Nathan Bransford, Author


Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Series or Stand-alone?

In lieu of a snarky intro about last night's television (since Tuesday night TV is dead to me and I went and had Burmese food instead), I will instead provide you with this teaser:

Next week? Contest week.

Details are still being formulated by the elves I lock in the basement to concoct blog ideas (look, it's not slave labor if they're ELVES -- just ask Santa), but there will be a contest and it will either be the greatest contest in the history of the blog or it will be the second or third greatest contest in the history of the blog. I know I'm excited. Anyway...

CONTEST NEXT WEEK!

But since it's still this week, we have a You Tell Me:

I've blogged previously about the protocol for mentioning that the novel you're querying is actually the first in a seven book series, and my advice stands: casually drop at the end that the novel could be expanded into a series but never imply that it has to be. Flexibility, my friends.

But all the same: series are hot right now. Publishers want series, booksellers want series... heck, the world wants a series (and how the Colorado freaking Rockies ended up in said series is beyond me). This does not mean you should necessarily go and write a five book series if you're an unpublished author since your best odds are being flexible with that all-important first book, but there seems to be somewhat of a trend in favor of series at the moment.

So You Tell Me: do you like reading series? Or do you prefer to finish a book and move on to a different world? Do you like sticking with the same characters as they tackle new challenges or do you prefer to leave them and find new ones?






80 comments:

Brian said...

Please tell me you're at least watching PUSHING DAISIES on Wednesdays.

This is a cop-out answer but I'll stick with a series if the writing is good and it's justified that the story should continue. Most often, I'm happiest to move on to another world. But a great writer who makes me fall in love with characters and creates a plausible way for the story to continue will generally convince me to go with a series.

Jen said...

I love series. There's nothing better than finishing a book and then finding out there are more books available. Ahhh, love that.

OTOH, I'm not a big fan of a series where they jump to a different MC.. don't know why, but it bugs the heck out of me.

Nathan Bransford said...

Brian-

I watched Pushing Daisies last week and I seriously didn't like it. Please make me understand why everyone likes it so much!

amanda h said...

I really enjoy series because I already know I'll enjoy the characters and plot.

What I love is "discovering" an old series and devouring it in a matter of weeks. Instant gratification;-)

And, thanks for the advice about mentioning the book could be expanded into a series.

Jess said...

I'll read the first book in a series, and MEAN to read the rest, but often don't get to it. I think it's partly out of fear that whatever awesomeness the author concocted in book one will be smothered in the second, or worse. OTOH, I do read a LOT of first books in a series, period. I think this only reinforces your idea to be flexible, cuz that means that all those fab books tease me enough make me want to read the rest (my own fault that I don't get to it), but I don't have to, and then get ticked at the author. That's a bit babbling, but all that to say: If it's a book, we're golden, regardless of it being an only child or not.

Calenhíril said...

I love serial books. Most of my books are part of a trilogy or longer. It's such a pleasure to immerse myself in a world and know that there's more to come in another book. Of course, reading fantasy like I do, and it seems de rigeur to write one novel with an idea for the next...

julief said...

As a reader, I don't mind series but don't really seek them out either. As a writer, I don't think I'll ever do a true series. I could see myself doing a spin-off since some of my minor characters interest me a lot. But in general, I've moved on to a completely new set of characters with each work.

And I haven't really watched Pushing Daisies, but I love the brightness of the commercials. It just comes on during Top Model.

Anonymous said...

I don't like reading series, but then... I don't think I've ever read a book that was part of one.

I do like contests though.

Gerri said...

I read epic fantasy. 'nough said.

Katie said...

I like the hybrid... books that are interconnected, yet are each stand-alone stories where the MC's story starts and ends. When it's done well, this leads you from book to book, without getting frustrated because the book ends before the story does.

So, Nathan... do publishers consider these series or not?

Kimber An said...

I love, love, LOVE series! I love reading them and I love writing them. I get emotionally attached to characters and hate letting go.

getitwritten_guy said...

A series? The John Le Carre stories about George Smiley. Great storytelling. The books could each stand on their own or be read serially. Probably the best way to do it.

getitwritten_guy said...

To add to my previous post:

I only like series when they're as good as the Smiley books.

McKoala said...

Mostly I like them. Sometimes, though, the first book is awesome, the rest a disappointment and that makes me wonder if the series was properly planned, or if somebody suggested later: 'hey, let's make this a series' and the author had to scrape about for a story. When it works, it's fabulous though!

David said...

Gee, I wish we had Burmese food in Denver.

But speaking about series, it will soon be a good time to go to restaurants in Denver, Burmese or anything else, because so many locals will be watching/listening to/or-whatever-it-is-they-do the World Series instead of going out to eat.

Susan Helene Gottfried said...

Series -- IF there's enough in the world to sustain it. Even a series that's set in its own world but features different characters -- Jennifer Estep's new series comes to mind.

I might actually like those better. The author's not locked into a formula; there's lots of room to do all sorts of neat stuff with.

Isak said...

I think the necessary element about anything as a series is that the characters have to really work, not just as characters that the writer can make completely three-dimensional, but as an ensemble so that the extra element of reality draws a reader (or a viewer) into the on-going situations as they unfold. It's not just caring about the characters and what happens to them, its also about the audience wanting to hang out with these people.

Sophie W. said...

Series! I hate it when I get invested in a character and a world and the author abandons it to seek out greener pastures. I think the biggest challenge for an author is to consistently deliver in a series, and I admire those who can pull it off. So series are definitely more enjoyable to me.

Redzilla said...

For me to approve of it, but it has to be fresh and...it has to stand alone. (And not in the mediocre re-capping way that some series try to stand alone. Not naming any names.) I want to be able to pick up and read any book first.

Luc2 said...

Like Gerri, i love epic fantasy. I'm often fascinated by the ever-expanding worlds in all their details. Also, it gives more opportunity to develop depth in characters that is hard to establish in just one book.
As a (fantasy) writer, I find it's just hard to abandon a world (and characters) that you've worked so hard to develop. So opting for a series is the easy way out, in a sense.

Jenny said...

I like series when they are mysteries. Or written by people of genius like Marion Zimmer Bradley.

I don't like them in Romance where the introduction of a hero with five brothers or a heroine with six friends leaves me dreading that I'm being set up for sequel after sequel, few of them as good as the original book. I known in each sequel I'm going to meet former protagonists now living in disgusting domesticity surrounded by adorable children who always behave perfectly, and I'm going to hate it!

I do love it when my favorite authors write lots of unconnected books of the same sort, however. I just read the new Gillian Bradshaw and Sheri Tepper and found myself wondering again how they think up something new and different for each book. I wish more authors did!

Christopher M. Park said...

I love series, unless the writer does something stupid like regress their characters in the second book, or something like that. But seriously, if I enjoy the first book in the series, chances are I'll want to know even more about the world. Not to say that I won't read unrelated books by that same author and enjoy them just as much, but my favorite books are all part of larger series. I think that's because I'm able to connect better with characters who I get a chance to know in such depth, and follow through so many more experiences than a single book can hold.

Merry Jelinek said...

I do like some series, but for the most part, books that I adore and recommend and think are brilliant tend to be stand alone... with a few exceptions.

I do like it when an author will interconnect settings and characters through multiple, different, novels... it's not necessary to read them all, but it adds more to ponder if you have.

spyscribbler said...

Tuesday night TV is dead to you? But, but, but ... have you seen The Unit? (Better than 24 in every way.) And what about NCIS? (Abby is just the coolest!)

They both kicked ass with their arcs from last season to this season. (Hopefully you won't have missed the best part!)

Laura Kramarsky said...

I'm a big fan of series, have been since the first "grown up" books I read as a pre-teen were the Travis McGee books. But each book has to be able to stand on its own. It's ok if it's *better* to read the books in order, but it can't be *necessary.*

As an example (because he's currently my favorite author and I'll read anything he writes), take John Connolly. The Charlie Parker books are better read in order (you'll get a deeper sense of the character), but they're fine to read out of sequence, too. And then there's Bad Men, which isn't part of the series, but is tangentially related.

It's pretty hard today to find a mystery that's not part of a series. In the suspense/thriller genre, it's a little easier, but even there you find lots of books where the same characters show up again and again.

Come to think of it, I guess it's a good thing I don't dislike series, or I'd have nothing to read!

Nathan Bransford said...

spyscribbler-

Sadly I don't watch those shows. In terms of dramatic TV I basically only watch The Wire and Lost.

Neptoon said...

Aloha,

As a Wheel of Time survivor...I guess you might say I love series. Is the Dune series really over...sob!

Nathan...egads...does this mean that if I perchance had book one of a trilogy finished...a trilogy where the initial problem is solved in book three...you would not want even an eensy weensy morsel about book two and three in the initial proposal?

My poor query letter is morphing like an amoeba every time you blog.

Tammie said...

The only series I've really enjoyed is Mary Janice Davidsons Undead series.

Believe me it took me by surprise because I am not that into vampires or romance novels. It was one of those "oh give it a try" and the next thing I knew I was heading out to get the rest.

A thing to note - I did start her series though somewhere in the middle and the first book I read stood on it's own.

I think the only other series might be the 3 books of The Big Stone Gap stories from Adriana Trigiani.

If you really really like a book and then find its a series - its like getting back to your room and finding that chocolate on your pillow. A treat.

Sherri said...

I really really really love series, so much that I almost keep myself from enjoying stand-alones, just because I don't want to be too hurt when it ends. I have issues.

Anne-Marie said...

I love a good mystery series- Ian Rankin's Rebus, Elizabeth George's Inspector Lynley, PD James' Dalgliesh, and Reginald Hill's Dalziel & Pascoe, to name my fab four.

That said, some of my other favourite authors, like Ian McEwan, bring me to new worlds every different time.

Great advice!

Nathan Bransford said...

Neptoon-

It's a really bad idea for an unpublished novelist to save the resolution of their story until the third book. What if the agent only wants one? What if the agent likes three but the editor only wants one? What if the agent and editor like three but the first doesn't sell and the editor doesn't want the other two anymore?

First-time novelists should go for broke with a book that can stand-alone and has a self-contained story arc. If that one works THEN start thinking about sequels and series.

Neptoon said...

Ouch!

Other Lisa said...

BOTH!

I mean, I like reading/writing stand-alones AND series.

One time I wrote a sequel because I felt guilty about how I left a character.

Nathan Bransford said...

Sorry Neptoon! I'm honest because I care.

calendula said...

I love a series. (and I love writing them too...) :-)

Neptoon said...

Aloha Nathan,

Ummmm...so the industry is loving series, but a first time author, with a trilogy concept, should create a 225,000 first book to tell his tale.

Okay...I can do that...I just need to stay aware from sharp objects right now.

Nathan Bransford said...

Neptoon-

I'm sure there are exceptions, but as I mentioned in the post about querying for series, in my opinion if you think you want to write a series around a concept, the strategy should be to create the Star Wars: A New Hope type of novel -- something that would be completely self-contained if there were no more movies I mean books, but which could be expanded if the book does really well and the agent and editor feel it's the right thing to do.

In other words, you want to write Star Wars: A New Hope, not all six movies all at once.

Neptoon said...

225000 word first book...sorry!

Neptoon said...

Mahalo Nathan You da bes'!

Loquacious Me said...

I have the embarrassing problem of reading too fast. I have reached the point where I won't even start a new author if I can't read three or four (or more) books in that series because a single book at a time is just so...unsatisfying.

Of course, once I find myself in love with the series, I am then left with reading each new installment as it comes out (agonizingly slow, of course) but at least I have the others to reread and tide me over in the meantime.

Mystery Robin said...

I LOVE series! It makes me feel better about getting invested in the characters. ;) My favorite seties is the Amelia Peabody series by Elizabeth Peters. I'm also keeping "series possibility" in mind with each book I write (um, ok, I've written one, but with this one and my other ideas) so that I could expand them if there were interest. It's just more fun for me that way.

PS Will January ever come? Will Lost ever return?

2readornot said...

I like series -- Faye Kellerman, Kay Hooper, Orson Scott Card -- I love their series :)

And I have to say that those of us in CO are thrilled (stunned, but thrilled) :)

Jeanne said...

I love series. The Uglies, His Dark Materials, Harry Potter, Dexter, Arkady Renko, etc... But I'll drop out mid-series if it gets tired.

original bran fan said...

Here's my problem with series. They so often "jump the shark" waaaaay before the author stops writing them. I have fallen in love with early books in a series, especially mystery, only to be bored after books four and five (not to mention six and seven) that are all the same darn book.

Here's what works. When a protagonist defeats the antagonist, or story problem, the book is over. When the protagonist solves her own character problem, or fatal flaw, the series is over. See the difference? If the protag is facing new challenges each book while also working on her character problems, and making progress toward those problems, then the series can keep going. If the solving of those character problems leads to more story problems, better yet. But--especially in mystery--the character remains static and the bad guys are just more of the same. It gets tired very fast.

original bran fan said...

Me again.

Here's a question, Nathan. How come most breakout novels are stand alone novels, while series are most often found in midlist?

Could it be because in breakout novels, character problem and story problem are both solved in the climax? (I learned that from Donald Maass) And indeed, the solving of one is the solving of the other? There just doesn't seem to be a need to go on after that.

Jordyn said...

STAND ALONES!!!!!

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-series at all and I love them when they work, but too often I feel like they're just rehashing the first book, only less well.
And, okay, complete honesty here: I hate waiting for the new book to come out.

Nathan Bransford said...

OBF-

Not all breakouts are stand-alones (HARRY POTTER comes to mind), but if it is more common for stand-alones to break out in a big way I wonder if the difference is that authors who write series very steadily build their readership until their work reaches a very big level (i.e. Harlan Coben, Stephenie Meyer), so it's more of a steady approach rather than one big all-at-once breakout a la Dan Brown. Does that make sense?

Jason said...

Some literary worlds are so vast and so exciting to visit, that a series is needed ... Peter F Hamilton's /Pandora's Star/ comes to mind.

Other are droll no matter how many books they have.

And other start off well, but fizzle.

Honestly though, who reads the ones that start lackluster and build to greatness? No one, which is why we don't see those.

Josephine Damian said...

Nathan! "House" and "Cane" are on Tues. nights! You are missing out!

Oh well. To each his own.

Series? Prefer the trilogies, especially ones by Robertson Davies, and my book club will be reading Pat Barker's "Regeneration" triology during next summer's break.

In the few mystery/thriller series books I've read, I find as the series drags on, there's too much emphasis on the secondary characters' inter- and (usually dysfunctional) family relationships, and little emphasis on plot/thrills/mystery. So I tend to avoid reading more than one book in any writer's series.

I think it's tough for a writer to sustain their own interest over time and come up with new ideas.

Me? Yes, I'll submit my thriller as a stand alone with potential for series, but like Katie says, it'll be more a hybrid series with other characters from the first book stepping out from the gallery to take center stage. Each book will focus on a different forensics discipline - to change it up, keep it interesting - I hope! OK, I guess I can rule out Jen as a fan :-)

Can't wait for the contest!

Ello said...

I love series. And if a book is in a series, it actually pushes me towards wanting to invest in the first book because when I really love a book and its characters I HATE saying goodbye.

Helen said...

What a good question! My first impulse was to say that I love series, but then I realized that except for Harry Potter I have never read beyond the first book. What does that say about me? ADHD?

Angie said...

I like series if the writing and story are good, of course, but if a novel is iffy, the fact that it's a series won't make me like it any more.

And I really hate seeing or hearing about a book that looks really good, but discovering that it's book X of a series and being unable to find books 1 through X-1. I'm pretty obsessive about reading things in order and if I can't find the earlier ones I'm not going to read the later ones. Earlier books should be kept in print or it's pointless. [sigh]

Angie

Michele Lee said...

So Nathan, you dislike Boston Legal too? I adore it. It's mean, funny, quirky and heart hitting all at the same time.

I like series. I read more series and trilogies that stand alones. And in writing, I like multiple books too. Even when I'm writing in the present, known world I see so many stories to tell. I also sometimes wonder what stories other writers could write into my world.

But there is a difference between what I primarily write, self contained books, sort of like episodes, and open ended, blurred series where one story can span over several books and nothing gets solved in a single book.

Scott said...

I think I prefer standalones. I read some series book, but even then, I prefer if they more or less stand alone. If I'm reading a series, I typically read several books in between the parts of the series. Other than Lord of the Rings, i don't think I've ever read a series straight through, and that's not even a series, really.

And you know, I really don't care about the Rockies, but I'm always glad to see a team make the WS that's not one of the usual players. Unless it's my team, and I've been away from major league cities too long. Our local Rookie League team won its own championship this season, so I'm happy with whatever.

Linnea said...

love a mystery series when done well. My last favorite was Martha Grimes' pub series with Superintendent Richard Jury, the eighth earl of Caverness, Melrose Plant, the oh so lovely Carole-anne, Trueblood, is he gay or isn't he? and...Well, you get my drift. After about l0 or ll I guess she got tired of them, the stories weren't the same and I lost interest.

Kate H said...

I have two separate kinds of reading matter, the serious and the not-so-serious. The latter includes a lot of series--detective series, Harry Potter, Anne of Green Gables, etc. When I'm reading for escape, I love to be able to pick up a book and enter a world I know well and stay there for a while. But when it comes to serious literary fiction, usually standalones are best. And I don't really think I'd enjoy writing a series--but you never know.

Kadi Easley said...

Put me firmly in the series camp. I've loved them since Nancy Drew and Trixie Belden.

Anonymous said...

Did you actually say "(and how the Colorado freaking Rockies ended up in said series is beyond me)?" I thought it was hard work and talent! :)

I love series, especially sci fi or fantasy, but I hate waiting for the next book to come out. That's what I am doing now, and it is frustrating.

P.G said...

Nothing gets me excited more then finding a great new series to read.
I stupidly bought number 7 in the Crown of Stars series..When buying it
I didnt read the blurb carefully and was shocked to find it was number 7.
Being me I cannot read a book mid series so I found book 1 and book 2 at my library. LOVED IT! I am so happy to know there are more in the series.
Also Jasper Ffordes' Thursday Next series is just the best thing since well Jane Eyre.

As for Tuesday night TV watch NCIS, I agree Abby is the coolest.
Plus House is a funny show.
As for the people in The Hills they all need to go visit Dr Phil.

phammonds said...

I love reading a good series. It's like picking up with old friends after an extended absence. Or even authors who write stand-alone books with returning characters, ala Harlan Coben and his Myron Bolitar books. I can't wait to see what Myron and Win and all the others will be up to next. Great characters are what make an outstanding series.

Other Lisa said...

I'm still in mourning about the Padres...

Maya Reynolds said...

Nathan: Tuesday night is the only night I really watch television. NCIS, House, Boston Legal.

I watch the odd show here and there the rest of the week, but Tuesday's my night.

I like series until and unless they go stale. Carol O'Connell, John Connolly, Harlan Coben, Jeff Lindsay, Charlaine Harris, and Patricia Briggs are all authors I still read.

I've given up on Andrew Vachss (got too preachy), Robert B. Parker (phoning them in) and Laurell K. Hamilton (forgot what "plot" means).

otherkatie said...

I agree with what Kate H said. Series feel more fun and light. Stand-alones knock my socks off in a literary way.

The manuscript I just finished is the first in a series. Of course, when I query, I'll have to say "stand-alone with series potential." Can't bring up marriage on the first date, you know?

So, Nathan, when are you going to start repping middle grade?

sex scenes at starbucks said...

I repeat:

GO ROCKIES!

Actually, I don't care much for baseball. But I do love Colorado.

And I love series.

Stephanie Zvan said...

I like stand-alones. That said, I'll read several stand-alone books with the same characters. Okay, they're series, but the authors of the series I like tend to mess with the formula. Take Allingham's Campion books, where Campion might just be a peripheral character, or Brust's Taltos books, where you never know when in Vlad's history you're going to end up or whether you'll be reading fantasy or SF.

Actually, I like my TV the same way, episodic and unpredictable.

Maripat said...

While I do like a good series, I tend to get bored with characters by book five if they're not changing/growing. Maybe I'm more of a trilogy reader.

jessie said...

My answer is, as usual, "it depends." It depends on the characters, the plot, the story, the style. I loved Stephenie Meyer's Twilight but the sequels feel forced to me. I enjoyed Naomi Novik's His Majesty's Dragon and the sequels feel like a natural progression. I like Kate Wilhelm's Barbara Holloway novels because they follow a character I've come to love. Bellwether by Connie Willis is one of my all time favorites, and couldn't be anything but a standalone. Sigh. I'm such a flip flopper.

I read an article that described Pushing Daisies as the show that would happen if Joss Whedon and Tim Burton had a love child. That is probably why I like it. If you're not a fan of highly stylized quirk, it might not be for you.

Susan Flemming said...

I confess that I love series, both the continuing saga kind and the continuing character but different story each book kind. But I have to really love the main characters to want to continue reading. If I get to the point where I don't care about the characters anymore, then I stop reading the series.

Bernita said...

I seriously love series.

Wordly said...

I intensely dislike series. I feel they're manipulative, somehow, and I don't think there's that much story in any fictional character.

It's very annoying to get a book home and open up to the facing page and it says, "Book Six in the NeverEnding Saga!" It's like, get over yourself, already :D

Kim Stagliano said...

Series! Lots of old friends to revisit over the years. Every so often I grab a Dell Shannon Luis Mendoza mystery (written in the 60's) from the library and am immediately transported back to the bus I used to ride into Boston from Newton on my way to my first job after college. I love series because I enjoy character driven stories so much. I can think of an author, Virginia Rich, who wrote three books and I spent years hoping she'd come out with another.

Fortunately Miss Snark taught me that you never query a series. Or I'm sure I'd have made that error in addition to the zillion others I made.

Great question!

Mary said...

There's nothing better than a wonderful series.

When I was twelve I became addicted to Patricia Highsmith and read the Ripley books back to back, then all over again.

Now I'm an adult, I read children's books. I loved the first three Harry Potters, but stopped at the fourth, as I found it too dark and repetitious. But it's rare that I abandon a series. If it’s exciting and original, such as Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events, I'm counting the days until the next release (guaranteed sale for the author). And sometimes I'll read a stunning standalone, such as Adrienne Kress' Alex and the Ironic Gentleman, where I enjoy the characters, world, and author's voice so much that I cross my fingers and hope it will be expanded into a series.

Anonymous said...

Oh, how I dislike series!

After I get to the climax and resolution of a book, I am over it. Moving on!

It could be because I still read aloud to my children and they just loooove any kind of series. Enough with the Baudelaires already! Find happiness!

WendyNYC

Adrienne said...

I love a series. Heck I own all the HP's and Lemony Snickets.

What I don't love so much is that it seems to me that most fantasy writers, and most first time fantasy writers especially, feel obligated to write a series. I can't remember the last time I met someone writing a fantasy that hadn't planned for more than one book. I think that is the danger. That some writers feel the form is more important than the content. They don't realise that the question is, does the story require more than one book, not the genre.

And Mary can I just say I am hugely flattered and thank you so very much! Like . .. seriously. Thank you.

Vinnie Sorce said...

I love the same characters. It makes me feel like I go home each time I read them and that I'm part of the family. That's why I watch reruns of Friends, MASH, and Everybody Loves Raymond. They're reliable for a laugh and a warm fuzzy feeling every time...

Antony said...

Series providing that any of the novels can be read stand alone.

Bonus points if the series can be read in any order too. (I feel Pratchett achieves this)

Lupina said...

Some genres lend themselves to series more than others, which is why I agree with Jason that a good fantasy world can require more than one book for total exploration.

I am currrently mulling a modest offer from a very small publisher for my first fantasy novel, a middle-grade to YA piece which I didn't write with the idea of a sequel because it had a firm resolution. However, by the end of it I had become very enamored of the sub-text characters, the villain had turned out differently than I first imagined, and the lesser of the three main characters still had a lot to do.

Also, I've been giving the ms to interested non-related parties such as my dental hygienist's son, the jr.high age neighbor down the street, the son of an online cancer support group member, etc. and have all of them begging for the sequel. I've taken to avoiding my little neighbor girl because of her baleful eyes. So it looks like I have a sequel, but whether it continues into a series is up in misty air of that fantasy dimension.

Marlene Dotterer said...

I like stories set in the same world, with some or all of the same characters, but the books have to stand on their own. I'm not crazy about a true series - book 1, book 2, etc., where I don't find out the ending until book 27 or something. It alwasys seems the ending was not worth it.

Plus, it's miserable waiting two or three years before the next book comes out and even worse when the publisher chucks the whole thing mid-stream. I'm more likely to not start a new series because of that.

All that said, my WIP has turned into a series, but of the "each book can stand alone" variety.

KateS said...

Love series. LOVE them. And of course I'm one of those anal readers who needs to read a series in order, whether the individual books can be read as a standalone or not.

And I liked the concept of Pushing Daisies, but not so much the outcome.

JDuncan said...

I love series, but generally in the vein of a massive story with multiple characters that just takes several books to tell, i.e. Martin's Fire and Ice saga or King's The Dark Tower. These guys were already pubbed of course so probably a bit easier to garner interest.

So, Nathan. If one were to insist on querying a trilogy where the story arc doesn't actually culminate until book three, poor odds or not, how would you suggest going about doing so to maximize your chances for interest? Curious, since I am in this position as well, much like neptoon. Sure, I could probably scale down my story into one book and make it something less epic in scope, but for the moment, I do not wish to do that.

Jim
www.jimnduncan.com

Related Posts with Thumbnails