posted
Meredith's recent post about George R. R. Martin's series got me thinking. I know that several readers do not start a multi-book series until all of the books are published. Some readers don't like these series because they never seem to end (e.g. a trilogy becomes six books).
Eventually I would like to write an epic fantasy series (i.e. a series longer than a trilogy). I would be interested to know the answers to some of these questions.
With regard to a multi-book series...
1) Do you buy and read these books as they are published or do you wait for the series to be complete first?
2) If you buy and read as the books are published...
a) What draws you into these series?
b) Why do you want to keep up with an ongoing series as they books are published?
3) If you wait for a series to be completed...
a) What is it about multi-book series that encourages you to wait?
b) What would encourage you to buy and read such a series as the books are published?
quote:1) Do you buy and read these books as they are published or do you wait for the series to be complete first?
As a rule, If I knew it was going to be a lengthy series (more than three books) I would probably wait for the series to be complete. Although, money being available, I might buy them as they came out and just wait to read them.
I don't really mind too much waiting for three books to come out and I sometimes do go ahead and start reading something that is labelled as the first of a trilogy (like Rothfuss' Chronicles of the King Killer).
quote:3) If you wait for a series to be completed...
a) What is it about multi-book series that encourages you to wait?
In the simplest terms, Robert Jordan and the Wheel of Time. I just don't ever want to find myself in the middle of an endless sea of characters and subplots where nothing ever gets resolved again. As far as I'm concerned, he ruined it for the rest of us.
I used to just get annoyed waiting for the next installment when a series was left totally up in the air at the end of each book (Eddings 1st and 2nd Belgariad, for example). But my tolerance has dropped to almost nothing after WoT.
quote:b) What would encourage you to buy and read such a series as the books are published?
Easy. Give each book some storyline or subplot of the main story that can be completed in that book.
[This message has been edited by Meredith (edited October 09, 2009).]
posted
I read the books as they come out. Of course, these are more series than epic fantasy that presumably has a finite story line. When a series already has a lot of books I often like to start with the first one and if I like it I'll read them in sequence from there. If I'm really not sure about it and the first one is hard to find, I'll just pick any one up and then start back at the beginning if I like it enough.
The thing that keeps me coming back to a series is undoubtedly the characters. I have to like them and care about them. Of course their interactions should be fun and interesting as well. Yes, there has to be a solid story and it needs to be well written but if I don't like the people I'm reading about I won't be back. However, if I do like them, I can't wait to see what scrapes they're going to get into next so I pick up the books as they come out. It's like visiting with a friend you haven't seen in awhile and you know it's going to be fun.
I've only read a little multi-book epic fantasy. One was a three book series that I wouldn't have minded if there were more. Another got so confusing that somewhere in the middle of the third book I didn't know who anyone was anymore, and I didn't really care so I gave up. I care more about the characters than the world so epics that focus on place are less interesting to me.
And I have to agree with Meredith. There can be an overall story arc that moves over all of them but each book should be able to stand alone as well.
[This message has been edited by genevive42 (edited October 09, 2009).]
posted
1. I don't wait for series to complete, although sometimes it happens I come across one that is already complete and I can go through them all at once. I prefer that, but it is not necessary.
2. Tell good stories and get a good cover design. The latter will sometimes entice me to pick something up that I otherwise might not. The former will keep me reading.
For a longer series, you could do worse than examining Martin's approach. He's got a couple of over-arching things going on that you know always know are not resolved yet. You can tell the individual books are part of a larger story, but they end at natural break points in the various subplots. You get a breather, but he doesn't lull you into thinking things are resolved only to have something out of the blue pop up for the next book. He's done some writing for television miniseries I believe, so he's got a fairly polished sense of how to craft a narrative of this magnitude.
Speaking of that I visited his site last night and he's 1100+ pages into Dance of Dragons, and HBO is close to starting up the filming of a pilot for a potential series.
quote:Give each book some storyline or subplot of the main story that can be completed in that book.
For clarification, by "completed in that book" do you mean the books can be read in any order or can it be a series such as The Wheel of Time as long as each book has a satisfactory end on its own?
posted
I've read a few epic fantasy series, though I'm not usually drawn to this kind of story.
1.I always buy them as they come out
2.a) This is a tough one for me. I'm not generally drawn to long series, but I guess I would say the first book has to be interesting. If the 5th one looks good but not the first I'll never bother to get there. (I tend not to read things out of order)
2.b)If the first book is good I will always buy the second one. I assume it will be just as much fun. If the first one is great and the second one is kind of bad I will usually still buy the third one, out of hope it will be like the first. If two in a row are bad I will abondon the series.
Another thing to think about: is your series one long story, epic in scope (like A Song of Fire and Ice) or is it a series of adventures with an over-arching plot(like Harry Potter)? Jim Butcher's Furies of Calderon is a good example of the latter.
quote:For clarification, by "completed in that book" do you mean the books can be read in any order or can it be a series such as The Wheel of Time as long as each book has a satisfactory end on its own?
I have no objection at all to a series that has a definite order, as long as I'm not waiting ten years to find out how everything comes out. I can wait that long for an overarching plot to be resolved, but give me something in between, too.
I do think, however, that you have to acknowledge the fact the not all readers will necessarily take them in the order you intend.
[This message has been edited by Meredith (edited October 09, 2009).]
quote:Another thing to think about: is your series one long story, epic in scope (like A Song of Fire and Ice) or is it a series of adventures with an over-arching plot(like Harry Potter)?
I think that I would like a balance between those. I do want each individual book in the series to have its own storyline and conclusion but not so much that the books could be read out of order (even though some readers may do this anyway).
Meredith wrote:
quote:I do think, however, that you have to acknowledge the fact the not all readers will necessarily take them in the order you intend.
That is certainly possible. I would hope, however, that the majority would read them in order. Otherwise the reader would not have all of the information the series had presented prior to the book they read.
This series is one I am a LONG way away from actually writing. However, I have started some of the world building for this series. I intend to work on this one for years before I attempt to write the novels.
Thank you for all of the feedback so far. This is very helpful.
posted
Just to throw a few more coppers into the stew.
I HATE it when the series begins to lengthen. WoT is a good example. I thought Terry Goodkind's knock-off wouldn't end, but he finally got the thing wrapped up.
George RR Martin's series just stopped. And that just killed me. I refuse to read the rest of The Song of Fire and Ice or whatever the series is called. Many people love the series but he should have wrapped it up and started another. As it is he's been too busy doing other stuff to finish.
I don't wait for the series to be finished, but I am very selective on which ones I'll start. I like it much better when the story is self-contained within a series, like the way J.K. Rowling handled Harry Potter... and she kept it down to seven volumes.
I also like to read the books in sequence. That's due to the fact that many of them, even if they're self-contained have the overall story arc that's been mentioned above. That also goes for series where the character develops like the Honor Harrington series.
There. Another data point.
[This message has been edited by Owasm (edited October 09, 2009).]
posted
I'm with the others about having some kind of resolution at the end of the novel, even if there is still an over-all story arc.
A current example: I read and greatly enjoyed Suzanne Collins' THE HUNGER GAMES. It was clearly part of a series, but I was okay with it because it has a resolution to the immediate story of the book.
Now I hear that the sequel, CATCHING FIRE, has a cliff-hanger ending. There is no way in the world that I am going to read that book until the next book comes out. I hate cliff-hanger endings when I know I'm going to have to wait months (at the very least) before I can read what happens next.
I'd rather wait until the next book is out and then read both of them, one after the other.
posted
Each of the Potter installments wrapped up the central complication of the story, but not the overarching one. There's a disruption in equilibrium in the openings of the stories, and a return to a new, not quite satisfying equilibrium state after an irrevocable transformation in each novel. Not until the seventh installment does Potter resolve the overarching central complication that remains unresolved at the end of each previous installment, and ends wtih a fully satisfying and final irrevocably complete transformation.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
I think the more I read, the less tolerance I have for cliff-hanger endings that don't solve the central problem of the novel. I understand all the loose ends can't be tied up at the end of each book, or you'd kill the series, but for my money each novel should have a definite subplot of the main series plot which I can follow beginning to end and provides me with a definite sense of resolution. I have a little bit of patience for book 2 in a trilogy, because for some reason those books always tend to be a little more cliff-hanger-y, but only if I know it's a trilogy and not a never-ending series.
Just on a random note, because no one seems to have mentioned it (or I missed it if they did) - for me reading and buying a novel aren't the same thing at all. My local public library and I are very good friends! I always read novels in hardback from my local library and then if I feel a strong attachment to the characters and like the author's writing style, they go on my list of authors who I collect when their paperbacks come out.
And for data point purposes - I read each book as it comes out, instead of waiting until the end. Call me a pessimist but life's too short for me to trust that I'll still be around when a series ends. I'd rather read half the series than miss out on the whole thing....
posted
Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover and Anne McCaffrey's Dragon Riders series novels, while standalone novels in their own rights, do a closely similar thing. No cliffhanger endings at all, but an overarching complication that's irrevocably transformed by the endings of the series. Each novel in their standalone status relationship to the series has a central complication that is irrevocably transformed by the novels' individual endings.
I'm not much of a data point, I'm an outlier. I read authors, series, collections, standalones, in whatever chance's happenstance strikes my fancy. If any story in any order of sequence doesn't transport me to a spellbound state, I'm done and out of there.
posted
They came to a full stop as far as I'm concerned when each of their storylines shifted from fantasy into science fiction. I'm not all that delighted with post Frank Herbert Dune either for different reasons.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
I don't read a lot of fantasy, in part because I've been burned several times by both the "excessive-sequels/multi-part" books problem as well as the "distasteful treatment of women" (sexual violence) problem.
As a reader, I tend to read author by author. I read books by the same author one after another.
Like a previous poster, I prefer these days to check the books out of the library. I simply couldn't afford to buy 2 books/week (which is my reading rate in a good week - I typically read YA and mid-grade fiction, under 100k words/book, typically takes me 3-4 days each to read...so I guess that means I read 25k/day...hmm, never sliced the data that way...)
Books that I love I seek out and collect. I actually prefer hardbound. I go out later and purchase series' that I love. I have a lovely boxed set of the Harry Potter books via a Scholastic deal from my children's school. I also shop used book stores, library resale, and garage sales for books. I collect them, I figure it's my contribution to reduce, reuse, recycle (yes, I recycle some of my own books, but not a lot.
I prefer a series to be complete before I start reading it, because I am somewhat insatiable when it comes to an author that I've grown to like. I will read as much by that author as I can get my hands on. I really like being able to read the whole series without pause. I've read the HP series in 15 days, the Twilight books in...a month, the Percy Jackson series in 13 days, the Uglies/Pretties/Specials/Extras series by Westerfeld in 14 days, etc. When I get obsessed, I get obsessed.
I will also read other works by the same author (I most recently did a Gail Carson Levine stint, still have 2 books by her in my "to read" pile.)
One major pet peeve about current fantasy today is that it seems that all books are published as part of a series. I'm fine with series books, but I think that it's worth the mental discipline for authors to be able to figure out how to tell a complete story in 100k words (instead of these 200 and 300k monstrosities!) I do not prefer being "in the middle of a book" for weeks and weeks. I personally like closure within a 7 day period. Closure is good, it's something as humans that we seek.
Series books that I like tend to provide closure at their conclusion while tantalizing the reader about something that will come later. One of the best parts of any series, in my opinion, is the bit at the end of book 4 when Dumbledore tells Harry, (roughly) "The time is coming when we will all have to choose between what is right, and what is easy." It sums up the conflict of the next book so clearly, yet at the time you read it and just think that it's an important and interesting point. Only upon a re-read do you realize the real depth of meaning that point carried for both the current book (that point was in the falling action portion, the ending of book 4) and for the next book as well.
My main suggestion to writers who are embarking on book efforts that they think will carry them multiple volumes: write an ending. Don't cheat and just write an ending that is actually a beginning for the next book and doesn't actually resolve the central story question posed at the beginning of the book. End it. Leave loose threads that you can pick back up again. Leave an overarching theme that you haven't fully addressed. Those are fine, but don't cheat and try not to end the book.
quote:They came to a full stop as far as I'm concerned when each of their storylines shifted from fantasy into science fiction.
Interesting, because I know MZB considered the Darkover series to be science fiction from day one, and I believe McCaffrey considered her Dragon Rider series the same way.
posted
What I think is interesting is that a mystery writer can have a series that is excruciatingly long (consider Sue Grafton's Kinsey Milhone books--I think the last one I think I read was T IS FOR TRESPASS, and that was a year and a half ago. I just checked, and the next book, U IS FOR UNDERTOW, will be out this December, and it's number 21).
I know I will have absolutely no problem picking up and reading U IS FOR UNDERTOW, even after all this time, but I couldn't say the same for any of the fantasy or science fiction series being published today.
Is there really that much difference in the kinds of stories being told?
posted
Their mystique appeal to me came from the fantasy motifs. Once those fantasy motifs were connected to fantastical but hard science fiction motifs, the mystique was gone. Mind, I still read in the series but a vital piece of the magic is gone, same with Dune. I could construe the Darkover and Dragon Rider series as soft science fiction because they're more sociologically fantastical in their motifs than science or technology motifs, but, again, their fantasy motifs appealed stronger to me.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing I liked about the Harry Potter books is that each story basically took place over the course of a school year, which gave a nice rhythm to the series, one that most of us are somewhat familiar with. As I envision myself someday writing a multi-book series, that characteristic is one I would like to incorporate somehow.
But as a reader my strongest preference is for approaches like Tolkein and GRR Martin, a blatantly massive story that is really only divided into multiple volumes for convenience.
My least favorite approach is series that are sequences of essentially independent stories that use a common set of characters.
In between is what seems the most common approach (especially when you get beyond the standard trilogy), similar to Rowling's, where you have a sequence of generally independent stories with common characters, but that are tied together by a conflict that doesn't resolve until the end, one that usually starts off in the background and works it's way to the fore as the series progresses. These can be good depending on how well the over-archinig conflict is handled.
posted
I don't mind a series in any form as long as the story is interesting, the characters are compelling, and there is not excess filler to drag the series out too long.
I will read the books as they are released if I discover the series when the first book is published.
If several books have already been published, I usually wait until the whole thing is out before I read them.
quote:One major pet peeve about current fantasy today is that it seems that all books are published as part of a series. I'm fine with series books, but I think that it's worth the mental discipline for authors to be able to figure out how to tell a complete story in 100k words (instead of these 200 and 300k monstrosities!) I do not prefer being "in the middle of a book" for weeks and weeks. I personally like closure within a 7 day period. Closure is good, it's something as humans that we seek.
This is one reason I like Brandon Sanderson. He specifically wanted to write stand alone novels in addition to series. His books are certainly longer than 100k though. This is the direction want to take as well.
When I first started writing I thought series because that seems to be so common. So, that's what I did at first. I had a difficult time thinking of stories that could be fully contained in a single novel. That is likely why I have such a hard time writing short stories.
Kitti wrote:
quote:Just on a random note, because no one seems to have mentioned it (or I missed it if they did) - for me reading and buying a novel aren't the same thing at all. My local public library and I are very good friends! I always read novels in hardback from my local library and then if I feel a strong attachment to the characters and like the author's writing style, they go on my list of authors who I collect when their paperbacks come out.
That is a good point. I had not thought of the library when I first wrote the questions. I've been doing that lately since I cannot afford to purchase as many books as I would like. In addition, some books lately just cannot maintain my interest. Recently I stopped reading a novel by a well known author because I just could not finish it. It has been a LONG time since I felt I could not finish a book due to the writing.
Another thing I do not like is finding a book that sounds interesting only to find that it is a later book in a series. I do not like reading books out of order. That's why I like Brandon Sanderson's idea of writing stand alone novels in addition to series so that when someone is interested and can only find a "book two" they have some stand alone novels to try in the meantime.
That's one reason why the project I just started is going to be a complete stand alone novel. However, I still catch myself thinking about what could happen after this story is told. I feel that I must resist that temptation with this particular story.
posted
Public libraries in the U.S. marketplace represent up to 30,000 copies in sales. Turnover in young adult titles has held a lead over adult titles for decades. I wouldn't mind having a marketplace presence in the library markets.
I'm not all that partial to either longer or shorter works. As long as what they do best they do well. Longer for long periods of private, intimate reading immersion experiences. Shorter for brief snapshots.
I read the Hardy Boys collection long after it was published. The passion didn't change throughout. I read the L. Frank Baum Oz series long after it was published and found it at first brilliant, then okay, but steadily declining in passion, Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality I read as it was published, but found it also steadily declined in passion. Julian May's Galactic Mileu I read in installments, the first trilogy after it was all published, the follow-on trilogies as they were published. I found the passion steadily increased. Dune went down hill. Potter more than kept up the passion until the seventh book, but I felt that Rowling was fading, aware of it, and trying mightily not to. She squeaked by on shear verve.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited October 12, 2009).]
posted
I am certainly a person who likes to read books in a series as they come out.
a) What draws you into these series?
In terms of the MICE quotient, everything. I think milieu and event are the strongest initial draws for me.
b) Why do you want to keep up with an ongoing series as they books are published?
Being excited to discover more about whatever I liked in the first place. In Harry Potter, the milieu was especially exciting to me. I remember being so enthralled with Harry Potter's world, I just couldn't wait to hear more about wizard culture. That's why it was so disappointing to me when Rowling would skip over descriptions of holidays. Once I've started a series, the characters (particularly the main character) can make or break the story for me. If I begin to lose respect for main character, the series better be really good to keep me reading. Thomas Covenant knocked me out of Lord Foul's Bane pretty quick when he raped that girl, but that's an extreme example. (I don't even know if I could call myself "into the series" after only a few chapters.)
In terms of buying books versus checking them out from the library, one of the only times I buy a book is if it is the next installment in a series and I don't want to wait on a wait list of fifty people before I get to read it. So maybe you want to take that into account for marketing purposes.
Also, about giving books in a series a solid ending: for me, one effect of finishing a book without a solid ending is that by the time the next book comes out, I've forgotten what the first one was about. Once I forget what the first book was about, I'm not excited to read the next book in the series anymore.
posted
To all you people out there who say you loathe seeing a series grow and grow, I have a question. If another Harry Potter book came out continuing the story (let's pretend she didn't include an epilogue) how many of you wouldn't buy it?
I'm guessing the answer is very few.
If I'm right, then I think that implies the real problem isn't that you're getting more content to read, but rather the quality of the content is declining. The world feels old. Or the characters have become boring. Or the plots are less creative. Something. Because, theoretically, if an author can keep her world fresh and characters exciting then hearing that you'll get access to more content should really be a cause to rejoice.
The real complaint it, I think, aimed at TV writer types who stop giving genuine content and just make grabs for easy cash, milking it till it's dead and then some.
quote:To all you people out there who say you loathe seeing a series grow and grow, I have a question. If another Harry Potter book came out continuing the story (let's pretend she didn't include an epilogue) how many of you wouldn't buy it?
While I personally don't think that the last of the series was even close to the best, I probably would buy another Harry Potter book.
I think you can lay some of the blame for the current antipathy for series on the "milking" phenomenon. Part of why I lost interest in WoT (around volume nine) was that it just didn't seem to be going anywhere. The sense of urgency of the first books was gone and the characters just seemed to be wandering around the landscape without accomplishing anything or trying very hard to accomplish anything. I found I didn't care what happened to them anymore, so I stopped reading. When I put it that way, it sounds like there was more book than there was story, for me.
But that's not all of it. Take into account the way publishing works. If the author sets to work on the next volume of a series immediately, it will probably take six months to a year to complete it, maybe more for the longer volumes. Then it will take a year to two years for the publisher to get it on the shelves. That's two to three years I have to wait for the next installment. For a trilogy, six to nine years before I get to the end. For longer series . . .
For myself, the world and the characters have to be really good to make me want to do that. And I'm more likely to be content waiting for the next book if I had some form of resolution in the last one, even if it's just a subplot that got resolved. Maybe it just makes me feel like the story is, in fact, going somewhere and likely to get there. I'm not sure about that, but it's a decent working hypothesis.
posted
Where are you getting your statistic that once an author completes a work it takes a publisher two years to put it on the shelves. I'm not disputing it, though it does strike me as overly long, I've just never heard that before.
Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard anywhere from one to two years. For example, Nathan Bransford broke the news a couple of weeks ago that he's got a book of his own coming out--in 2011. I suppose that could be as little as eighteen months, rather than two years. It doesn't change the computations much over only three books.
Where I did go wrong on my calculations above (shouldn't try to post that late, I guess) is that I multiplied by three instead of two. Presumably the first installment would already be out, if I'm waiting for the next release. So thats four to six years, not six to nine.
[This message has been edited by Meredith (edited October 12, 2009).]
posted
Novel publication does take on average up to two years from title acquisition. There's a lot of production work involved, design, planning, critical path, and best practices to get one through the pipeline.
It's not impossible, however, to bring a book through in just a few months. It can be done in POD in only a matter of hours, as long as a manuscript is amenable to being dropped into a publishing software and editorial quality control isn't an issue.
For insight on the business of publishing; Bookmaking by Marshall Lee. I have a first edition. It's in its third edition. R.R. Bowker used to be the publisher, but they were compelled to divest themselves of many of their titles when they were selected as the U.S. concessionaire for the ISBN system.
posted
Has anyone read Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen? I was not aware of that ongoing series until a few months ago. I almost decided to get the first book (around 680 pages) until I saw that book seven was 1,280 pages. Talking about being in the middle of a book for weeks on end. That's a self-contained trilogy for some authors.
If anyone here has read any of these books, are they any good?
I find it interesting that as these long series continue, the books seem to get longer and longer. I think Robert Jordan was fairly consistent but he does have a book or two that are significantly larger than the others.
Personally, I would like a series to be consistent in the book length as the series grows. Is this an issue for anyone else? Does it matter how long a book is as long as something in the story is resolved? Or do you prefer consistent book length as well?
quote:Personally, I would like a series to be consistent in the book length as the series grows. Is this an issue for anyone else? Does it matter how long a book is as long as something in the story is resolved? Or do you prefer consistent book length as well?
I've noticed the trend toward longer books late in the series, too.
I personally don't mind a long book. (1300 pages may be pushing it, though.) I don't think that there needs to be any standard length for a series. Different parts of the story--and different self-contained subplots--may take more or fewer pages to tell. I'd rather that the story be told right.
Personally, in the four-book series that (hopefully) starts with The Shaman's Curse, I'm trying to make each book stand on its own, although each is part of the larger plot. That's not as easy to do as it sounds. I'm also trying to make the middle two books a tad shorter than the first and last. I just think middle books are never the best of the series--they lack the novelty of the first and the urgency of the climax in the last. So, for my own, I'm trying to make the middle ones a little shorter.
BTW, Thank you, extrinsic, for the reference to hard data. I knew I'd heard it, but I couldn't have told you where.
[This message has been edited by Meredith (edited October 12, 2009).]
posted
Why this strikes me as odd is because for awhile there Rowling and the Twilight lady (Meyers?) seemed to be spitting out books at a much faster rate than one per two to three years. And if I'm not mistaken Speaker for the Dead came out a year after Ender's Game.
Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good planning all around, author, editor, designer, publisher, book manufacturer, promoter, distributor, bookseller. And the all-important buyer.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the lag between volumes can decrease when there are multiple books on a contract. You can read about authors having to meet deadlines (gee whiz, I'd be honored to write to a deadline!) for a book.
So the two year cycle doesn't have to be sequential but interleaved with the writer writing the next book before the first volume hits the shelves.
An author at a panel I attended, put out six YA books in a few years (all in the same series).
[This message has been edited by Owasm (edited October 12, 2009).]
posted
If you wait until your book comes out to start writing the next book, you are going to risk losing any readership between books.
I've always heard that writers should start writing the next thing (book, short story, whatever) as soon as the current thing is finished (not even waiting until it has gone out to critiquers or editors).
posted
I'm against anything where one book (or a book known to have been published in multiple volumes) requires the reader to buy another book to understand what's going on.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you wait until your book comes out to start writing the next book, you are going to risk losing any readership between books.
This actually depends. If you happen to be a published author, with an expectation that your work will sell and that the publisher will want all of the books in the series, this may be a good plan.
For an unpublished author, however, this is putting all your eggs in one basket. If the first of the series doesn't sell, you have a greatly decreased, if not non-existent, chance to sell the second or third. You might be better served by moving on to something new, that might sell, and coming back to the series later.
At least some agents in their blogs discourage unpublished writers from working on a series before the first book sells.
quote:I've always heard that writers should start writing the next thing (book, short story, whatever) as soon as the current thing is finished (not even waiting until it has gone out to critiquers or editors).
Well, yes. Writers write. But the next thing doesn't have to be the next book in the series.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
