Writing Blog Number 2

20240205 Book Series (A Rant)

Book Series (A Rant)

This is my personal opinion, so this means nothing in the grand scheme of things except it is where I stand.

First, I have to say, I get annoyed with book series a lot of the time. By the time the next book has come out I’ve forgotten what happened in the last book, or if I read them all at once, especially a long series, I get bored and forget who people are. I have enjoyed two trilogies (Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien and West of Eden by Harry Harrison), and one series (Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy by Douglas Adams). That’s it. I couldn't finish Wheel Of Time or Game Of Thrones; too many characters, I needed a scorecard. I have a sextet of books (War of Powers) that falls apart in books 3, 4 and 5; that would have been a better trilogy. For me, give me a good stand-alone novel, where I can enter a world, lose myself for a week or so, and I'm happy.

(Aside: okay, look at that: do all trilogies and most series need the word "of" in their titles?)

Authors who write their books with the aim of it being a trilogy (or longer), especially beginner writers, I think miss the idea of what it means to write a story. And, especially these inexperienced authors, write the first book, leave it open-ended, and then the second never comes out. Just write a novel. Or novella. Or short story.

Now, I have written one trilogy, but I did not go into it as a trilogy. I wrote the first as a stand-alone novel (125,000 words), and thought I’d finished it. However, my beta reader said, "What about XYZ?" which is mentioned in passing at one point. That got me thinking and it led to a second book (119,000 words). The same reader then said, "You mentioned PQR happening in both books. How did it happen?" Bang – book 3 (109,000 words). To be honest, the final book feels forced to me (though my beta reader liked it more than number two). Apart from that one collection, all my stuff stands alone.

Okay, in short stories, I have a long series of over 100 stories with recurring characters, but apart from maybe a few short stories that are direct sequels to others, the idea is you can read any of them and not need to read any other. I also have a series which are narrated by the same character, and they come in an order of the character getting older, but they have been written (and 2 sold) as stand-alone as well as part of the longer, over-arching idea of a man telling tales before he dies.

Back to my novel trilogy. For me, going into it like I did, writing three stand-alone books that are related, written because of questions that were raised previously, means I feel I do not alienate an audience. If someone only reads book one, then they are not left hanging. if they read books one and 2, they are not left hanging. Also, by doing it that way, if they didn't get written, the reader would not have actually missed out on something promised.

Now, once you are an experienced writer, aiming for a trilogy (or longer) is fine. You will have your work and writing habits down, you will know your style, you will have an idea of how you write best, you will know how to develop plots and make characters interesting. But I do think that is something that comes with practice. To start your writing life aiming to be the next Tolkien (or George R.R. Martin or Robert Jordan) is a fine ultimate goal, but, to my mind, should not be the initial goal. Build up to the trilogy. Start with short stories, then the stand-alone novel, then a few more of each, then hit the big magnum opus. Build up to it, is what I am saying. I am not telling you not to aim for it, but take your time getting there.

In my opinion.