# A term I hadn't heard before... "Mega Novels"



## Guard Dog (Feb 5, 2019)

This article popped up on on my news page:

George R.R. Martin contemplates literary form, the Hugos, and the final two Song of Ice and Fire books

I found it interesting that he seemed to be coining a term for something that's been around for a long time, and that I've inadvertently found myself in the middle of; telling a story that covers several volumes.

I can think of several series I've read that were just that, and have seen quite a few movies that were the same.

Anyway, no question here really, just thought I'd bring the article to people's attention, and see what their thoughts were on it.

Who knows? Might stir up an interesting conversation.




G.D.


----------



## velo (Feb 7, 2019)

I can't say I disagree.  I've always thought of LotR as a single story, same with GoT (easier acronym).  You really can't read the Two Towers or A Storm of Swords as stand-alone novels.  That being said I'm not sure there's much discussion to be had about it...the point he's making is pretty obvious and I guess we've all realised it without putting a specific name to it.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 7, 2019)

I suppose the only real question is how many, if anyone, sets out to do that on purpose.

Or is it usually a case where, like myself, people just find themselves entangled in a story that just won't fit into one volume?

I mean, given where I find myself these days, I can't imagine anybody in their right mind doing it on purpose.

Leaving a novel open-ended so you can continue later on, if you choose? Sure.

Planning something out that could take several novels to wrap up? 

Seems incredibly ambitious at best, poor planning at worst. 

( At his age, George could end up not living long enough to finish the story... Especially if he doesn't knock it off with the interviews and other 'extracurricular activities' and focus on writing. )


G.D.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 8, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> I suppose the only real question is how many, if anyone, sets out to do that on purpose.
> 
> Or is it usually a case where, like myself, people just find themselves entangled in a story that just won't fit into one volume?
> 
> I mean, given where I find myself these days, I can't imagine anybody in their right mind doing it on purpose.



I don't think many people do it on purpose, no. As you mention, there's little to be gained from setting out to write an excessively long book. 

I think there's probably an argument to be made that some stories just can't fit into a single, conventional-length manuscript. ASOIAF is obviously an example of that. 

I suspect what usually happens is a writer comes up with an idea, a story, and then that story introduces themes/characters/settings that they wish to further explore. Sometimes in that story or just as often in another subsequent one, which would then be the 'mega novel'. LOTR is that - an idea created from writing the (far shorter) Hobbit then developed.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 8, 2019)

Thanks 'Scars.

No, I don't find much to be gained... Unless you really want to be an author, and want to get a good portion of the work over with all at once. 

I don't.

...still, the really painful part - the editing it into what you imagine - is always gonna be there to be done.

The story I'm currently writing ( Transcribing, actually ) is one that just grew out of control.

So is that really how these things get started, as a rule? Or does it tend to come later, once the first part is finished, and it's discovered that there's more to follow... more to come?

That's the part I'm curious about.


G.D.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 8, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> Thanks 'Scars.
> 
> No, I don't find much to be gained... Unless you really want to be an author, and want to get a good portion of the work over with all at once.
> 
> ...



I think it happens in a variety of ways. Some authors have an idea for a book and once they get into it they realize the story is too big for a single volume. Others realize going in that the story is going to be 'mega' in nature. That's what happened with Stephen King's Dark Tower saga. He had the idea while he was in college, and even started work on The Gunslinger before he realized he didn't have the writing chops yet to do the tale justice, so he put it on the back burner and worked on it as his career and skills developed. It's becoming far more common for the mega-stories to be published as audiences have developed a taste for them and a willingness to wait between books. 40 years ago, it was common advice for hopeful writers to not think in terms of stories that are several volumes long. "Make sure your book can stand alone," was what we were told. That's starting to change, but you still hear it in the industry. That's okay by me, I'm not a fan of mega-novels. I've never even completed The Dark Tower books, and I'm a big fan of King. My wife, on the other hand, likes the megas. Her favorite books are Diana Gabaldon's, Outlander novels. If you can tap that market you are in good shape, but a lot of time can be wasted on a mega-novel that may never find a readership. I know that's not your goal, but it's something for writers looking to be published to consider.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 8, 2019)

Terry D said:


> I think it happens in a variety of ways. Some authors have an idea for a book and once they get into it they realize the story is too big for a single volume. Others realize going in that the story is going to be 'mega' in nature.



Many years ago, my first wife got me started reading  Piers Anthony's Xanth series. The first one was written in 1977, and I think the last one I read was published in 1996 or so.

He'd already written around 20 books in that series at that time, and I think there's 41 books in the series now, with the last one published in 2017. ( I just checked, and apparently there's 4 more planned. )

From what I understand, Anthony had in mind for the series to be a trilogy originally, but when the first 3 did so well, expanded it to 9.

He claims that the fans persuaded him to keep it going, and that now Xanth books are about all publishers want out of him.

I guess there are worse traps to be caught in, as a writer, but I have a hard time imagining what they might be.

It's gotta get old, having to keep coming up with new and different stuff for one 'world', for that long. Especially given how strange that particular one is.

Alan Dean Foster's Spellsinger series is another that's basically one long story, but he at least held that one down to 8 books, between 1983 and 1994.

I've always liked the longer series, myself, but somewhere after about a dozen books, I start to lose interest.



G.D.


----------



## Bardling (Apr 8, 2019)

Sequels and shared worlds aren't quite the same as a mega novel.  LOTR is a mega novel.  There is little to no space between the books, and little to no recapping or rehashing of events.  Stephen King's Gunslinger series is not quite that tightly structured.  The first book at least can be read alone, and each book makes sure to introduce the characters to readers in their own right.

They are similar, but not quite the same thing.


----------



## Rojack79 (Aug 21, 2019)

I think it depends on the author. I myself have been thinking of writing a mega novel for the past 7 to 10 year's now. Each book consisting of a full length story detailing the beginning, middle, and end of a great saga. Some people like me plan these stories out this way because to try and shove everything in one book or even two would be nonsensical and an exercise in futility.


----------



## Embassy of Time (Jan 20, 2020)

Sorry I'm a bit late to the discussion (only found this forum yesterday...), but this is frightfully on the nose for me! To be perfectly honest, I thought I coined the term meganovel not long ago, but it seems I just heard the distant voices of my ancestors call it to me!

Last year (2019), I did my second major draft for a novel, one I've been working on for a while now. It suddenly just clicked and I finished the thing in under four months. 300K word count, almost exactly. But when rereading it, I noticed how cramped and at times outright shallow it felt, skipping over things and compressing others insanely! So I am doing it as a smallish (50-75K words) book per chapter. I am outlining everything now, based on the draft, though I'll stay quiet on the number of chapters. It is one story (technically two intertwining stories, skipping back and forth each chapter), from start to finish, although I try to make each book a fairly individual read. Chapters pick up where the story left off.

Not gonna speculate why others do such things, but I haaaate books that skip interesting things just for brevity. I rarely read anymore, and part of the reason is that. Give me the juice, the intricate details, the feel of the world at every step! I'd rather the story be longer than ever feel rushed. And the story I want to tell, well, I feel it deserves that I put my money (time) where my mouth is.

Not sure if this sounds crazy, but if anyone has questions about it, feel free to ask!


----------



## indianroads (Jan 21, 2020)

What is being called a meganovel now I've long considered a 'series'. A series encompasses a larger story, while each book tells only a section of it. Each book moves the series plot forward the way chapters or sections within a book do.

I'm currently writing a series about the extinction and evolution of the human species. In many ways, it's a similar tale to Arthur C. Clarke's Childhoods End.

That's my definition though - and does not seem to be shared by many series authors.


----------



## EntrepreneurRideAlong (Jan 21, 2020)

Embassy of Time said:


> Sorry I'm a bit late to the discussion (only found this forum yesterday...), but this is frightfully on the nose for me! To be perfectly honest, I thought I coined the term meganovel not long ago, but it seems I just heard the distant voices of my ancestors call it to me!
> 
> Last year (2019), I did my second major draft for a novel, one I've been working on for a while now. It suddenly just clicked and I finished the thing in under four months. 300K word count, almost exactly. But when rereading it, I noticed how cramped and at times outright shallow it felt, skipping over things and compressing others insanely! So I am doing it as a smallish (50-75K words) book per chapter. I am outlining everything now, based on the draft, though I'll stay quiet on the number of chapters. It is one story (technically two intertwining stories, skipping back and forth each chapter), from start to finish, although I try to make each book a fairly individual read. Chapters pick up where the story left off.
> 
> ...



Welcome to the forum! I agree with you. If I'm hooked on a story, I want all the details. I'd rather three books and know the whole story than one book with light details that I can't get hooked on. I like your idea breaking it up.

What is the story about? Would love to hear some details and how you are splitting it up into separate books.


----------



## Chris Stevenson (Jan 22, 2020)

I just find it incredibly difficult to find that balance between a series book and a standalone. Ya know, what information needs to be retold in a back-story type of way, without losing the reader and a reference to the overall story thread in any previous books. I'm probably more guilty of repeat information, only I strive to change up the information that seems fresh without losing any accuracy. Since my trilogy books are separated by about nine months, release wise, I find myself having to recap vital information, rather than unzip the main plot and theme. Catch 22--I want something old and recognizable, but also something different that explores new ground and thrusts things forward. It bugs me so much, I'm having trouble explaining exactly what I mean. I'm waiting for those cursed words in the second book, "Why did you have to mention that again? You don't have to hash over this. Why did you include that? Why are you introducing a new character? You've got way too much backstory here--we get it. You explained that before. Why did you change this?"  

Talk about paranoia. Anybody else get the jitters in making that seamless transition from one book to another? How do you keep the demons at bay?


----------



## indianroads (Jan 22, 2020)

Chris Stevenson said:


> I just find it incredibly difficult to find that balance between a series book and a standalone. Ya know, what information needs to be retold in a back-story type of way, without losing the reader and a reference to the overall story thread in any previous books. I'm probably more guilty of repeat information, only I strive to change up the information that seems fresh without losing any accuracy. Since my trilogy books are separated by about nine months, release wise, I find myself having to recap vital information, rather than unzip the main plot and theme. Catch 22--I want something old and recognizable, but also something different that explores new ground and thrusts things forward. It bugs me so much, I'm having trouble explaining exactly what I mean. I'm waiting for those cursed words in the second book, "Why did you have to mention that again? You don't have to hash over this. Why did you include that? Why are you introducing a new character? You've got way too much backstory here--we get it. You explained that before. Why did you change this?"
> 
> Talk about paranoia. Anybody else get the jitters in making that seamless transition from one book to another? How do you keep the demons at bay?



After my first novel was out there (The Dark Side of Joy) I got a lot of messages/feedback from readers asking, 'what happened next?' My next book (The Last Dragon) was a sequel - albeit unintended - and I had to scramble to accommodate readers that had not read the first book. I chose to NOT do a core dump or a prequel, but rather weave relevant things from the first book into the early chapters of the second. I had no experience with such things, so it was a struggle.

My current WIP is book 4 in a series of 5. This time though, I planned it all in advance. Each book is a separate story with very little back story needed for it to fit into the series. The books are intended to be like pieces to a puzzle, interesting to look at separately, but when put together the provide a broader and hopefully more interesting picture. 
Books 1, 3, & 5 feature the same MC, but they require very little information about the character to understand what's going on. Books 2 & 4 have different MC's. Each episode in the series is separated either by distance of time.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 25, 2020)

I disagree with a meganovel being synonymous with a series.

I find series work best when the individual books function as standalones in some way. In practice, this doesn't completely happen (you can't usually pick up book 5/9 of a series and know where you are if you didn't read the books before) but I find good series tend towards having books that have both a completed 'micro arc' as well as leave enough open to continuance -- other than the final book which should resolve everything. 

For example, in Harry Potter the first book involves the discovery and destruction of the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's stone and a return to an improved version of the status quo at the end where Harry returns home. It is possible to read that book, enjoy it, and not need to read on. Except that there are also things introduced in that book that are unresolved, of course. It's a good balance.

When writers come out with extremely long 'meganovels' and think a quick fix is to simply cut them into multiple books, that doesn't always work. It doesn't work because it often ends in the first book of the series just being essentially one big prologue with absolutely no resolution to anything, the subsequent books just being prolonged mid-sections of wavering climax, and the final book being absolutely vital to read for any of the preceding ones to make sense. That isn't a series, in my opinion. What it is, is cynical marketing - the hacking of a doll.


----------



## Justin Attas (May 3, 2020)

Never heard of this term either! Seems like a name for something that doesn't really need a name to me lol


----------



## CyberWar (May 8, 2020)

Well, one "mega-novel" that comes to mind which predates the term by roughly 80 years is the "Betrothed" series by Aleksandrs Grīns, the master of Latvian heroic epic. His "mega-novel" with each chapter named after the horsemen of Apocalypse features the generational exploits of a Latvian peasant family caught in the middle of the Great Northern War. 

So I figure the kind of works that this newfangled term describes have been around since forever, it's just someone who figured he could get better sales rates by inventing this fancy word.


----------



## apocalypsegal (May 16, 2020)

I think George is just making stuff up to justify how long it takes him to finish a book in the series. Make himself feel better, because what he has is a "mega" novel. lol

I don't know how many of you follow self publishing, but many writers do indeed come up with huge story lines that will take multiple books to finish. I'm always being told how much readers like series, though I suspect that's only a segment of the much-adored "market". I myself prefer stand alone books, with a complete and finished story. I dislike the idea that I have to spend money on many books, often filled with fluff and useless things, just to get one story.

To my horror, I'm trying to make at least trilogies, in hopes of getting more readers, though it makes me sad to have to put in so many characters and subplots to achieve it. I can only pray I can make it interesting enough to not engender hatred.


----------

