# The downside of writing sequels



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 10, 2018)

So I am about to publish books 3 & 4 of a series I author, and it was a ton of work, 340,000 words...yada yada yada.

What bugs me the most is that sequels suffer from half-life syndrome.
No, they aren't written by Gordon Freeman.
See, with sequels there is a half life, or really a quarter life (but that doesn't sound as cool as half life.)

Here is how it works: If 100 people read your first book, then only about 75 will read the next book, and 50 the next book, and on and on until you get down to just your most loyal of fans & family.
So I am feeling bummed that after all of this work, I can safely expect lower revenues than the first book.
So I have been marketing the crap outta the first book because it is the gateway to the series, but that means I am marketing a 4 year old book.

Also, it is a PITA when sending out pre-release copies: I can't very well send out the 3rd or 4th book of the series to someone who hasn't read the first books...right?
So even though I can directly market the 4th book, if people have not read the 1st book then they ain't gonna buy the 4th book...

Worse yet, while I am fighting for every sale, batshit-crazy Omorosa is selling a million copies of her tell-all book about the White House.  
There is no justice in the universe.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 10, 2018)

I hope she suffers a myocardial infarction while masticating the feces that passes for a best seller these days.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 11, 2018)

Completely agree. You have basically articulated why I don't write series if I don't need to and try to stick to standalone books if there is any choice in the matter.

 I know the (good) reasons why people do it: We fall in love with big ideas/epic story-lines/wonderful characters and feel compelled to pursue these things to what seems like a natural conclusion and I agree with all that. However I also believe that life is short and writing time for most people limited and that expending years or decades of time toiling away on a single extended story, one involving largely the same cast of characters, the same locations, a mostly unchanged style of storytelling, a constant theme (or set of themes), etc instead of sowing one's literary oats is not always a good idea either. 

I think this is especially true if you are still cutting your teeth and figuring out your identity as a writer. Don't get sucked into a multi-year investment that in all likelihood won't make you millions nor offer you the full breadth of learning that comes with trying-then-failing-then-starting-something-new. Not saying that applies to you whatsoever, but it does to at least some people. Balance is the key word. 

I also have a real issue with series and sequels that degrade in quality with each cycle and become nothing more than a weird status symbol for the author. This is likely to happen when series get written for reasons other than because the story warrants it. When writers continue to hump the cadaver into a massive 20 volume epic that could have been done much better in far fewer books, only the sense of grandeur that comes with finishing about "Vampyre Death Legacy Part 19" was just too tempting, regardless of the fact it isn't very good and hardly anybody reads it.


----------



## Bayview (Aug 11, 2018)

On the other hand...

The 75% of readers who want the sequel (assuming they enjoyed the first book) are relatively easy sales. You need to let them know it's available, but you don't need to persuade them to take a chance on a new concept.

And if you _do_ do promo for the later books, it can inspire people to pick up the first books.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 11, 2018)

Readers dropping out of the series is definitely a bummer.

But you also have the option of selling a _bundle_ at a higher price than a standalone, while still offering a discount (compared to buying all the books individually), that should appeal to those looking for more bang for their buck. :encouragement:


----------



## bazz cargo (Aug 12, 2018)

An unknown flogging a  book is tough, you need to get your name on a lot of peoples lips. Murder? Become a TV personality? Sports star? Rabid, foaming lipped, imbecile  Trump supporter?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 12, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> Readers dropping out of the series is definitely a bummer.
> 
> But you also have the option of selling a _bundle_ at a higher price than a standalone, while still offering a discount (compared to buying all the books individually), that should appeal to those looking for more bang for their buck. :encouragement:




Y'know I have seen other writers offering boxed sets, but no such option is available thru CreateSpace. Hell, they don't even offer the option of pre-sales.   I've been meaning to dig around and find out how these authors were able to put together a package deal.

It's prolly expensive.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 12, 2018)

Bayview said:


> On the other hand...
> 
> The 75% of readers who want the sequel (assuming they enjoyed the first book) are relatively easy sales. You need to let them know it's available, but you don't need to persuade them to take a chance on a new concept.
> 
> And if you _do_ do promo for the later books, it can inspire people to pick up the first books.





True dat. I had pretty good pre-sales on Calizona 2. It was nice to have a pile of sales on release day.
I guess I'm really bummed because the sales will be meh, but this particular book was a TON of work.
I gotta up my game on marketing.


----------



## Newman (Aug 17, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Worse yet, while I am fighting for every sale, batshit-crazy Omorosa is selling a million copies of her tell-all book about the White House.



Ha! Reduced to $16.80. 88% 5 star reviews!


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 19, 2018)

She is a nut job. Anyone who ever watched the show can tell you she is defective.
I once read that Solomon Rusdie's book was the most purchased/least read book of the decade.


----------



## Harper J. Cole (Aug 21, 2018)

I'm using Amazon's five-day-giveaway option on my first book to hopefully prompt people to pay for the sequel.

I was on 134 free copies given out last time I checked, which seems a decent amount. Of course, many of those people may not actually get around to reading the book, or might not like it enough to pay for the second instalment. We shall see ...


----------



## ironpony (Aug 21, 2018)

Write now I am writing a story but leaving it open for a sequel, if it becomes successful.  The problem with this though, is that the protagonist is not allowed to do anything too crazy.  Cause otherwise the protagonist would just end up dead or in prison, and then no sequel, so I have to keep the protagonist from going too far, which does cut down on suspense and drama in my opinion.

So that is the main weakness for me about writing sequels, but on the other, hand I feel I have ideas for sequels, if the first is successful.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 21, 2018)

Harper J. Cole said:


> I'm using Amazon's five-day-giveaway option on my first book to hopefully prompt people to pay for the sequel.
> 
> I was only 134 free copies given out last time I checked, which seems a decent amount. Of course, many of those people may not actually get around to reading the book, or might not like it enough to pay for the second instalment. We shall see ...





I am doing that exact thing too. In fact, Calizona; This ain't yer daddy's apocalypse will be free from Aug 22nd to Aug 26th. 
My intention is to either generate more reviews, or get people to buy the next 3 books.

Get it here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GW5WIYI/?tag=writingforu06-20



PS: Harper, I bet the reason they won't remove that review is that they downloaded it on KU.  It's not a verified purchase, but they'd still view it as a bona fide review.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 21, 2018)

ironpony said:


> Write now I am writing a story but leaving it open for a sequel, if it becomes successful.  The problem with this though, is that the protagonist is not allowed to do anything too crazy.  Cause otherwise the protagonist would just end up dead or in prison, and then no sequel, so I have to keep the protagonist from going too far, which does cut down on suspense and drama in my opinion.
> 
> So that is the main weakness for me about writing sequels, but on the other, hand I feel I have ideas for sequels, if the first is successful.




Personally, I'd just write the best damned book you can without regard for a sequel.  If it sells then consider a sequel, but otherwise sequels are a lotta work for only half the money you made on the first book.
Swing, swing away!


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 22, 2018)

ironpony said:


> Write now I am writing a story but leaving it open for a sequel, if it becomes successful.  The problem with this though, is that the protagonist is not allowed to do anything too crazy.  Cause otherwise the protagonist would just end up dead or in prison, and then no sequel, so I have to keep the protagonist from going too far, which does cut down on suspense and drama in my opinion.
> 
> So that is the main weakness for me about writing sequels, but on the other, hand I feel I have ideas for sequels, if the first is successful.



Ralph said it nicely. I'll say it a little less nicely: The moment you start to contrive your story to "leave it open for a sequel" you are guaranteeing a result that is a big bowl of bottom gravy.


----------



## ironpony (Aug 22, 2018)

Oh, how so?


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 22, 2018)

ironpony said:


> Oh, how so?



Because when you try to shape a book into fitting to any predetermined design brief you are no longer in a position where you can act in the best interests of the story. You said as much yourself: "...*so I have to keep the protagonist from going too far, which does cut down on suspense and drama in my opinion*."

Have you ever met somebody who buys a shirt or a dress or a pair of trousers that is a size too small deliberately, in the deluded belief that doing so will encourage them to lose weight so they can fit into them? Making plot decisions based on external factors, whether it be sequels or anything else, is as they say "ass backwards". It is changing the body to fit the clothes instead of the other way around.

A good story doesn't allow for the writer to pick and choose these things beyond a very limited scope, at least not without significant work not to mention massive consequences through the butterfly effect. A good story _demands_ characters behave in a certain way and for things to occur according to the personality and situation the writer has invented. 

Just like if you yourself were to be, say, abandoned in a forest there is only one way _you _could act if, say, you encountered a bear: If you're the kind of person who would run away screaming you don't get to decide you are suddenly going to become a bear wrestler just because fighting and killing the bear is easier. 

Fiction is the same way. You can of course always change the character, sure. You have the unlimited power to do that as the author. But that doesn't mean you _should. _What does it say about this character's (lack of) development if you can change the way they respond to the world around them at will with little or no real issue? If your nihilistic mobster with a heart of steel suddenly decides to show his inner softy without explanation and inconsistent to his character up to that point? As a reader, suddenly I don't know who this person is. 

--And you are doing this stuff, why again? So you can write a sequel "in case the book is successful"? It's your story and your right and maybe you know what you are doing, but if this is your first real attempt then I would concern myself with learning to walk before you can run if I were you.


----------



## ironpony (Aug 22, 2018)

That's true, I see your point, and I thought maybe I was doing that perhaps.

But I have changed the story around so much that I can't even remember all of how I had it originally before I had sequels in mind.  But before people were telling me that the protagonist is too crazy and snaps way too much and goes too far to the point of irrationality.  So maybe the protagonist going less crazy is a good thing as maybe he is more logical and grounded now.

But by having a more happy ending for the protagonist for a possible sequel, I don't think I have created any character inconsistencies.  I think I have just made the characters not go as crazy, which may not be a bad thing.

But I was also told that my story is less complicated now, and more simple, which is good, so maybe making the characters less complex and more simple to be more flexible for sequels, has now made the story less complicated for readers, which I am told is good, by some.


----------



## moderan (Aug 22, 2018)

> less complicated now, and more simple



Your editor must be bald. What exactly does this mean?


----------



## Jack of all trades (Aug 22, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> Ralph said it nicely. I'll say it a little less nicely: The moment you start to contrive your story to "leave it open for a sequel" you are guaranteeing a result that is a big bowl of bottom gravy.



I disagree, but that's hardly news.

A good writer should be al to plan not only the current book, but also the sequel(s). Look a J.K.Rowling.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 22, 2018)

On the original topic—I've come across authors who've had the opposite experience as Ralph; their series books sold better than their stand-alones. And others, still, who claim they sell about equal. So I haven't been able to find a general consensus.

I'd assume that series (trilogies, especially) sell well, otherwise the big publishers wouldn't waste their time with them. But perhaps selling trends skew differently when comparing indie books to those traditionally published. :indecisiveness:

There seem to be a lot of variables at play, too. Genre, and the age of the target audience, especially. From what I've found (though others might find differently):

— Thrillers, Mysteries, and LitFics seem to do better, on average, as stand-alones.

— Fantasies seem to do better as a series.

— MG/YA readers seem to appreciate a series more.

— NA/Adult readers seem to be more partial to buying stand-alones.

Even still, I've come across exceptions to all those listed above, so it's a bit of a head-scratcher.


----------



## JustRob (Aug 22, 2018)

The only story that I ever contemplated writing would equate to three standard novels if I wrote all of it, although now I would actually prefer to write it as two longer ones to get a sensible break point between the first and second part. If I thought that any publisher would accept an oversized novel from a new writer such as myself then I would be prepared to publish the full story in two parts, but I doubt that that would happen in practice. 

How do book sales actually arise, primarily by cold marketing or hot reviews? If the reduced number of readers of the sequel give good reviews then shouldn't that encourage more readers of the original work? In other words, isn't it wise only to write a sequel if the story itself demands one rather than simply regarding it as a potential cash cow and milking it dry?

In financial terms the cliff-hanger ending to my original novel may have been commercially appropriate but was to my mind a bit of a swindle from the reader's point of view. The longer novel would have a more ambiguous ending which would seem to tie up many of the loose ends but still leave sufficient scope for the sequel to attract readers. Hence any reader would not feel obliged to buy it but might be tempted to. This would seem to me to be a more honest way of dividing up a long story. 

If the discussion here is really about writing another free-standing story that merely re-uses the characters, history and settings from the original, then that may well be regarded by readers as simply more of the same and a potential disappointment. One ought to regard selling a sequel to existing readers as being as much of a challenge as attracting them was in the original. In fact I regard every page that I write as a challenge to keep existing readers reading regardless of where chapters and books happen to end. It's just as easy to lose a reader in the middle of a book as between books. My angel has just given up beta reading a member's novel forty percent of the way through and I have occasionally given up on published books maybe sixty percent of the way through.

The next sentence that you write is always a sequel.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 22, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> I disagree, but that's hardly news.
> 
> A good writer should be al to plan not only the current book, but also the sequel(s). Look a J.K.Rowling.



There is nothing wrong with planning a series if you have a story that clearly lends itself to that. Harry Potter is obviously an example of something that is ready made for a series. I strongly suspect Rowling at no point sat down and thought "hey I _could _write this as a standalone novel...but I bet if I removed some of these really dramatic bits and made my characters a little less interesting I could make it into a billion dollar _series._" 

It's also worth saying that the kind of story Rowling was telling (a school story) is one that usually lends itself to sequels anyway. There's nothing especially original about Harry Potter. She had plenty of cues to take from other authors, many of whom wrote series of a similar length and breadth. So I think we can park Rowling comparisons...

What prompted my comment toward iron pony is that they admitted to have* intentionally watered down their plot* *in order to make it more sequel-friendly*. They specifically referred to what THEY THEMSELVES perceived as negative consequences of this decision - "less crazy", "undramatic", etc. That is, for my money, a big red flag and they need to be told. It is completely illogical to add to the burden of writing by adding in additional rules that are not needed. If you shape your plot according to some dream regarding sequels as opposed to just focusing on coming up with the best story you can and following your nose to a natural conclusion you will _probably_ fail. 

For every JK Rowling there are hundreds of would-be epics of a similar ilk that nosedived into oblivion and nobody needs reminded of that except...yes, sometimes they do. This is not a matter of reining in anybody's creativity, nor suggesting a newer writer ought be afraid to tackle big, complex ideas, but of simple servitude to the master that matters which is the idea you have. Write what you want however you want to, but no writer with half a brain should be so asinine/arrogant as to short change what they are doing _now_ for the sake of some future book that may never get either written nor read.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 22, 2018)

ironpony said:


> Oh, how so?




A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
That first book you are writing is the bird in your hand.
The sequel is the promise of two in the bush.
But there'll be no bush at all if this first book isn't really good.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 22, 2018)

"On the original topic—I've come across authors who've had the opposite experience as Ralph; their series books sold better than their stand-alones. And others, still, who claim they sell about equal. So I haven't been able to find a general consensus."

My series of books far outsells my other books.
But I was talking about the half-life effect of sequels.
You lose readers as you go along. Even Rowling did.
More people read the first book than the last. They either lose interest, get busy, or just wait for the movie to come out.
So if you are an Indie who only sells a thousand copies, then by the time you get to the 4th book you only have a few hundred readers still buying it.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 22, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> My series of books far outsells my other books.
> But I was talking about the half-life effect of sequels.
> You lose readers as you go along. Even Rowling did.
> More people read the first book than the last. They either lose interest, get busy, or just wait for the movie to come out.
> So if you are an Indie who only sells a thousand copies, then by the time you get to the 4th book you only have a few hundred readers still buying it.



I'm not sure I am understanding the subtext here. 

There are many reasons why this half-life occurs. That part isn't a mystery. If the real issue is whether this half life problem makes continuing a series a worthwhile investment of an author's time, surely the important question lies not in comparing the performance of a sequel with that of its original book, but the sequel to an established franchise with something else that is completely new.

Take the Rowling example. A quick google search (may not be totally accurate...) tells me that Philosopher's Stone sold 100-120 million copies worldwide, Chamber of Secrets 77 million, etc. It appears the sales bottomed out in the later books prior to the last one. Half Blood Prince looks like it shifted around the 15 million mark. Deathly Hallows was an improvement at close to 50 million (as you would expect from a season finale) but still nowhere close to the first of the series. 

When I look at that trajectory I can definitely see your grievance regarding losing readers...but then I check the sales of The Casual Vacancy, Rowling's departure from Harry Potter. Those sales were *tiny *- at least by her standards. A big enough drop that I am pretty certain if Rowling had left herself the option and had acted from a purely commercial standpoint rather than a creative one I am 100% positive she would have chosen to write ANOTHER Harry Potter themed book instead. Why not? I suspect she could have puked up the most half-baked Potter spinoff ever and it would have still eclipsed The Casual Vacancy in terms of dollars. In point of fact she did, sort of, return to Harry Potter later. And I don't feel the need to google again to say with some degree of certainty that The Cursed Child (which was, in my view, actually pretty poor) outsold The Casual Vacancy considerably.

So what does this mean? It seems to me *the sequel to a successful franchise ALWAYS has better odds of success than a book about something completely new* and that this is important from a commercial standpoint if not a creative one. Whether that actualizes is always down to execution, but mainstream audiences really like consistency. For the most part they like to read about characters they like over and over again. The Big Bang Theory is still on television eleven years later and presumably people are still watching it. The fact fewer are watching it now than were eleven years ago is commercially irrelevant: More people are watching that then they are a show that is just now being piloted and is unknown so it stays playing. 

While the human need for innovation is always there, your average consumer doesn't actually like innovation very much. They like _consistency_. Why should books be any different in that regard than beer or laundry detergent? Most new things fail miserably. This is part of the reason why genres and tropes persist. Sequels of successful series will always have value regardless of the readership's decline: Only when it gets to a point that the sales are either too low to bother with or (more likely) you have completely run out of creative juice should the business-focused author leave behind the money tree.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 22, 2018)

It does raise an interesting question—which would sell better (from the same author): a trilogy, or three stand-alones?

Yes, there will likely be a drop-off in readership as the series continues, but would it, overall, still outsell three individual books? Or would the stand-alones fare better?

:-k


----------



## Jack of all trades (Aug 22, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> There is nothing wrong with planning a series if you have a story that clearly lends itself to that. Harry Potter is obviously an example of something that is ready made for a series. I strongly suspect Rowling at no point sat down and thought "hey I _could _write this as a standalone novel...but I bet if I removed some of these really dramatic bits and made my characters a little less interesting I could make it into a billion dollar _series._"
> 
> It's also worth saying that the kind of story Rowling was telling (a school story) is one that usually lends itself to sequels anyway. There's nothing especially original about Harry Potter. She had plenty of cues to take from other authors, many of whom wrote series of a similar length and breadth. So I think we can park Rowling comparisons...
> 
> ...



Watering down a book or screenplay, whether or not you are planning a series, is probably a bad idea. I fail to see how making characters LESS than what you originally intended sets the stage for a sequel. I would think that they would need to be more complex to provide enough material for more than one story.


----------



## Bayview (Aug 23, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> It does raise an interesting question—which would sell better (from the same author): a trilogy, or three stand-alones?
> 
> Yes, there will likely be a drop-off in readership as the series continues, but would it, overall, still outsell three individual books? Or would the stand-alones fare better?
> 
> :-k



I'm firmly of the belief that the best promotion for an author is the next book, and I think this applies doubly to books in a series. So the sales from the second book in a series may not be as high as the first book, but that's partly because book 1 is always continuing to sell, so book 2 has trouble catching up. (And book 1 is continuing to sell, at least partly, because people have noticed book 2 and want to start the series).

With that in mind, as long as book 1 sold fairly well, I think it's definitely a smart business move to write books 2 and 3. Built-in audience, plus great promo for past books.

Any book may fail to take off, and if book 1 doesn't find readers, it may make sense to abandon the series and move to either a new series or a standalone. But in general, I'd say three books in a successful series will sell better than three standalones.


----------



## JustRob (Aug 23, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> It does raise an interesting question—which would sell better (from the same author): a trilogy, or three stand-alones?
> 
> Yes, there will likely be a drop-off in readership as the series continues, but would it, overall, still outsell three individual books? Or would the stand-alones fare better?
> 
> :-k



Anne McCaffrey comes to mind. Her longest series of books about the dragonriders of Pern eventually paid for her home, Dragonhold, while her more obviously science fiction stories didn't. In fact even though she received awards for science fiction this was partially because the dragon books were accepted as being in that genre despite them originally appearing just to be fantasies in a medieval setting. (I noticed that the Wikipedia article about her mentions that she has been described as a writer of "planetary romance", which is apparently a recognised subgenre of science fiction. I have never seen it mentioned in WF but suspect that a significant number of members may primarily indulge in this subgenre.) The gradual revelation of the science fiction back story about Pern implies that she had created the setting with a potential long series in mind all along. Her technique was actually to publish portions of the long saga as discrete items in magazines and later consolidate them into novels. My own writing is very episodic in nature and could well be treated this way. The chapters in my novel were in fact selected from a larger stockpile that I wrote and the currently unused ones could easily appear in a later novel.

Thinking about it, Conan Doyle's earlier Sherlock Holmes works were occasional short stories published in magazines which grew into a series. Does a long series of short stories have more potential longevity than a shorter series of novels then? I originally planned my saga as six distinct parts, each shorter than a conventional novel, but have no idea how they could best be organised for publication.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 23, 2018)

"*the sequel to a successful franchise ALWAYS has better odds of success than a book about something completely new "
*This I have experienced. I've actually had reviews on the books I wrote between sequels* where the reader would say "This book was good, but it wasn't Calizona." So I'd go back and write another sequel.


*"**I am 100% positive she would have chosen to write ANOTHER Harry Potter themed book instead."*
She did; it's called Fantastic Beasts. It's a prequel to the HP series.  Really good actually.


*"**Anne McCaffrey comes to mind. Her longest series of books about the dragonriders of Pern "*
I actually read a fair amount of her work...but never the series. Odd, eh?



*"**Any book may fail to take off, and if book 1 doesn't find readers, it may make sense to abandon the series and move to either a new series or a standalone. But in general, I'd say three books in a successful series will sell better than three standalones."*
This was a point I was trying to make to ironpony in another thread.






*The Calizona books are research heavy books that involve huge casts of diverse characters, so between each I would take a break and write something with a small cast.  But none sold well.


----------



## JustRob (Aug 23, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> *"**Anne McCaffrey comes to mind. Her longest series of books about the dragonriders of Pern "*
> I actually read a fair amount of her work...but never the series. Odd, eh?



No. There is an evident formulaic quality to her dragonrider books that any particular reader may accept or reject, so I suspect that they tend to be divisive. Her pure science fiction showed a much wider imaginative scope and no doubt appealed to readers who would not find it in the Pern stories. I read the Pern series purely for relaxation but _The Crystal Singer_ met a very different need in me although it still had the "girl does well" basic theme that McCaffrey openly stated that she intended to adopt to even up the gender imbalance in science fiction.

That is possibly a point to consider so far as sequels are concerned. If your novel is intended to present a particular attitude or message then readers might not be drawn to a sequel because they'd already got the message and didn't need it to be hammered home. On the other hand I personally have no aversion to the "girl does well" theme and watched the entire series of _Buffy The Vampire Slayer_ on TV as well as _True Blood_ for example, so one needs to think about the underlying theme that one plans to extend in sequels and decide whether it is likely to be a stayer.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 23, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> *"**Anne McCaffrey comes to mind. Her longest series of books about the dragonriders of Pern "*
> I actually read a fair amount of her work...but never the series. Odd, eh?.




Not to me. Unless something comes recommended or I love the author, I avoid series where possible as a reader. If given the choice and the quality is the same I will choose reading three standalones over a trilogy every time.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 23, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> Not to me. Unless something comes recommended or I love the author, I avoid series where possible as a reader. If given the choice and the quality is the same I will choose reading three standalones over a trilogy every time.



I wish I had more readers like you


----------



## JustRob (Aug 24, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> Not to me. Unless something comes recommended or I love the author, I avoid series where possible as a reader. If given the choice and the quality is the same I will choose reading three standalones over a trilogy every time.



If I ever rewrite my story in its extended form then I might seek you out as a beta reader then. There's little risk of that though.

What is a novel though? I have Peter F Hamilton's enormous _Night's Dawn Trilogy_ in paperbook form and each novel is about 1200 pages long. This is probably the ultimate space opera trilogy though. Few writers could achieve anything like it successfully. Could it have been such a success if published as more standard length novels? Would I have read the entire saga if it had been? I doubt it, but I was pleased to read it in the form that it was published. I think the way that a long story is divided up for publication can give the reader a false impression of its nature. That is why I am cautious about making any serious attempt to bring my long story into existence in fragments.

I also have the entire _Chronicles of Thomas Covenant_ by Stephen R Donaldson, which are three trilogies although the series ends with a fourth book in the last. While I really enjoyed the first trilogy my enthusiasm did wane throughout the following ones as Donaldson's other world was eroded by tracks beaten bare by earlier books. That is the risk of writing sequels, that the novelty of the original is worn thin and the writer has to break new ground in later stories. 

In contrast Hamilton chose to build his vast world from the outset, risking loss of the reader's interest through infodumps of minutiae rather than providing rapid gratification by maintaining an enthralling story line and plot. Every world building SF writer (and WF appears to have many of these) has to decide how to tackle the dual needs of building the world and telling a story within it, but Hamilton chose to make building his world an explicit integral component of the story rather than an implicit one. Breaking the story up into more novels would have fragmented it too much and the reader would have been misled into thinking that those smaller novels contained stories within themselves, which they most likely wouldn't have done. His novels were long because his story was long. In contrast a reader couldn't make a commitment to read ten long novels in Donaldson's series from the outset and only persistent fans would do so.

I guess that means that a big story with a big setting needs big books, which aren't actually promising territory for novice writers, and it is better to plan ahead than write straggling series piecemeal.


----------

