Deborah J. Ross (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
deborahjross) wrote2012-12-02 12:07 pm
deborahjross) wrote2012-12-02 12:07 pm
Entry tags:
Reflections on the pitfalls of writing a series
Over on my blog, Margaret Yang and Harry R. Campion, who write together as M. H. Mead, talk about why they consider their books a set instead of a series. I think this is a distinction worth considering, for both newer writers and those of us who've been around for a bit.
Readers often fall in love with a world and its characters (and we as writers do that, too, but we also experience a natural reluctance to start again completely from scratch with a new project when we have a richly developed landscape, cultures, and history -- not to mention fabulous characters -- just begging for more adventures!) This temptation is not without risk. One is that if the reading satisfaction and completeness of each book is dependent on having read all that has come before, you're setting up a scenario for decreasing sales. This is perhaps less a problem with epublishing, when books remain "in print" essentially forever, than it was when a mass market paperback's shelf life was measured in days before it was swept away to make room for the next release. Readers are naturally reluctant to pick up a book in the middle of such a series.
Marion was adamant that each Darkover book stand on its own without reference to any of the previous volumes. I think this was more the case for the early to middle books than for some of the latter ones, where the complexity of characters and their relationships, and recent history, not to mention culture, makes for dense background material. On the whole, however, I think she succeeded, and it's what I've tried to do, even with the first three books we worked on together (The Fall of Neskaya, Zandru's Forge, A Flame in Hali, collectively entitled "The Clingfire Trilogy" but which can all be read as stand-alones.
Established writers working with traditional publishers, including small press, face the risk that if one book in a series does not sell well, the publisher will likely not want more of the same series, and it's highly unlikely that another publisher will want to pick up a series that has been begun by some other house and has not lived up to expectations. They all have access to the same sales figures, after all. But by the time you, the writer, realize the next book in your series has a dire future, considerable time may have passed -- time you could have been working on a brand new project. True, we can get Bookscan sales figures right away, but we still will have lost the time between when we turned in the final manuscript and when the book hits the shelves.
If we have sufficient readership, we can consider self-publishing that next book, aiming for readers who have loved what has gone before. Notice the cautionary phrase, "if." We're taking the risk that the time and creative energy we will then put into finishing (or formatting/marketing/etc.) that series book will amount to coasting on our previous career momentum, not increasing it. We're gambling that enough established readers will want the book, and that word of mouth may even boost its sales about that of its predecessor/s. We're betting that this is a better use of our resources than to dive into something new, something with the potential to "break out" and create a whole new readership.
The situation is different with beginning/newer writers, who have no career to coast on. I admit to having a bias against young writers devoting themselves to a series or prequels/sequels early in their careers. When you're beginning is the best time to hone skills by writing a range of stories, inventing one new world and set of characters after another. I believe you do yourself a disservice by limiting yourself to an early work, because as your skills improve, so will your vision as an artist.
What do you think?
Readers often fall in love with a world and its characters (and we as writers do that, too, but we also experience a natural reluctance to start again completely from scratch with a new project when we have a richly developed landscape, cultures, and history -- not to mention fabulous characters -- just begging for more adventures!) This temptation is not without risk. One is that if the reading satisfaction and completeness of each book is dependent on having read all that has come before, you're setting up a scenario for decreasing sales. This is perhaps less a problem with epublishing, when books remain "in print" essentially forever, than it was when a mass market paperback's shelf life was measured in days before it was swept away to make room for the next release. Readers are naturally reluctant to pick up a book in the middle of such a series.
Marion was adamant that each Darkover book stand on its own without reference to any of the previous volumes. I think this was more the case for the early to middle books than for some of the latter ones, where the complexity of characters and their relationships, and recent history, not to mention culture, makes for dense background material. On the whole, however, I think she succeeded, and it's what I've tried to do, even with the first three books we worked on together (The Fall of Neskaya, Zandru's Forge, A Flame in Hali, collectively entitled "The Clingfire Trilogy" but which can all be read as stand-alones.
Established writers working with traditional publishers, including small press, face the risk that if one book in a series does not sell well, the publisher will likely not want more of the same series, and it's highly unlikely that another publisher will want to pick up a series that has been begun by some other house and has not lived up to expectations. They all have access to the same sales figures, after all. But by the time you, the writer, realize the next book in your series has a dire future, considerable time may have passed -- time you could have been working on a brand new project. True, we can get Bookscan sales figures right away, but we still will have lost the time between when we turned in the final manuscript and when the book hits the shelves.
If we have sufficient readership, we can consider self-publishing that next book, aiming for readers who have loved what has gone before. Notice the cautionary phrase, "if." We're taking the risk that the time and creative energy we will then put into finishing (or formatting/marketing/etc.) that series book will amount to coasting on our previous career momentum, not increasing it. We're gambling that enough established readers will want the book, and that word of mouth may even boost its sales about that of its predecessor/s. We're betting that this is a better use of our resources than to dive into something new, something with the potential to "break out" and create a whole new readership.
The situation is different with beginning/newer writers, who have no career to coast on. I admit to having a bias against young writers devoting themselves to a series or prequels/sequels early in their careers. When you're beginning is the best time to hone skills by writing a range of stories, inventing one new world and set of characters after another. I believe you do yourself a disservice by limiting yourself to an early work, because as your skills improve, so will your vision as an artist.
What do you think?