Is it readers’ relationship to the protagonist that encourages this devotion? Or in the case of epic fantasy, the need to find out what happens in book after book after book, ad infinitum? Or perhaps it has nothing to do with readers at all. Maybe it’s about publishers who want to hook — read manipulate — book buyers into a near-guaranteed future sale.
 |
| Release Date 11/1/11 |
My progress thus far: just cracked the cover on the third Bolitar book, FADE AWAY. Interest is waning a bit, but I'm still enjoying the journey. I'll keep y'all posted.
I see series as a catch-22. Readers want the same MC, but that often leaves character arcs flapping in the wind. Plots are easy. Coming up with meaningful character arcs that don't change the character so much that loyal readers revolt? That's damned hard, and many an established writer has failed to meet the challenge.
Moreover, series authors are often brutalized when they break formation with a standalone. Writers identified with successful series may no longer have the luxury of 'writing for themselves.' Readers expect another series entry, and a standalone, no matter how extraordinary, will never meet that expectation.
What’s the answer?
No clue.
One intriguing approach is the loose series. For example, Tana French’s Dublin Murder Squad books. Her protagonist changes with each book, the stories are unrelated, the unifying factor is that each protagonist is a member of the Murder Squad. I could read this “series” forever, because the stories and characters are unique with each entry. But that begs the question: is this really a series?
Now some questions for you.
Do you have qualms about getting trapped by a series, either as a writer or a reader? When you begin to read a series, do you think about whether there are a finite number of books as with HARRY POTTER and THE HUNGER GAMES, or whether the series has the potential to go on forever, like George R.R. Martin's A SONG OF FIRE AND ICE?
And finally, are series franchises a threat to a writer's creativity? Isn't there a jump the shark moment for every series? Would love to hear your thoughts on this.
33 Brilliant Insights:
I love series because when I fall in love with characters I want more. However, the author has to be quite good to keep me coming back. It's kind of a catch 22 I guess.
My novel is the first in a trilogy because it takes all three novels to complete the characters arc. That's pretty coming in YA and MG. Since the characters are younger, it's easier to stretch it out over several novels.
I actually get irked when there's only one book and no series. I love meeting characters and entering worlds, and I don't want to have to read one book over and over again when I want to go back.
But I like it when authors plan their series first. When they publish a standalone novel and then create a sequel just because it did well? It never feels like it ties in quite right.
I can read both, but I prefer series. I not only get connected to protag, but I get hooked on the world. Characters, like real people, should have depth; they should grow and change, and that takes more to happen than one event in their entire live.
If a character or world is stagnant, then no matter how intriguing the action, I won't keep reading. Or watching movies; One Final Destination movie was enough, two Nightmare On Elm Street did it, same for Aliens.
Yes, I think a series can go on too long - I loved Stephen King's Dark Tower series, but it took too long to win through to the Tower itself. I was starting to lose hope in the story ending.
The best series books do not focus solely on the MC hero/heroine; each book may tell more of a secondary or minor character's story, and how that fits into the overall series plot, but still retain the same hero throughout. Make sense?
Enjoy the books.
.......dhole
Speaking as someone who has ghostwritten at least one five parter, the big issue for me becomes one of balancing individual story arcs with a larger arc for the series. I sometimes think that the best series are ones where they just 'happen' to share a setting, but are genuinely individual stories, like Pratchett's Discworld stuff.
I like reading series and stand alones. The draw for me in series can be either the character or the setting. Anne McCaffrey's Pern series is one of my favourites for returning to the same setting. The cast of characters is large, but interconnected.
I don't plan to read series, for many of the reasons you mention. But when I do love a character, it is hard to let them go...and rewarding to find out what happens next. That said, the only series I HAVE read in the last 10 years is Harry Potter, and like the rest of the world, I loved them.
Heather - Terrific point. YA series tend to be very different than say a mystery/thriller or adult fantasy series in that the the character arc carries through. No way The Hunger Games could have been written in a single book.
Christine - I agree, and I feel the same way about movies where a studio makes a one-off, it's successful, and suddenly it's a series.
Donna - Makes perfect sense! Character development is where many series fail in my opinion. The same old character is thrown into the same kind of plot with the same kind of outcome. There is no real character development yet the books are touted as "character driven fiction." Eighteen books and the character hasn't changed since book one? How can that be character driven? Oops, am I venting? I didn't mean to vent.
Stu - I think when there is an overall arc, a series is warranted, but many series, mystery series in particular aren't series at all, they're plot contrivances with an established protagonist thrown in - Murder She Wrote, rehashed. I'm going to get into so much trouble saying this stuff. Discworld is daunting, just the reading chart scares me. How Pratchett manages the connections with the almost standalone plots, I don't know.
Jemi - My preference for character driven fiction has no doubt colored my judgement. This is surely why I love The Hobbit, and can take or leave Lord of the Rings. I always end up loosing interest. Even Donaldson's Thomas Covenant Chronicles which I LOVED from page one got boring. Maybe it's literary ADD. :)
Liza - Absolutely, HP was deserving of a series. There was never any sense of JKR out there floundering. She always knew where the series was headed. I think this is more rare than it should be, though.
This is such an interesting post and discussion. Like you, I'm not generally a fan of series. I even grew tired of Alex Cross, though I loved him through several books. But a loose series is different. I'm still enthralled by a couple of them.
I've never written a series, but I think I may be starting one. The project I'm working on now - still in pre-plan, is showing series potential. It's something I'm thinking about.
Might be just me, but I think the verbal buzz really effects popularity. People want to read what other people are reading, so if a sizable number of people start to read a series, it becomes viral from there as word spreads.
I think comfort is the biggest thing that attracts readers to series. You know what you're going to get.
I'm a huge Coben fan, too. But I have loved his stand alones just as much as Myron.
I am not into series but do read them on occasion. I loved hanging out with the characters in Harry Potter; I felt like they were my friends. I also loved that world of magic and Hogwarts. That's a seldom occurence. Otherwise, I keep going to find out what happens. The ending has got to be done just so: some resolution so that I feel satisfied that I've spent time with the book but enough of a cliffhanger so that I am compelled to seek out the next.
I think it depends on what you want to read at any given time. Most often I want a stand-alone book, one that I can return to and savor anew. But I do love a good series, like Terry Pratchett's "Tiffany Aching Adventures", Patricia Wrede's "Enchanted Forest Chronicles", Susan Cooper's "The Dark is Rising", Lloyd Alexander's "The Chronicles of Prydain".
And, of course, Marcia Muller's books featuring San Francisco private eye Sharon McCone. ;-)
I fell in love with Anne McCafrrey's Dragonrider series because she started with a couple core characters, and then the books began to splinter off and follow different characters. We'd see the originals now and then, so we could still see them grow and change, but without the drastic change needed if the story followed them. Guess that's why I wrote a five book series that did the same thing.
I love both stand-alones and series. Honestly, with some stand-alones, I love the characters so much that I wish the author would write a follow-up.
In high school and college I adored Lawrence Sanders' mystery series. They had the same detectives, different cases. I don't remember character growth, but I loved encountering the same detectives.
I'm a fan of series. If I love the first book, then I always want more of the same character. I don't want to just leave with one novel of them.
The plot changes with the books and it feels like it's all new and exciting because you're learning even more of that world and that character.
It's always the protagonist that makes me want more.
Like Heather, I get to like the characters. Robert B. Parker said that in series the secondary characters become more fleshed out, lending a realism to the story. One shots have only time to make cardboard cut-outs of many of the secondary characters.
I played with Sam McCord. I wrote two novels of him in 1853. Then, to make things interesting, I moved him to 2005 during Katrina with many of the same undead cast of characters. But time and events had changed many of them.
To add yet another perspective and layer to McCord, I had him viewed in yet another book by a teenage street kid. Same background characters but you get to see different facets of them.
To me writing a series is like turning up the magnification in a microscope -- you see a new reality in the same scene.
You wrote a great post. Thanks, Roland
It's tricky doing a series that can be standalone yet connected to the greater story arc, and I think that's what's important in a long series--a story arc.
Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos series works for me because of that, and because the cast of supporting characters are interesting/memorable, often reappear, and add to the storyline greatly--thus the POV/Main character isn't carrying the entire load.
For me, it's kind of like why I enjoy a certain type of TV series, such as Babylon 5, and now Burn Notice. It blends interesting characters and storylines, but there is an overall arc that carries the show forward (although each episode can be seen in isolation and enjoyed within its own context--if that makes sense).
I generally don't care for series because it's inevitably hard to live up to expectations for continuing a character arc. As long as that arc is secondary to the plot, I don't mind too much. Michael Connelly does this well with his Lincoln Lawyer series.
Carol - In mysteries, I think a lot depends on how many books are in the series because the stories are so similar: inciting incident, sleuth solves crime, throw in a friend, family member and maybe a love interest. Nothing wrong with that formula, I LOVE mysteries, but it's easy to fall into a rut. Three book series are great. Once you get up into the teens, though…!
Mark - Absolutely! Look at the The Twilight Series, The Hunger Games, and Stieg Larsson's Millennium Trilogy. All off them off the charts, carried by word of mouth.
PJ - You're right. There are a lot of bad books out there, it's nice to have the safety of a known quantity. One other reason I chose Myron is because Coben has taken a lot of flack for his excellent standalones, simply because they're not Myron. Unfair!
Stephanie - Harry Potter kept me reading, but few series are successful at pulling me through. Often, I finish a book with the intention of going to the next in the series, but then never get to it. Just doesn't hold the same fascination as something new. Still thinking literary ADD here.
Kathryn - Wow, can't fault you on your series choices! These are great examples of how wonderful series can be. I truly love Cooper's The Dark is Rising series, including Over Sea, Under Stone, although notice they're calling it a "sequence" now.
Diane - Heather made an excellent point about series making sense in YA and MG, because these characters are still growing and changing in a very real way. And I have to say, the series I've enjoyed have almost all been YA and MG. That's what I find missing from mystery and thriller series, and why I balk at writing one (although I am), the character is utterly static. A new love, a new job, a new crime does not a character arc make.
Medeia - PJ mentioned comfort, that's an excellent word. Sometimes the characters are so engaging, we do want more. But there are few standalones in my genre anymore, fewer everyday, if Publishers Marketplace is any indication. This hurts as my preferred reading is psychological thrillers. True psych. thrillers rarely make for a good long running series. Hmm... Val McDermid's Tony Hill may be one exception.
Devin - I get attached to characters, too. But even a great character rarely takes me through more than three or four books. I begin to have a yen to read something a little deeper.
Roland - I agree, this is a brilliant use of series. Sadly, it rarely happens on the page. I'm ashamed to admit I haven't read Parker, but in most of the [mystery] series I've read, the secondary characters are never fleshed out. In fact many of them end up transient, or worse, dead - and not in an undead way. :)
Terry - That arc is certainly what's important to me and what I miss most in many series. Too often the so called arc is a romance, financial issue, or physical injury that is carried across the books. These are not arcs, they're situations. Yes, exact same thing with television. So much more compelling when there's an overall story rather than a beginning, middle, and end with each episode.
Nancy - I like Connelly's Micky Haller, too. Especially the first book. Not sure how I'll feel if it's true he's headed for the DA's office. Certainly an interesting story arc, but character-wise it seems a bit off. It's the fact he's not all good that makes him interesting.
I always enjoy a WELL WRITTEN series. I do believe they should end at some point. I think Rowling stretched it to the max. Seven books in a series is monumental.
My first novel is the first in a series of five. Yes, it's a lot, but there will be a different protag featured and will eventually meet the first protag.
This is a very interesting post, VR
Michael - Three almost always works for me if the series is well done, but I rarely make it to seven or beyond. My trilogy is three (duh!) each has a different protagonist, and the story arcs deal with the individual MCs, but the series arc involves all three of the characters. Since I'm presently editing book two and haven't written three. No idea if it will work out. :)
Interesting. I thought I was the only person who avoided series! I don't like most of them (there are exceptions) because 1. Little ever changes. 2. Resolution could be so far away, I don't want to wait on it. (Sorry to George R. Martin and Robert Jordan fans.) 3. They frequently read as the same book over. And over. And over.
Exceptions include series that are written as one enormous book and divided by the publisher (LOTR, Patrick Rothfuss' Name of the Wind and sequel I still intend to read and, to a degree, Harry Potter.) Each of the HP books have their own arc, some working better than others in my opinion, but the kids change in each book, they grow at a believable rate and the overall arc is amazing. Also, we knew going in that there would be a set ending.
Series I like the most are the ones you mention: set in the same world, maybe even a variety of beloved characters used in different stories, but each tale is unique. If the author can carry this off with artistry without ever repeating themselves, they've got me at Chapter One.
I grew up on Anne McCaffrey and the Dragonriders of Pern, Comic Books, and Star Wars YA novels, so I think I was trained for series reading at an early age-- and it isn't about the single character for me, so much as it is the world, finding out what happens to related secondary characters, and digging out every scrap of information on the characters I have learned to love along the way. (I've been known to read encyclopedia-like entries on my favorite superheroes after finishing a trade even though it's telling me everything I already know, just on the off chance that there will be some tiny piece of a puzzle buried in the text that might offer me some new insight to their souls.)
I'm curious though-- do you have the same trouble maintaining interest in television shows that go on season after season?
Victoria - Yes, very true, some of the Potter books definitely worked better than others. And really, had I not known there was an ending on it's way, I very well might not have bothered finishing the series. And I'm sure if JKR's publisher had more to say about it, there would have been at least twice the number of books.
Amalia - Eek, you had to ask that? I get so embarrassed saying this, but I don't watch TV (except for news). Any series I'm interested in, I view later on DVD, so I can get a whole season at once. Very few shows lure me into more than two seasons. The last TV show I watched and enjoyed *live* was Buffy. Soooo, the answer to you question is yes. Now I'm going to go hide in the corner. :)
Ha! How fascinating! I don't watch a lot of television live, either, honestly. We don't have cable and we don't get ANY reception for broadcast, so I mostly watch bunches of episodes at a time on DVD or else on Hulu/Netflix. I loved Buffy, too :)
What did you read growing up? were you anti-series then, too?
Interesting question. Before middle school, I was stuck on biographies. Read everyone I could get my hand on. In middle school it was gothic romance. In high school it was horror. I don't recall reading a lot of series, although I loved Madeleine L'Engle's Time series and Mary Norton's Borrowers. I still read far more MG and YA series than I do adult series, and I enjoy them more.
Do you read the same type of books now, that you did growing up? I wonder how many of us do?
I do! For the most part. I read a lot more historical fiction now-- I didn't read any of that as a kid-- And a lot more ancient texts (and actually enjoy reading them, which I would not have as a kid, though I have distinct memories of hanging out on my brother's bed reading Bullfinch in middle school). But I'm still reading fantasy and science fiction, series and non-series alike, too.
If every book is as wonderful as the last and lets me keep enjoying the characters I’ve come to love, I’m all about series. When the magic stops being there, then I’d say end the series on a high note.
P.S. Thanks for following Bird’s-eye View; I’m glad to be a new follower of your blog!
Amalia - Although I don't read exactly what I read as a kid, I definitely see a path from gothics to psych thrillers. Love that you read Bullfinch in middle school. It's so *you*! :)
Michelle - I agree, and I think far too many series wear themselves out rather than quit while they're ahead. Thank you so much for dropping by. Love your blog, Bird's-eye View, and what a great contest you have underway! BTW, I'm from NorCal (Chico, born and raised).
Sorry I'm late to the party, VR. Thanks for the plug on my series! I'm excited. And lucky to have the best CP on earth.
Without hesitation, I blame Nancy Drew for my love of series. I'm drawn to the familiarity, especially if the author advance the character from book to book without changing the character. Not a simple thing to do. People grow up (well, Nancy didn't, and I hear Reacher won't either).
I loved the Bolitar series until Myron got soft, but I'll go back for Win. Please, Harlan, don't ever change our sociopath Win! Elizabeth Peters did a spectacular job of maturing Amelia Peabody and her clan.
But there are real traps to series: the distinct danger of every story plotting out the same. Knowing the characters so well that we can anticipate exactly how the mystery will be solved.
As a series writer (just finished book 2 with the help of my trusty CP, VRB) I can testify to the convenience (the world is already built) and the traps (how can this person, not in law enforcement, be associated with another murder? The Jessica Fletcher/Cabot Cove syndrome.)
But given my choice, I choose to read series. I like what I know. I just finished the Lincoln Lawyer books - any suggestions?
By the way, VR - biographies were my favorite genre at the library before Mom introduced me to Nancy Drew. But biographies with substance!
Rochelle - Of course I'll give WDV a real plug closer to release date, but for this post I needed your adorable book-cover to attract readers. Thank you.
I can't think of any episodic type books I was hooked on growing up. As you know, I didn't read Nancy until recently. I was into comic books, though, and a lot of them were basically graphic series.
Thank you for reminding me of Amelia P, a long running series I love. Some of the books are better than others, but each is unique. You're right, the characters mature. To be precise, Emerson and Amelia get older, but Ramses matures. Kudos to Elizabeth Peters for not sticking her characters in a single scenario and allowing them to decompose.
I am getting tired of Myron and will probably stop after #4, BACK SPIN, or at least take a break. I wonder if the series was getting a little shopworn for Coben around this time. Lots of one-liners and snark rather than the clever retorts in the three earlier books. For goody two-shoes Myron it seems out of character. On the other hand, it's about U.S. Open and in a week they'll be playing the PGA Championship a few blocks from here, which is a nice tie-in. My imagination is running wild with violence but it's all tied to the associated traffic. :)
Post a Comment