Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion

So as we all know, book series are no strangers to the literary world. There are countless great books that are or have been made into series. However I am under the assumption that the author had the intention ahead of time to write more then one book and make a series out of it. I've had about a dozen people read my book and two have asked me if I planned on writing a sequel..honestly I hadn't ever really given it a thought but when two people ask you, well it its your mind wondering. It brings me to my question, have readers wondering if their could be a sequel or wanting a sequel to your books ever make you consider writing one? Even if you never intended for the book to continue?

I've actually done something in this vein. When I finished my debut novel, there was a character that all of my beta readers loved so much they insisted that I expand on him in some way. So I did. I wrote a supplementary 20 page origin story for him. A couple beta readers even told me to write an entire novel dedicated to that one character. I will not be doing that. Long story short, the character is dead, and I have no interest in reviving him or writing any prequel stuff. I would recommend that you should only write that sequel if it is something YOU want to do. Otherwise it will just end up being a half hearted piece of work that will be a chore for you to slog through. Writing should first and foremost be enjoyable and natural for you, the author, or the resulting work will most likely suffer.

Well, I've actually considered it and put the idea for a sequel to my most recent book on the blackboard. There was never an intention before-hand, but as I was going through editing, thoughts started popping into my head about how I could do something along the lines of "The further adventures of ...."

Certainly, series tend to be where the money is at, as people latch on to a character and suddenly want to follow them around. In my mind though, unless you planned out a series from the beginning, there are two questions to be asked.

1. Did you create an in-depth world enough to support a series?

2. Will a series suffer from the "Jack Bauer effect"? Basically, this means, will a series do more harm than good?

For the uninitiated, Jack Bauer was the main character in the series 24. The premise of the show was every episode was an hour long, and over the course of a season (24 episodes) we followed Jack Bauer as he had to avert disaster. I liked the first season. But then the show went on for seven more and all I could do, was ask "How many bad days can one guy have?". So, I coined the phrase "Jack Bauer effect", which speaks to the idea that dragging a character into a series that was never planned can actually break the suspension of disbelief required to enjoy the series.

I'm on the third of my Trust Casefiles series - But it's more to do with a specific field unit with a rotating group of characters - None of them being permanent and have a high mortality rate)

I too had the "will there be a sequel?" question for my first two books that were not related and different genres. For the first a spy thriller I have now succumbed and started writing one, my biggest problem was getting a political context for the back drop of the story.

For my second book about a genetic virus with no zombies or aliens it's about surviving. I have no problem with scope or possibilities and I almost split the book in two as it's 150,000 words anyway! I have not started one and I could do side stories, other POV's as well as taking the story forward in time from the ending.

My third book - no chance and I wouldn't want to

One of my current projects is looking like a series and I am setting it up that way as a sci-fi space opera. I have even set up a blog for the setting and back story. There will be a virtually limitless scope for story-telling, if I want to tell the stories. Mind you as I write I may decide to finish it because I'm fed up with the characters. Another alternative is to write short pieces and these might be added to the blog rather than published as books in their own right.

Boy, all I ever heard in writing groups is write a series...a lot of readers expect/want one. Also, easier to market, good for visibility if the readers know there's more to come. I introduced two characters in my first book The Elf Lord's Revenge so I would be able to write two more books!

I originally planned my work as one book, (with only the thought that two brothers go to see a dark brotherhood, then it evolved from there) but the story became so epic that one book turned into five (really 16 planned). This incorporates 3 sequels and two prequels in this vein.

But the most important thing to come out of it is that there are two characters, a dwarf and a female archmage who both deserve their own series.

So, indirectly from what started as one book has spawned many, and two new characters will get their own individual series. My god, I’ll be 80 before I finish writing haha.

Harrison

Hah. I wish I could write standalone books. Everything I have in mind always seems to naturally turn into series-material by the time I've planned 5-6 chapters and introduced more than just two characters.

I'd say that a book deserves to be turned into a series if the author has more to tell about his/her world and characters. Any other reason (publisher/readers pressure, wanting to milk the cow for more cash...) tends to make up for poorer books--at least from what I've experienced so far. (Usually, I find it easy enough to tell: I can "feel" when the author's running on empty, filling in pages just because someone demanded that a next volume be written. Writers who manage to actually make such books interesting get a heartfelt kudos from me.)

I have written a standalone book, a young adult thriller...but even that may lend itself to a sequel.

I can't seem to get away from sequels.

Harrison

On the other hand, if your world-building and characters do give you plenty of material to write a series... Well, then, isn't it a good sign that you've developed them the right way? *ponders*

Yzabel wrote: "On the other hand, if your world-building and characters do give you plenty of material to write a series... Well, then, isn't it a good sign that you've developed them the right way? *ponders*"

Absolutely.

Shaun wrote: "So, I coined the phrase "Jack Bauer effect", which speaks to the idea that dragging a character into a series that was never planned can actually break the suspension of disbelief required to enjoy the series...."

That's why I haven't pursued series yet. The situations in both my published novels are such that the story is definitively over and the surviving characters aren't going to be interested in any more adventures -- they'll probably run the other way when that "call to adventure" comes again.

I might reuse the world in my latest novel ( South ), but it would be for another standalone, much in the way William Gibson set new stories in The Sprawl without making explicit sequels.

I tend to plan series before hand. Sometimes a story can't be told in just one book. The most recent project I've worked on actually turned into a potential series. I pantsed the project, so it was a little different than normal.

It all depends on the local. One local with endless possibilities is San Francisco. In 1848 when gold was discovered on the American river, there were 250 people at the island, Yerba Buena. A year later, there were approximately 50,000 arrivals from absolutely everywhere: the US, Canada, South America, Europe, Australia, the Middle East and Asia. Only a very few, mostly from Oregon, traveled less than a thousand miles. Most came from thousands of miles away and for them it was a grand adventure. Many returned home empty handed with nothing to show for the trip but great stories. Others made their homes in San Francisco. There was a great fire a year until the City became one of stone and steel. That was 1857, eight years later, and for a century, when anyone on the Pacific Coast said they were going to "the City", they meant San Francisco.

As I said, good series depend on interesting locals.

I guess I always thought of series. The main reason is I found each story idea taking on a life of its own. I had filled several notebooks of stories longhand in my early days. When I began to write again I thought of doing one book but at the end of the story I had written almost 2000 pages, and the last 200 were almost like expanded notes. Time had not tempered my writing habits. My greatest problem became where to divide my opus and how many volumes would be required. At first I thought 4. Now I am thinking 5. I've self-published one book and am working on Book 2 at the present time. Children of Stone: Voices in Crystal

Standalone works are the most dramatically and aesthetically pure. Except in very rare instances, I don't think anyone should ever set out to write a series (or worse, let themselves be goaded to try to extend a succinct, poised, finished, work). It will almost always mean that the writer is willing to sacrifice elements of unity or structure for the extension. A character and his fate should be able to be told together, as one finite story. Good drama functions because of limits; removing those limits increases the probability of the material becoming aimless, watered-down, rambling.

Henry wrote: "Feliks wrote: "Standalone works are the most dramatically and aesthetically pure. Except in very rare instances, I don't think anyone should ever set out to write a series (or worse, let themselves..."

Also a good point. The way mine is working out is that Book 1 sets the stage but is largely told from the central character's point of view. Book 2 is from the point of view of the central character's companions. Book 3 as planned focuses on the anti-hero and his exploits for a large portion of the book... and so on. I have always agreed a nice, succinct one-stop novel is great. I've never been one of a few words, though. My fingers just fly on the keyboard. The time consuming part is getting the style & form to actually be coherent. I've been described as e e cummings-ish rather than Dickens-ish...Children of Stone: Voices in Crystal

Yes, I'm sure there are tons of exceptional cases where a multi-book project has to be embarked upon and also numerous examples where they have been done successfully.

However, the old guideline is that one shouldn't use 'exceptions' when it comes to setting one's own goals. What another writer achieved by fortunate happenstance, is almost never going to be repeatable in the same fluke way, if you try to emulate it deliberately. The luck which some people enjoy occurs because of who they are; rarely is it transferable.

Just my opinion, yep..but I think you'd hear these sentiments re-echoed all through the creative industries.

General rule of thumb. Try not to write a sequel unless you really had one in mind. Sometimes stories, movies, or whatever are just stand alone issues.

If you didn't feel creatively inspired to write a sequel in the first place and would prefer to write other stories. Then a sequel would be a bad idea.

I feel that the best works are the ones where you feel compelled to write it. Sure, it's nice when readers want more books from you. But if you don't feel that there is a story you want to tell, they'll just be furious when you create a sequel and end up failing to meet expectation.

Wilmar wrote: "General rule of thumb. Try not to write a sequel unless you really had one in mind. Sometimes stories, movies, or whatever are just stand alone issues.

If you didn't feel creatively inspired to wr..."

And that's what really scares me... Keeping the interest up. I truly wish I could write one-stop wonders. It has to be some kind of skill I never developed.

Children of Stone: Voices in Crystal

If I never intended one it would be a tricky business. Probably not since I would have wrote everything to finality. However I don't think I'll ever make a stand-alone book, a series is too much fun because of what you can do with it.

i think the series based on a single location and one hero with a couple of henchmen is very British. Harry Potter is a perfect example. Americans tend to wander all over the place Issac Asimov and Robert Heinlein are perfect examples. My novels tend to travel here and there because I like new locations and new challenges.

What about Tolkien, one might ask. Well, it was a great adventure but the ending has all the Hobbits satisfied on to go an any other adventures.

"on" is supposed to read "not"

I think there's a significant difference between conceiving a vast, grand story design, and feeling your way along in steps--uncertain of how many pages/chapters a certain sequence will take to tell..perhaps arriving unexpectedly at 'appropriate places to pause and publish'

~versus~

..conceiving a standalone story which possesses a satisfying resolution and emotional climax, but then (based on its success or its profits) looking for ways to extend it further.

I have to agree with Feliks. I even went so far as to write a speech for my speech class in college about how sequels are bad and should not be tolerated. When I write, my goal is always a stand alone story, whether it be fifty thousand words or two hundred thousand. It should always speak for itself — even if fans want more from those characters, it should remain its own entity.

That's not to say all sequels are bad, not in the least. There are many sequels that are better than the originals. But there are far too many that are made only for profit. If the creative forces (whether it's a writer, or a filmmaker, or what have you) behind the original project have nothing left to say, and are only being forced to write a sequel because it "might" make money, then it should be scrapped until the joy of writing and creating such a work is there with a spark of inspiration.

(And don't let this confuse you with actual planned series. Planned series, such as the Harry Potter books, The Hunger Games and the like, are completely different beasts, as the author has a plan of action for each book before even one word is written for the first book.)

Sigh. I wish I was as smart as I was in college. I don't know when I became dumber, but I think it began in graduate school. I don't know if it was the beer, the wine, or or Middle Earth but it all went downhill after that.

Now, stories roamed until they reach the end whether its one book or many. Almost always, I learn after a while what the story is really about and I'm wiser for it.

Sequels aren't necessarily a bad thing. For me it all depends on what the author is intending to do. I have two series. Both times it was because the original idea had too much to include in a single story. A reader doesn't want to be overwhelmed.
A sequel can be a comfortable read for a reader. For the author it can be an opportunity to follow a character growing even more than the original story allowed.
Yzabel says it well.
That said, each book in my Hazel Whitmore series can stand alone although each has ties to the others (two done, two in planning) through setting and characters. I find the problem is in finding the conflict for the next book. All are linked as Hazel moves from being a city girl to being more rural which was the original starting idea.

My favorite 20th c. (postwar) British novel is actually one of a semi-planned series of books. I'm not exactly sure how LeCarre went about the Smiley series. I think he maintained an interest in writing about an institution; and he kept a few 'foreground' characters in place..but background characters could emerge from one novel to the next, as foreground; whatever happened in any one story he left himself a lot of room at the conclusion to strike off in new directions to begin the next. I think you can see ideas sparking and ...the author moving around inbetween installments to re-orient himself to follow them. But the result is a streamlined, cohesive, and consistent 6-part entity.

Wow, I haven't been on this thread in a bit didn't realize it picked up.

I never intend to write sequels or trilogies because I'm a fan of the standalone book unless of course a book needs to be told more. Sequels tend to be thought out so normally I believe if they are done it's because the author knew it was going to be long or wanted to write a series. The only series I have done are three short stories and the only reason there's a third is because since I reveal nothing in either two I figured I'd write another to tell people what the heck happened in the first two stories. Other than that I try to stick with writing standalones however I know other fellow authors on here who write series.