Series rambling
Aug. 26th, 2004 12:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
msagaraI feel the need to preface this one with a big disclaimer: I'm not an editor, I'm not a publisher, I'm not an agent. These ramblings are my observations, but I observe only what it's in my nature to observe, and while I attempt objectivity, am fully aware that I achieve filtered subjectivity.
Many, many writers would disagree with what I've said in places. I'm not trying to discuss process because, frankly, there are so many excellent writers on LJ who do just that -- but I feel I have to stress the fact that the discussion of a business-eye-view isn't the only thing that's important.
Okay.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
yhlee asked a question about series books, which I'm rambling about here.
I did not set out to write a series, but it didn't seem to me to be a detrimental career thing to do. At the time, it even seemed wise. People get different things out of reading; some people crave the fizzle of the new and the different. Some invest enough emotion in a character and a world that they want to know more about both. At best guess, either works, depending entirely on the type of story you have to tell.
Romance is still mostly single book, for instance, and no one can tell me Romance doesn't have readers. In the past, a Romance series was a set of books that featured minor characters from a previous novel, but the story itself was enclosed. Now, it's less clear to me that this is the case, as romantic elements carry through various stories in which there's more to tell. I don't know a lot about Romance; it's just the biggest example of successful non-series writing I can think of in publishing.
To go back toyhlee's comment, though. Yes, these days it's more common to have stand-alone novels in SF than it is in fantasy. This doesn't mean that one dies if that's all one writes. It also isn't meant to imply that series sell where stand-alones don't, because I've seen plenty of series books disappear from view.
For the purpose of our discussion, a series can mean one of three things, so I'm using the term loosely.
There are trilogies, or xxologies, in which the entire story plays out in xx books, rather than in one; there's not a lot of story resolution at the end of each volume, and the characters are often left hanging. Readers too. Obvious examples: Robert Jordan. George Martin.
Then there are the books which I think of as series in the television sense: There's a beginning, middle and end to each book, but the character growth and arcs can continue in later books. Examples of these: Jim Butcher. Tanya Huff. Lois McMaster Bujold. Stephen Brust's Vlad books.
Last, there are books which take place in the same universe, but can be read completely independently, because the only continuity is the world itself, and off the top of my head, I can throw out China Mieville. Err, throw out is probably an unfortunate use of words, but you know what I meant. Early C. J. Cherryh SF. Oh, wait, I'm enormously stupid -- Terry Pratchett.
There are more fantasy examples, because that's what I write. I pay attention to fantasy with a bit more hawkishness for that reason. But I can come up with books that fit the categories above in SF just as easily. David Brin's Uplift books are both; the trilogy and the separate novels which take place in the same universe. Iain M. Banks and his culture novels (as separate novels which take place in the same universe). William Gibson. Gene Wolfe (as xxology). Dan Simmons (Hyperion books). David Weber.
If anyone thinks that series=garbage, the exit is to the left. Find it, because my foot is going to be chasing your butt.
When I speak of a series, I speak of these three things. I realize that's a bit nebulous, but that's what I mean when I say it. Technically, if the book can be read as a stand-alone, it can be argued that that's what it is, but in terms of marketing, that's exactly not what it is, and I'm veering toward the marketing, so bear with me. The point of marketing a world is sort of creating a small brand name. If the publisher effectively 'owns' the world, in the sales sense, it can leverage that if reader interest is there. There is a sense that connected novels will draw more readers, so if the book does stand alone, it doesn't matter if the publisher thinks it can get a larger preorder by tying it in with a previous book.
There are several authors I can think of who have done well publishing books that stand alone. Where "done well" in this case means that they've got recognition and a steady publisher for their works; I can't speak to their overall sales because I've never asked for hard numbers. In SF, it's vastly easier. Robert J. Sawyer and Robert Charles Wilson come instantly to mind. Connie Willis (although I do realize that technically two of her books are connected, I don't think that fact made much difference because they weren't marketed that way).
In fantasy, it's not nearly as easy to come up with good counters. Guy Gavriel Kay, with the exception of his first trilogy (the Byzantium book had to be split, but it's really one long book). Charles de Lint is probably the foremost example of this that I can think of (I exempt the Newford collections because they're short work). Christopher Moore, although I'm not sure he's really considered in genre as such, (he does write genre work imho). I have much better luck if I turn to the dark fantasy writers: Clive Barker. Neil Gaiman. Poppy Brite.
It becomes pretty clear that a majority of what's published is series work. Why? Because it sells. There are more readers who want to know more about a previous world they've invested emotion in than there are those who don't. There are a truckload of very vocal people who dislike series books, but in this gambit, it's the people who talk with their wallets that have the loudest voices, even when they don't raise them otherwise.
So why doesn't everyone write a series? Because some people don't have that type of story to tell. I don't suggest trying if you don't, fwiw, because it seems a good prescription for a lot of pain and anguish, but not a good book. There are good marketing reasons to write one -- but actually, only if the first one sells. If you've got a series that's six books long, and the first one doesn't sell, you might very well be looking at a three book series, because it'll take that long to figure out that they aren't. Selling, that is. Any number of series books die on the shelves. Because more of the books are series books, its always going to be easy to point to the ones that didn't; basic numbers. If the first one didn't sell, and the first one has to be read first, it harms the sales of the second book in a way that standalones aren't harmed.
The truth is that there are authors who have been pointedly told to abandon a world and start something new because the world itself isn't living up to publisher expectations (yes, this means sales numbers). This is good and bad. Bad, if you haven't finished what you feel you need to say; good, in that the publisher has confidence in your writing, just not in this set of books.
If you're one of those authors who doesn't do the big world sprawl, your chances are similar to those who do -- more do, but in a purely book by book way, the chances are the same on the shelf, especially for a first novel. That's the good news. If the first novel does sell, you might feel some hopeful pressure from the publisher to write another set in the same world, or possibly with the same characters (if that's even possible, and if you've ended the world, it isn't) -- and at that point, it's up to you. If your second novel isn't connected, it's kind of the proof of concept: Do people love the word for word writing, or do they love the creation? Your early books are really your market research. You are, however, more likely to feel some pressure if you're writing high fantasy.
If you're one of those authors who has had great success with a particular world, and you want to leave it, you're sort of screwed. The numbers for your standalone novels won't come up to the numbers of the connected books. If you leave the world for a different series, it often doesn't do as well, either. There are exceptions to this, but not so many that it isn't clear from a behind-the-cash-desk perspective. This is the point at which agents will often talk about career books. Some authors don't budge; some try to fan older fires.
But if the standalone novel is your form, it certainly didn't kill the careers of Connie Willis or Neil Gaiman or Robert Charles Wilson, and I think it's more important to write the book that only you can write, period, full stop.
Many, many writers would disagree with what I've said in places. I'm not trying to discuss process because, frankly, there are so many excellent writers on LJ who do just that -- but I feel I have to stress the fact that the discussion of a business-eye-view isn't the only thing that's important.
Okay.
yhlee asked a question about series books, which I'm rambling about here.I did not set out to write a series, but it didn't seem to me to be a detrimental career thing to do. At the time, it even seemed wise. People get different things out of reading; some people crave the fizzle of the new and the different. Some invest enough emotion in a character and a world that they want to know more about both. At best guess, either works, depending entirely on the type of story you have to tell.
Romance is still mostly single book, for instance, and no one can tell me Romance doesn't have readers. In the past, a Romance series was a set of books that featured minor characters from a previous novel, but the story itself was enclosed. Now, it's less clear to me that this is the case, as romantic elements carry through various stories in which there's more to tell. I don't know a lot about Romance; it's just the biggest example of successful non-series writing I can think of in publishing.
To go back to
yhlee's comment, though. Yes, these days it's more common to have stand-alone novels in SF than it is in fantasy. This doesn't mean that one dies if that's all one writes. It also isn't meant to imply that series sell where stand-alones don't, because I've seen plenty of series books disappear from view. For the purpose of our discussion, a series can mean one of three things, so I'm using the term loosely.
There are trilogies, or xxologies, in which the entire story plays out in xx books, rather than in one; there's not a lot of story resolution at the end of each volume, and the characters are often left hanging. Readers too. Obvious examples: Robert Jordan. George Martin.
Then there are the books which I think of as series in the television sense: There's a beginning, middle and end to each book, but the character growth and arcs can continue in later books. Examples of these: Jim Butcher. Tanya Huff. Lois McMaster Bujold. Stephen Brust's Vlad books.
Last, there are books which take place in the same universe, but can be read completely independently, because the only continuity is the world itself, and off the top of my head, I can throw out China Mieville. Err, throw out is probably an unfortunate use of words, but you know what I meant. Early C. J. Cherryh SF. Oh, wait, I'm enormously stupid -- Terry Pratchett.
There are more fantasy examples, because that's what I write. I pay attention to fantasy with a bit more hawkishness for that reason. But I can come up with books that fit the categories above in SF just as easily. David Brin's Uplift books are both; the trilogy and the separate novels which take place in the same universe. Iain M. Banks and his culture novels (as separate novels which take place in the same universe). William Gibson. Gene Wolfe (as xxology). Dan Simmons (Hyperion books). David Weber.
If anyone thinks that series=garbage, the exit is to the left. Find it, because my foot is going to be chasing your butt.
When I speak of a series, I speak of these three things. I realize that's a bit nebulous, but that's what I mean when I say it. Technically, if the book can be read as a stand-alone, it can be argued that that's what it is, but in terms of marketing, that's exactly not what it is, and I'm veering toward the marketing, so bear with me. The point of marketing a world is sort of creating a small brand name. If the publisher effectively 'owns' the world, in the sales sense, it can leverage that if reader interest is there. There is a sense that connected novels will draw more readers, so if the book does stand alone, it doesn't matter if the publisher thinks it can get a larger preorder by tying it in with a previous book.
There are several authors I can think of who have done well publishing books that stand alone. Where "done well" in this case means that they've got recognition and a steady publisher for their works; I can't speak to their overall sales because I've never asked for hard numbers. In SF, it's vastly easier. Robert J. Sawyer and Robert Charles Wilson come instantly to mind. Connie Willis (although I do realize that technically two of her books are connected, I don't think that fact made much difference because they weren't marketed that way).
In fantasy, it's not nearly as easy to come up with good counters. Guy Gavriel Kay, with the exception of his first trilogy (the Byzantium book had to be split, but it's really one long book). Charles de Lint is probably the foremost example of this that I can think of (I exempt the Newford collections because they're short work). Christopher Moore, although I'm not sure he's really considered in genre as such, (he does write genre work imho). I have much better luck if I turn to the dark fantasy writers: Clive Barker. Neil Gaiman. Poppy Brite.
It becomes pretty clear that a majority of what's published is series work. Why? Because it sells. There are more readers who want to know more about a previous world they've invested emotion in than there are those who don't. There are a truckload of very vocal people who dislike series books, but in this gambit, it's the people who talk with their wallets that have the loudest voices, even when they don't raise them otherwise.
So why doesn't everyone write a series? Because some people don't have that type of story to tell. I don't suggest trying if you don't, fwiw, because it seems a good prescription for a lot of pain and anguish, but not a good book. There are good marketing reasons to write one -- but actually, only if the first one sells. If you've got a series that's six books long, and the first one doesn't sell, you might very well be looking at a three book series, because it'll take that long to figure out that they aren't. Selling, that is. Any number of series books die on the shelves. Because more of the books are series books, its always going to be easy to point to the ones that didn't; basic numbers. If the first one didn't sell, and the first one has to be read first, it harms the sales of the second book in a way that standalones aren't harmed.
The truth is that there are authors who have been pointedly told to abandon a world and start something new because the world itself isn't living up to publisher expectations (yes, this means sales numbers). This is good and bad. Bad, if you haven't finished what you feel you need to say; good, in that the publisher has confidence in your writing, just not in this set of books.
If you're one of those authors who doesn't do the big world sprawl, your chances are similar to those who do -- more do, but in a purely book by book way, the chances are the same on the shelf, especially for a first novel. That's the good news. If the first novel does sell, you might feel some hopeful pressure from the publisher to write another set in the same world, or possibly with the same characters (if that's even possible, and if you've ended the world, it isn't) -- and at that point, it's up to you. If your second novel isn't connected, it's kind of the proof of concept: Do people love the word for word writing, or do they love the creation? Your early books are really your market research. You are, however, more likely to feel some pressure if you're writing high fantasy.
If you're one of those authors who has had great success with a particular world, and you want to leave it, you're sort of screwed. The numbers for your standalone novels won't come up to the numbers of the connected books. If you leave the world for a different series, it often doesn't do as well, either. There are exceptions to this, but not so many that it isn't clear from a behind-the-cash-desk perspective. This is the point at which agents will often talk about career books. Some authors don't budge; some try to fan older fires.
But if the standalone novel is your form, it certainly didn't kill the careers of Connie Willis or Neil Gaiman or Robert Charles Wilson, and I think it's more important to write the book that only you can write, period, full stop.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 09:27 pm (UTC)One technical term for this is "roman fleuve" -- French with the literal meaning "river novel".
no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 09:39 pm (UTC)It's a good term, too -- it's just not one in common marketing parlance <wry g>. I think my definition of it tends to be a bit more narrow -- I tend to think of historical "family" sagas, where the stories pass through generations and historical changes.
Also, if I used it in the store, people would either glare at me for sounding pretentious or ask me what it meant <g>.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 09:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 09:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 10:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-26 02:46 pm (UTC)I REALLY appreciate your rantings on writing, particularly because you are hitting on things I'm either thinking about or that have to do with what I'm doing on my end. I'm finishing up a fantasy trilogy right now and struggling to redo the book proposal for the third time.
Please keep writing your 'rants'--I learn more all the time, and your being a published writer is giving me more than a few insights and ideas that I never got from all those "How To Write" books and publications.
RedEmpress
no subject
Date: 2004-08-26 11:14 pm (UTC)Thank you! I want to point out that LJ is rife with publishes writers, and many of them extremely talented -- in some ways, it almost feels like GEnie. But with prettier pictures and no way of "reading all new".
You've my sympathies with the proposal. I loathe those. They are worse than novels. Unless I can just write the proposal and skip the novel <wry g>.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 09:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 10:05 pm (UTC)I'm not sure whether that's trying to tell me something or not. :-)
I do know that, while I'm capable of writing both series and standalone books, and of enjoying the process of writing both, the standalone publishers seem more interested in what I send, both in terms of sales and near-misses.
Which no doubt is trying to tell me something. Especially since I noticed a similar divide when I first began submitting to children's/YA and adult markets--both were rejecting me early on, of course, but the children's/YA markets were rejecting me in a much more near-miss sort of way.
All of which is probably taking up far too much of Michelle's journal space pondering the arc of my own career. :-)
no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 10:15 pm (UTC)Errr, no <g>. It's all useful information; it's all grist for the information mill. And it's really nice to have the counterbalance of a view that isn't built partly on really long books <wry g>.
I've read a lot of YA stuff in the last few years, mostly for F&SF, but it's not a market I understand as well; the firebird books sell in our regular section, as opposed to the YA section, because a lot of them are reprints of earlier works (the de Lint books, the Dean books, the first Wein, etc. Sherwood's Wren stuff is better in the YA, because that's what the books were first published as in paperback (hc too, yes, but). The same applies to the over-sized Tor paperbacks, name of which line escapes me at the moment.
So ponder to your heart's content.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-26 06:57 am (UTC)As I think you already said somewhere, it's all about figuring out how to fit what one already is drawn to write into the ways that books out there are already being sold.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 10:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 10:17 pm (UTC)A lot of the people who've read the first two books of the trilogy, at least in-store, were delighted to see a return to the DEATH OF A NECROMANCER world, fwiw. I'm trying to think of the cranky middle-aged women in her books, but I'm coming up slightly short -- possibly because our definition of cranky is different <wry g>.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-26 11:55 pm (UTC)I liked Death of the Necromancer, but found it by far the slowest of her books. I'm enjoying the trilogy much more, possibly because of the aforementioned barbarian.
I'm trying to think of the cranky middle-aged women in her books, but I'm coming up slightly short -- possibly because our definition of cranky is different .
Now that I think about it, they're not all middle-aged, although the protagonist of Wheel of the Infinite is, and I just adore her as a character. But they're none of them ingenues: All of her heroines have Pasts, usually with fairly serious screwups behind them. Somehow, I relate well to that sort of character. :-)
no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 10:22 pm (UTC)Me too :/. Which is a great pity, because I like both, and for different reasons. There are some stories which simply don't fit the long, complicated series framework that I think the reading world would be poorer without. Susan Palwick's FLYING IN PLACE comes instantly to mind, but there are definitely others.
One of the things that makes me ponder is the different responses SF and fantasy garner when matching critical acclaim with sales. In general, if an SF novel/series (which isn't space opera, for some reason) sells well, it's considered a critical success as well as a sales success, and the authors are treated more seriously.
If fantasy sells well (not dark fantasy, which is really a different marketing category), it's considered garbage in critical terms.
As this touches on hot-button issues of preference and very subjective values of what's 'good', I haven't really addressed it much on LJ.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-26 07:01 am (UTC)I think it's all metaphor, and that fantasy works because it has some of the most powerful metaphoric tools out there in its toolkit, and that anyone who thinks we read about magic because we don't believe in science isn't paying attention, but the attitude comes up again and again.
Series and stand-alone
Date: 2004-08-25 10:03 pm (UTC)Re: Series and stand-alone
Date: 2004-08-25 10:52 pm (UTC)Of course! I really was doing the off-the-top-of-the-head dash, and the top of my head is flat <g>.
Re: Series and stand-alone
Date: 2004-08-25 11:54 pm (UTC)There is also Butler, the Lee and Miller collective, McCaffrey, Laumer and Norton.
Okay, so maybe I'm a ringer working for a sci-fi/fantasy bookstore.
Re: Series and stand-alone
Date: 2004-08-26 12:03 am (UTC)You too? <wry g>. Happy to have you here -- you can correct me <g>. Or throw an oar into the waters; I started writing about writing business from a bookstore slant, and specifically with genre SF/F in mind, and much of what I say is so coloured by that, I'll forget that I know it. Which often means that I have to pause in the middle of a full steam opinion to explain what strips are, for instance <g>.
Re: Series and stand-alone
Date: 2004-08-26 12:20 am (UTC)There are a few of us booksellers hanging about, eh? My specialty at the store seems to be fantasy, female authors, and all of the gaming and media tie-in books. It's quite fun to be able to volunteer different books to people than the rest of the staff.
Elsewhere you mention YA and sales. Something I do see is that SF/F readers are far more willing as a group to pick up a YA stand alone novel (or series) than the more 'traditional' fiction reader. I can just as easily hand a Gaiman or a Nix or a Yolen over and be taken seriously as I can a Stephenson or Mieville. Then you have writers like Charles de Lint who had two collections, several novel reprints and a children's picture book all out in the same year.
And now I have wandered deplorably off topic. Whoops. Time for my own <wry g>
no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 10:33 pm (UTC)I think I would like to cultivate diversity in my ability, though. Which probably means cultivating the ability to write things longer than 1000 words, right now. *rueful look*
Thank you for the musings!
no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 10:41 pm (UTC)Funny thing, though -- ask any writer at the right (or wrong) point in a manuscript that's already been sold and they'll tell you the Exact Same Thing <wry g>. As in the burning part.
I think I would like to cultivate diversity in my ability, though. Which probably means cultivating the ability to write things longer than 1000 words, right now. *rueful look*
I experiment a bit with diversity in the short pieces -- with the most out there probably being either "Elegy" or "How to Kill and Immortal" -- but I admit that, given the majority of my output has been in one universe with a zillion viewpoints, I haven't tried to diversify much in the novels recently <g>. Although, come to think, the Luna novel is very different, but it's also a Sagara novel.
I know the feeling!
Date: 2004-08-26 06:38 am (UTC)Just wanted to let you know you are not alone. *grin*
Re: I know the feeling!
Date: 2004-08-26 07:03 am (UTC)It's both a wonderful feeling and a relief and terrifying (to me at least) to finally get to typing "the end." :-)
Re: I know the feeling!
Date: 2004-08-26 06:55 pm (UTC)One quick word of Luna advice: The guidelines that state 100K-150K words (they do page count words, not MS Word count, so 600 manuscript pages=150K; 400 manuscript pages=100K) are really firm. You don't want to come in lower, unless it's -scraping- the edge; you don't want to come in higher (because they'll make you scrape the edge off).
Re: I know the feeling!
Date: 2004-08-27 06:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 11:43 pm (UTC)If I read this right, and I may be misunderstanding, you seem to be saying that Kay and de Lint are examples of writers of stand-alone fiction.
I would argue rather that Kay is an example of a writer who has continuity within the world (lately; since the Lions of Al-Rassan all his new books have been set in the same world, just at different points in time), while de Lint writes what you call the series in the TV sense. Almost all of his books are set in one of three worlds: the Ottawa of Tamson House, the high-fantasy world of Riddle of the Wren, or Newford (which is really in a different area of the same world as Tamson House's Ottawa).
Ummm. And if I've misunderstood what you were saying, I apologise.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 11:58 pm (UTC)I consider the Kay books to be stand-alones because that's how they're marketed; they aren't sold as connected works in any way. At least not in Canada (where I think you also live). I don't know how they're marketed in the US or the UK, though; he's one of the only writers I can think of in genre who always has a separate Canadian edition and publisher for his works.
Ditto the de Lint books re: world. It's been a while since I've read his earlier books, but I didn't see the connection between HARP or WOLF or WREN (three of the high fantasies), and I don't remember the connection between MULENGRO and YARROW or MOONHEART (although SPIRITWALK is directly related to MOONHEART); I can't remember anything that connected SOMEPLACE TO BE FLYING, but that could be me. The Newford short story collections, I've exempted, and I suppose I can throw in ONION GIRL as well, as the character is based on those, but in essence, de Lint books sell as standalones, and are pretty much marketed that way.
Which is sort of the opposite of what I was saying when I said that you can argue that some books are standalone because they're loosely connected by world or place, rather than story or character, and I said that I was thinking of the way they were marketed, as opposed to their actual content <wry g>.
*koffs*
Date: 2004-08-26 12:31 am (UTC)Currently a number of his books are being re-released in the US in trade paperback, and have prominent type on the covers declaiming what series or world they are a part of. Now this may be in an effort to bring in some of the newer readers to the older material, or it may just be that they are trying to market them as a 'shared world' series.
Re: *koffs*
Date: 2004-08-26 01:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-26 07:44 am (UTC)---L.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-26 06:06 pm (UTC)Nor would I say that deLint has no stand-alone books--Svaha certainly is, as is the Little Country, to name but two.
On the other hand, having just re-read Someplace to be Flying, I can assure you that it is a Newford story, as are Trader and Onion Girl, Spirits in the Wires, etc. They may not be marketed that way, in which case your point is sound, but they do fall under one of your definitions of a series. In which case my point works too, and it becomes one of those rare internet discussions we both win! :)
no subject
Date: 2004-08-26 06:52 pm (UTC)Done! Oh, wait, not an auction <g>.
I did check at the store; ONION GIRL yes, SPIRITS, SOMEPLACE, no, that I could see; we don't have trader at the moment.
I think that de Lint is his own brand, fwiw, which is why the marketing is -as- de Lint, rather than WHEEL OF TIME <g>.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-27 12:19 am (UTC)Absolutely true. And, now that I think about it, true for Kay as well, which may explain why you thought of them both right away.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-27 05:33 pm (UTC)Absolutely true. And, now that I think about it, true for Kay as well, which may explain why you thought of them both right away.
It is why I thought of them -- but had Kay been a different author, there's a strong chance that marketing would try to push the connection between the books. In his case, given the length <sob> of time it takes him to write a novel, it wouldn't make sense to do so, imho.
With the de Lint novels, so much of the appeal is as contemporary fiction that setting it in Ottawa isn't enough to make it part of the same universe; it's part of the "real world". There's no easy way to say it's a "Charles de Lint Version of Ottawa" book and have an easy marketing category. I think it would also be hard to use "Newford" as a marketing word in any significant way; the cover of SPIRIT says absolutely nothing about any connection to any of his other books, for instance.
But yes, it's harder for me to think of standalone fantasy authors (McKillip was a great example from upstream) that stay in print and sell. I can think of a lot of them - just not those that have that kind of shelf-staying power.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-26 05:55 am (UTC)What I notice about series books, though, is that my attention span may be shorter than the average for the market. There are many examples where I started out being a big fan of a series, but then felt that many words were being published after the stories had all been told. (The examples I'm thinking of don't include anyone here nor anyone mentioned in the comments so far.)
My question, though, is from a market point of view: which of the following is most likely to cause the ending of a popular series?
- The author decides that everything has been said
- The publisher anticipates the end of the ride
- Sales suggest that there's been one more release than necessary
no subject
Date: 2004-08-27 05:23 pm (UTC)- The author decides that everything has been said
- The publisher anticipates the end of the ride
- Sales suggest that there's been one more release than necessary
If the series is popular? The author decides that everything has been said. Period. By popular, I'm assuming you mean it sells. So, for instance, the Anita Blake series by Laurell K. Hamilton is going to continue to be published until she either a) stops writing them or b) they stop selling.
It's when the series is no longer popular, and the sales are in decline, that sales would be a factor.
But if the sales have declined from a very high plateau of a million copies to a humbling 250,000, the books are still going to be published.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-27 06:23 pm (UTC)I guess what I meant was 'initially successful' with an implication of a decline (or saturation) somewhere down the road...who, if anyone, is likliest to predict/detect the decline.
But I think you answered what I meant, anyway. :-) Thanks!