main characters, and I want another.

Of course, I really like getting into a good series...

I've mellowed a little on that approach since - but not much. I certainly refuse to write any novel that doesn't actually have anything resembling an ending (side note - I gave up on the Wheel Of Time after two ror three books - it had already become clear that his intention was to write for as long as it sold, not to actually finish the story; I'm even somewhat suspicious of George R R Martin's current saga, though his prose is better). It's simply cheating the reader. You invest time and effort in 600-odd pages, and what happens? Ultimately, nothing is resolved.

Part of the problem is that people think "Lord of the Rings" was a trilogy, and that that's how fantasy has to be written. LotR was never a trilogy; it was one story, written in six "books", but physically published in thre volumes because, quite simply, the binding couldn't be done any other way. It is not a trilogy, which is a series of three linked but standalone novels.

I've got arcs of three books planned, of five books planned, and more, but the idea is that there is a plot within each book that is resolved, as well as the over-arching character arc that extends through all the books. Take "The Accidental Witch" as an example; there is a sequel, and there are certainly "dangling threads" at the end of it (find me a novel that hasn't - I'm reminded of Margaret Atwood, who when asked why the main characters always died in her stories, replied "because the story's only over when everyone's dead"), but the idea is that you can stop reading it, feel a sense that a story has been told, and not feel cheated that you're really only half way through.

Moreover, I don't understand why more fantasy stories can't just be told in one book. Why does it have to be a trilogy? Why does it have to be so long?

I don't really want examples. I don't want to hear about your world and how great it is and your characters and how believable they are and how complex everything is and...It doesn't matter to me. I accept that there is room for a few such stories. (BTW, I have less hope for George R.R. Martin than I did for Jordan at the same point in his series.)

No, my question is where are the stand-alones? Where are the cozies? The books you can curl up by the fireplace and read in one night if they're good enough that you don't want to put them down and at the end you're done and don't need book 2 but what a great, satisfying story?

If you actually read the Wheel of Time trilogy, it does tie the local conflicts up at the end of each book, with a major resolution at the end of the thrid book. It's only if you become a perpetual fan and read much beyond that point that Jordon gives up on having actual endings and so forth.

I liked Elantris quite well, though it stretches out the resolution phase a bit because of the number of conflicts that have been introduced. I never noticed that there were too many characters, though there are places where POV is assigned to a relatively minor character rather than any of the three main POV characters. I saw the madeup language as being basically essential to the core idea of the book, the Aons and their uses. It may be used more than strictly necessary, though. I wouldn't say that there was an obvious parallel to the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic faiths...unless I want to be really bigoted and suggest that the most brutal and warlike religion necessarily corresponded to one of the above. I was more minded of the early conflicts between various schools of Confucian thought, actually. I did get a solid sense of the teachings of Dereth, at least, and a thematic idea of the teachings of the other religions. But ultimately, the religions themselves are secondary players, the central conflict is racial rather than religious.

As for coincidences, I thought there weren't enough. It almost drove me crazy how unlucky all the main characters were all the time. Though in the end there does seem to be a "guiding hand".

Also, we're people. There is a temptation, after having gone to so much effrot to create characters and a whole milieu for them, to "save time" and set more stories in the same milieu than go through the whole thing all over again. I plotted out a standalone book a year back, but I've already got ideas for the surviving characters to continue in other works. It can just "happen".

I hope you get yours sold. I like to think I can do the same, should I ever finish anything.

I take your point about "the best-laid plans" - but even if Robert Jordan did plan a trilogy (which I would have to be sceptical about), he didn't really plan a "true" trilogy, of books that could stand alone. I'm adamant that I will NEVER write a work that basically just gets cut into chunks at an arbitrary, publishable point, and drags on interminably. That's the difference that I believe in, and I hope and believe that I can maintain it.

As a side note, do you think Jordan had got any of book two written before he'd completed book one? Or book eight before he'd completed book five? If you write in linear style, it may be easy to get lost on your way to your original intended finale; but I tennd to write the core, key scenes of my books first, the interactions, the moments of change, the climactic events. Then it's "merely" (hah!) a matter of starting to fill in the narrative between, and weave everything into a correctly paced structure. That way, it's a lot less likely to expand out of control. As far as I can tell, this seems to be a fairly unusual way of working.

Why is it a trilogy? Because I spent too long on it. When I was 11, it was two pages long. At fifteen, I wrote my first (albeit short) complete novel. I kept rewriting it and rewriting it. The characters grew with me, the mom went from being the bad guy to being a good guy with a complete backstory that I wanted to write.

Finally, after college, I took it up again but the story had grown out of control. The mom's backstory became a stand-alone novel that leads into the rest.

Could it have stood alone? Oh yes. Can it still? Probably, but as you say I've now spent 17 years on the idea (well over half my life) and one book just won't cut it for me anymore.

I also won't have it be my first sale. The big reason it's on the back burner is because I've decided to make one of my other ideas my first novel sale...to get all the screw the newbie stuff over with on the novels that I spent one year of my life on as opposed to 17.

One thing I'm quite ok with is many novels set in the same world ... each a stand-alone adventure.

Now, dang it, you're going to make me look up where I read that Robert Jordan planned a trilogy. I swear he did. The first complete novel was meant to be part 1 of 3, and it actually does read that way, IMHO. I'm pretty sure by book 2 the idea was out the window, though.

Interesting points. Since I know next to nothing about Confucian thoughts, I assumed that Dereth was similar to Isalmic (Submission to God), where Korathi seemed more like Christian thought (God is Love), and is it Kereg that sprang them both was like Judaism (Unity, God is One). In particular Korathi seemed like Catholism.

But personally I didn't get the indepth feel of thier beliefs that you did. To me, they didn't feel like real religions, like Zensunni did in Dune.

<I never noticed that there were too many characters>

I guess what I meant by this is that, when Sarene meets her uncle and his family, thier were to many unnessacary characters, all those kids, that did nothing to advance the plot. Besides her Uncle Kinn, only his stepson Lukel stands out. Otherwise, I could not come to care which kid was who.

And when Sarene meets with Raoden's inner circle, I felt overwelmed. Only later did I get a sense of who was who, when they were introduced one at a time.

The Aon's were a cool concept. But I was at first distracted with Raoden's friend's langauge, having to stop simple words as friend and understand.

But as I said, I like it too. Raoden is a model hero and leader, infusing hope against overwealming odds. And the reader is infused with the desire to see Raoden and Sarene come together, and it's not done too soon.

Am I the only one here who is STILL reading Wheel of Time? The writings not as good as it used to be, but I'm hooked on the characters and plot and want SOO bad to find out what happens to them.

One prime example of a story that grew out of control: Crown of Stars by Kate Elliott. Originally a Trilogy it is now a definite series of seven. In this case, however, the writing has never slacked, Kate has instead succeeded in building an ever more tense plot as it goes on. I'm waiting for the 6th book right now. She has all seven written, but the 6th book is currently going through whatever pre-publishing stuff things go through and the 7th is still being edited.

My understanding is that this series is based on the seven years of the tribulation. Originally it was supposed to be seven books long -- one book for each year of the tribulation. From what I've been able to find, the series is now up to book 12 with several spin-offs including a series for young readers and a graphic novel, etc., etc.

Why the switch from 7 books to 12? From what I've heard (and this is complete hearsay) after book three or four, because of the popularity of the series, the publishers and/or the authors decided that they could string it out a lot longer and get more bucks for their bang.

quote:

---

Am I the only one here who is STILL reading Wheel of Time? The writings not as good as it used to be, but I'm hooked on the characters and plot and want SOO bad to find out what happens to them.

---

*raises hand reluctantly* I'm still reading it, but probably for the last time until it is finished. I found the tenth book at a used bookstore and have been re-reading the series to get caught up. But it really annoys me that Jordan is taking time to write three prequels when he hasn't even finished the series. If/when he ever finishes it, I might read the final books, possibly the prequels. But I'm not going to read anymore (not even from the library) until the stupid thing is finished.

Luckily, I bought each book from the used bookstore, so I haven't sunk too much money into it. I'd probably be a lot angrier if I had bought them new.

After Book 9 (in which something happened) I was hopeful that the series was going to pick up the pace. After reading Book 10, I've decided I'm going to wait until the series is finished before buying any more. Yes, I want to see what happens to the characters, but the aggravation of reading a huge book in which nothing is resolved can only be tolerated if the next book is available.

Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series, on the other hand, I can read even though it's not complete, because each book has its own complete plot within the frame of the series uberplot.

I have started to listen to the series from the beginning on audio book. The new unabridged versions read by Michael Kramer and Kate Reading are excellent. It feels like a whole new world the way they add personality to the characters.

quote:

---

A perfect example of having more than one story in a given world is the Shannara series by Terry Brooks. The first book could stand alone, and in fact it's the only one I'll read

---

As a writer, though, I understand the reasons behind the series that transcend mere laziness--you've contributed so much to a world and characters, it's hard to let go. And sometimes, you don't have to. Other times, though, you should just say bye.

Finally, if you like a good stand-alone, read Robin Mckinley. She reimagines several fairytales with new and lively plots, spins, and twists. I heartily recommend her "Deerskin."

This article is written by hers truly, Kate Elliott, probably as a personal angst against her own series.

quote:

---

Am I the only one here who is STILL reading Wheel of Time?

---

When I first heard that I thought it was a load of horse manure. Now that I've had my first novel collecting dust for the last ten years, I can almost understand it, or at least what it means.

My novel is the longest piece I have ever written and I have so much of myself invested in it, I want it to succeed so badly, while at the same time it's my baby and I don't want it to get rejected.

Since being at Hatrack, I've realized that it would take a major re-write to even get it close to par for publication, so I probably won't move forward on it. It will continue to be my baby and will never face the cold shoulder of rejection. But I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath-water, I have a perfectly good milieu and I've already used it for a couple of short stories.

Rand Al'thor's central character dilemma throughout those first three books was the question of whether or not he was really the Dragon Reborn. Also, at the end of that book the original party is reassembled, each with their distinctive abilities/powers contributed to the climax that has been highlighted for the entire series to that point, the conquest of the Stone of Tear and the revelation of the People of the Dragon.

There are questions explicitly asked at the end of that book, of course. But the main question has been answered, Rand is fated to be the Dragon Reborn, he is the true Dragon. With that question answered and the People of the Dragon revealed, there really isn't any thing left.

Jordon isn't going to finish the series at some point in the future for the simple reason that it is already finished. Which is why he regards writing prequels and so forth as being entirely legit activities, if you're still reading those books, it's because you like the miliue, not because you are still trying to find out what happens in the end (we already know what happens in the end, now that we know Rand is the Dragon Reborn).

That said, I have nothing against the Wheel of Time books, I like the miliue and Jordan is a pretty darn good writer. But they are intended for hardcore fans, with all the attendent markers such as wildly obscure references to events in other books and a bazillion characters engaged in countless minor but oh-so-vital schemes.

I can see how some might view the series as a milieu story, and so would not mind the side-tracked jaunts through space and time. I'm not one of them, though. The milieu was interesting at first, but all too soon Jordan started transplanting cultures from our world into his, with no explanation why a given practice would arise in that culture. For example the description of Cairhienin food is basically a stir-fry. But the stir-fry was developed as a way of cooking food with a minimum of fuel. There is no indication that the Cairhienin would have had reason to develop that method of cooking. It just feels like Jordan tossed a bunch of interesting cultural details into a hat, then pulled them out and put them together randomly.

For a story to work as a milieu story (for me anyhow), the milieu must be carefully thought out and reasoned through. Jordan has a lot of detail, but not all of it works together, IMO.

I was going to make a joke here, by pointing out that Shakespeare wrote several plays in the Henry series, but it's actually true.

Richard II; Henry IV, part 1; Henry IV, part 2; and Henry V are a tetrology.

Henry VI, part 1; Henry VI, part 2; Henry VI, part 3; and Richard III are another tetrology, and there's evidence that part 1 was actually a prequel written after parts 2 and 3.

I actually think that even Shakespeare knew series could run their course, regardless of how popular they can be. Although the main figures through his history plays are the Henrys, I think it is interesting that they each feature a Richard as well.

He wrote the series with "Richard III" (1590?-1593) first, then the series with "Richard II"(Richard II: 1595, Henry IV 1&2: 1597, Henry V: 1598). Then there is the lonely history play King John (1596). Richard (the Lion-heart) was John's older brother. I don't know and I've never read anything about it, but I have a sneaky suspicion that if there had been a demand for it, there would have been a "Richard I" tetrology or at least series.

As it is, he never came back to it. Shakespeare wrote the "Richard II", then "King John", and then came back to the "Richard II" series and never did anything else with Richard I.

Can you imagine if Shakespeare had written about Richard I, Prince John and possibly Robin Hood? Maybe I'm the only one...