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}
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>