posted
I was reading the Uncle Orson Lessons and came across this, in terms of when to finish a novel, and what happens if you don't finish properly:
>The result is that even though the reader >knows this is only book two of five or one >of three, the reader still closes the book >saying, "Wow, that was great. I can't wait >for the next one." This is so much better >than when the reader closes the book >saying, "That was it? I have to wait for >the next book to find out anything?" Guess >which reader will be telling his friends >about your series, or lending it out, or >checking at Borders or Amazon or B&N to >find out when the next volume is due.
I've noticed a trend in fantasy lately, that authors are writing these gigantic books that never seem to end.
I like to pick on Jordan, becaue its so easy. He has now written 11 (or 12?) Wheel of Time books, encompassing over a hundred thousand pages. In has last few books, according to the reviewers at Amazon, very little happens.
I'm a big fan of George R R Martin, but I've noticed that even with his series, the 4th book is a little drifting, and I'm worried now about the 5th book.
Why do you think there is a shift over to this type of writing? The WOT books were great for the first 3, and the first 3 Martin books were stellar.
Is it possible that after 1000 pages or so, stories just get stale?
posted
I don't know that this is entirely a new trend. I never cared for any of the subsequent books in the Dune series, although I loved the first Dune book. I felt the same way about Clan of the Cave Bear, and Jean Auel's follow up books. I got to the point where I couldn't gag them down. I never made it past the halfway point of Mr. Jordan's second book in WOT.
My theory is the authors write a book, it exceeds their expectations, so the publishers throw money at them so they will continue to crank out more books. They are writers and they are trying to make a living. But the original spark doesn't always translate into subsequent volumes.
[This message has been edited by Elan (edited December 01, 2005).]
posted
I know what you're feeling Ronnie. It's the thinning out to a large novel that aggravates me not wanting to write any sequels to what stories I have already written. The authors would get paid big money for their books, and even greater money for sequels if the first few volumes suddenly sell incredibly well.
I often feel cheated if I read a awesome book which doesn't need a sequel, then I find out there is a sequel and it just is another adventure like in the first book.
One author that comes to mind is Matthew Reilly, an Australian author who I love to read. He has the one character in several books now, but it results are not the same all the time, but this character seems larger than life, like a superhero. I don't feel cheated when I read Reilly's books because I know they are a good read, full of excitement and thrills.
posted
I think it also has to do with the difficulty in creating new fantasy worlds. Think of the amount of time spent world-building. Once you have a world that works for you, you tend to use it.
Notice Eddings produced lots of books based in the same world. The good thing was that he knew and you knew when it would end and every book drove the plot along and was based on the main character(s).
It'll be interesting from a writer POV how Jordan does tie it all up. There are so many threads now it will be an incredible effort if he manages it in just one more book. I'm not holding my breath.
posted
I think there is also something further: the author spends a lot of time world-building, but many fantasy readers like to immerse themselves in new worlds. That requires an effort (and explains why some people will never move beyond the stage of D&D, which requires the bare minimum of imagination), and people may not be willing to make it a large number of times (like, say, with each book). We like the comfortable, the familiar, even in speculative fiction. Therefore, those readers are going to want more of the same. And the publishers will oblige, because they have a guarantee that it will sell well. "More of the same" is easily extended to the characters and to the plot. Not to say I approve of the whole thing (I lost my faith in Jordan after book 6, I think), but it is something you have to take into account.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I shop for a book, if its not stand-alone or part of a trilogy (Specifically limited to three books) I will not buy it.
Sorry, I want a full story with and end and closure. People who write series of more than 3 books should be drug out into the streets of whatever carribean island they spend ill-gotten money on and shot for dragging a story out unneccesarily.
Publishers like the series because they pretty much guarantee a return market. But please, if you must write nine books in a series, make it 3 trilogys that each end in closure and the sequel trilogys just use the same characters later in life.
posted
This is one of the advantages with having a series made up of trilogies. Mercedes Lackey comes to mind as having done this and I am sure there are others.
I can go either way. I have read some great series that went past three books and I have read some that it was tough to get past the second book or the first few pages.
Personally I am planning on writing a couple of stories, a trilogy, and/or a series, each in the same fantasy world. It will take a lot of time to get this project.
posted
It's not just fantasy either. A while back I started reading Kevin J. Anderson's Saga Of The Seven Suns epic. Before starting the books, I had no idea how many there would be in the series, but figured about three from the first book. Even though nothing resolved itself in the first book, I read two more. After the third book, and still nothing really resolved,and no glimmer at the end of the tunnel, I've given up on the series.
The worst part of these books is that there isn't even an inkling of effort to make each novel stand alone in any way at all. The story just keeps going, and going, and going...
It must be nice to be a well published author and sell ten books or more to tell a three book story.
posted
I really don't like the trend, myself. I prefer the old three or four books of about 400 words.
I tend to avoid a series if I know I'll be reading 10 or more books, each with 700+ words. (It would be great to write and publish such a story, though. If I could get away with it, I'd never let it end-- well, not really. I see the allure, and the publishers seem to support it.)
I remember hearing more than once about a decade ago that publishers often asked writers to break a single novel up into a series because they sold better and they made more money. I think this is just an extension of that. Readers are probably more likely to go back to familiar stories and settings than to invest in new ones.
posted
'People who write series of more than 3 books should be drug out into the streets of whatever carribean island they spend ill-gotten money on and shot'
I'm sure OSC would like to hear that. I think he's written six books in the Alvin series, and I've lost count with Ender.
[This message has been edited by Annabel Lee (edited December 01, 2005).]
posted
Yes But OSC's Alvin Maker series started as a trilogy and completed the story line at the end of the trilogy.
Stories beyond that had their own stories.
Stand alone books in a series are always fine. Its the writers where the story is told over x-teen books that deserve a hellish fate.
And, though I respect OSC as a talented writer, no one ever said that to participate on Hatrack that I had to be a fan. I'd participate on Jordan's forums too if I liked the people and the atmosphere and Jordan is the epitome of the authors of which I speak ill.
posted
L.E. Modesitt jr has a policy for his series. He never write more then three books with the same character. His Magic of Recluse is also about 11 or 12 books long but it has several MC. The series has been able to keep a very loyal fan base that is still chopping at the bit for the next instalment.
I think it all comes down to people like varity and want to see character growth. When you have the same character spread out over 12 books, how much growth is there?
posted
I have not read the whole thread so forgive any dupilcation. I was recently shocked when, for the first time in a long time, I looked at Joseph Campbell's The Hero's Journey Monomyth summary and realised that all my stories really DO approximate it. If I miss key elements the story seems not to work as well as if those elements are at least referenced. Now I wonder whether these huge series you mention ever really get to the point where the character's become master's ( as in competent people, skillful practitioners) of both the real world they left from and the unreal realm they have encountered, or whether the resolution comes too early and the story just winds on and on and on, long after it should have ended.
Edit: There is a lot of discussion about starting the story in the right spot but it seems more attention could be directed to how to end the story in the right spot.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited December 01, 2005).]
posted
There is a distinction between a series involving the same characters and story line and using the same world for multiple stories. I don't mind it when a book or series uses new characters in a familiar setting or world as long as its a good story and not some rehash of an older one. What does bother me is when the same story is spread out among several books and each book doesn't stand on its own in some way.
This is usually why I don't buy the first book in a series until the last book of it is out. Because of this, there are several books that I haven't read and probably never will. It's also one of the reasons I've never been interested in the never-ending Wheel of Time series that some readers believe to be a great series of books.
For me, a trilogy is about right, and even with many of those, I find the middle book to be lacking for plot and a stand alone story.
posted
I wouldn't agree with the three books limit in the case of Douglas Adams, either. Since Card isn't spending his royalties on a carribean island, I guess he thinks he's safe. But J.K. Rowling is an example of someone who has retired to a vacation sort of spot, if you consider Scotland to be such. Not that I wouldn't do something similar given the opportunity.
Posts: 366 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Over the last few years I have noticed that more short novels and chapbooks are being released, especially by small presses. In my opinion, the level of writing skill is often higher in these short books than in series. And if you think about it, though OSC does write series, his books aren't long and draw out-- they are tight, fast paced and powerful.
[This message has been edited by Kickle (edited December 01, 2005).]
posted
When it comes to OSC, I haven't read anything past the core Ender books... spinoffs don't really get me going, so I avoided the endless "...Shadow" books.
I realize that its mostly money, but I think that it's unfortunate.
I would hope that if my novel becomes crazy successful (unlikely ) that I will not cave into the $ and keep my true original vision.
As for Jordan, I think that he is just a money grabber now. Book 11 covered about 35 minutes of book time in 1100 pages. This is unforgivable IMO.
quote:As for Jordan, I think that he is just a money grabber now. Book 11 covered about 35 minutes of book time in 1100 pages. This is unforgivable IMO.
Amen to that. I sure wasted a lot of time reading his books.
posted
To be fair, the first three books of Jordan's Wheel of Time series do compose a legitimate trilogy. If you get to the end of the first book, it's a complete book in and of itself. Same for the second. And at the end of the third book the resolution basically encompasses the major dramatic tension binding all three books together, namely whether or not Rand is really the Dragon Reborn as well as just what the Dragon Reborn is.
Everything after that is just so more icing. Feel free to stop when you can't taste the cake anymore
There is a tendancy to expand the "and they lived happily ever after" for as long as it seems profitable to do so. I won't say that's a sin, not with all the other crap that goes on in this world. It makes many fans very happy, and it makes a few deserving authors quite wealthy (I'm not including Rowling in that catagory, though I'm sure she's deserving in some sense, just not as a writer...that also is not a sin, though).
posted
Not to disagree, but we writers may have a lot of praise for Rowling in twenty years when the Harry Potter kids start expanding their horizons into other authors. The Harry Potter series may be germinating the readers to tell the Romance writers that their turn is over. I hope.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not to disagree, but we writers may have a lot of praise for Rowling in twenty years when the Harry Potter kids start expanding their horizons into other authors. The Harry Potter series may be germinating the readers to tell the Romance writers that their turn is over. I hope.
I agree. Anything that gets kids reading is good for us as writers.
posted
I do think there is a slight difference with the Harry Potter series because Rowling has always said there would be 7 books. So no it's not a trilogy, but it will NOT just continue forever. Now if the next book comes out and it doesn't end, then I'll be upset.
For me, as long as I know there WILL INDEED be an ending at some point less than a bjillion books, or really just as long as all the books that are published are necesarry to the plot and not just ways to sqeeze fans of the series for everything we've got, I'm willing to read a series.
posted
The only problem with knowing it will be a 7 book series is how neat and tidy it all is the Lord Voldy-whatsit will last through HPs seven years at school. Predictability versus unpredictability in a billion dollar stroyline. Heh heh, a writer's dilemma I wish I had.
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I recently made the mistake of trying to actually read one of her books rather than just waiting for the infinitely better movies. If I can't continue reading a book...I'm the kind of person that reads electronics manuals cover to cover. It really isn't hard to keep my interest if you know anything at all about writing.
I'm sure that Rowling is a wonderful person, and if the movies are actually based on the books (which everyone seems to believe) she knows how to spin interesting stories. She's just not a very good writer, that's all. I'm glad that they're making the books into movies so that I don't have to read her prose.
Writing good prose...it's rather mysterious, isn't it? And it only matters to those few readers for whom reading is a natural experience. But those readers still do almost all of the reading for pleasure.
posted
JK Rowling has some amazing ideas, but I can only find myself reading each HP book once. I find too tedious to read through the entire things again just for the "clues" shes giving us towards the inevitable end of Voldemort being slain by Harry, which everyone disagrees won't happen, yet in cliche fashion it will.
quote:She creates good stories and each book is a complete story from start to finish. Her actual skill at writing, on the other hand...
So we writer who mainly write fantasy should just write a story forgetting about grammar, paragraphs and POV and just use our incredible imagination for the storyling? I really wish it was that easy...
posted
I was never able to read the Potter books. I listened to them all on audio while commuting to and from work. I suppose the mistakes are more forgiveable when they're performed. It was an entertaining listen, but it would have been a boring read for me.
Posts: 470 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'm just a very easy audience, when it comes to TV, movies, books,anything. I for one thoroughly enjoy Harry Potter books, but at the same time, I know they're more in the "secret little pleasures" category. Like some TV shows I watch that I know are cliched, predictable, but when it all comes down to it, I find it easy to look past those things and enjoy them anyway.
While a TRULY good book has both an enjoyable storyline and is told well, I guess I'm just the type who can still have fun with good stories, regardless of the way their told (unless it's REALLY bad.)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
) that I will not cave into the $ and keep my true original vision.
