Can you 'start' from the book two in a trilogy?

[ctg]

After spending a number of years writing, editing, rewriting, critiquing, thinking, learning and inventing the wheel time and time again, I started from the clean slate. Yes, finally crossed the line and started to think that it's time to write the book two. And I find that it's so much easier to write now - after I'd written several versions. But the thing is that I started to think that, this **** is better than the old ****.

Why I say that is that you learn your skills by doing certain things for a long, very long time And you learn your trade, by learning the rules and on how to bend them.

But that's the thing, you learn how to craft stories by being critical to certain elements. And over the time you reach a certain level. I hope that makes sense to some of you.

What I'm really asking is that can you start your trilogy/series from book two? Can you dribble in enough of exposition that anyone can just pick up and start the story from there? As in my case, as I've left the book one in a cliff-hanger, and in order from one to create a continuous chain-of-events ...

Can one start the book two from action and get away with it (standalone series/trilogy)?

 

[Langadune]

I'm not sure if your suggesting eliminating book one altogether or just wanting to write book two them come back to book one later, but...

First, the rules can be broken... if you're good enough. If you wanna turn your three part epic into a two part epic then go for it. Any book should be a stand-alone even if it's part of a series. You'll always need to provide back story, and always in a way that's not info-dump and not too vague.

You can make book two your new book one if you want simply by making it so.

Not sure if that's what you're asking about, but there you have it.

 

[ctg]

Well, let me put it this way: You are a reader and you go to pick up the book two instead of book one for a simple reason - it sounds cooler. You open the book and start pouring thought the content, it's still cool, and the writer has provided you enough of information to go on with the series. even thought you haven't read with the book one.

So in time you start to write the book three, you can use this as the 'happened-before' sequence to up the readers and bring in new readers - just in case they picked up the book for some other reason.

For example if you read Simon. R. Green - The Nightside series, you can pick up any one of them and get on with it. But, and this is the big but, the repetition start to knave the enjoyment factor.

Therefore, if you had some sort of success with the number two, you can use the moment to advance your craft and build on some other drama, or you can stick to 'if-its-not-broken-don't-fix-it' method.

I hope that makes sense. It's getting late, and my brain stops functioning in any moment.

 

[Langadune]

I understand the frustration that comes from writing forever and not seeming to get where I want to be. One oft repeated piece of advice that comes to mind is "be patient." There's nothing wrong with continuing on with book two if you've got the story and are ready to press on.

I recommend not giving up on book one. Once you've pushed through the series, you can go back and rewrite part one as needed. In fact, continuing on may be the best thing for your beginning book. You may develop themes and plot points that will be worth pitting into part one.

It almost sounds like you plan on throwing book one out for publication but don't expect it to be as well-received as book two. I'd caution you against that. Most people prefer to start with part one of a saga, as that's where they typically get all the information they'll need(such as the overall conflict) to make them want to stick with the rest of the series.

Continue on if you must, but I highly recommend that you plan to come back and to whatever you must to make Book One as exciting as the rest... in fact if you make it good enough, the readers won't be able to resist continuing on with part two and three.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

Well, I can think of two series that successfully started from book two, so I don't see why you couldn't.

The Chronicles of Narnia began with book two, although it's always been called book one--The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe comes after book six in the series, The Magician's Nephew.

Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan series added Cordelia's Honor some time after whatever you consider to be the first book in the series (depends on whether you have the combined versions or the singles). It fills in the back story of Miles and is without a doubt the beginning of the series, but it came along later.

I'm sure there are others that would serve as equally good examples. A fine tradition, in fact--so go for it!

 

[Peter Graham]

Can one start the book two from action and get away with it (standalone series/trilogy)?

I think the short answer has to be "yes", but only if you are writing a series rather than a trilogy. Star Wars started with film 4, although I do have some suspicions that the earlier stuff wasn't as well fleshed out as people are led to believe.

The Silmarillion came out after the LOTR.

I have never quite understood why fantasy writers are so in love with the trilogy (although I suspect that Tolkien lies at the root of it). It almost appears to have become a convention in certain circles. But I think that there is a difference between a trilogy and a series. At its most basic, a trilogy is only a trilogy because there are too many words to go into one or even two normal size books. LOTR was written in six parts and was never designed as a trilogy from the get go. A trilogy is effectively one story divided into three chunks so that it doesn't contravene hand luggage restrictions or cause bad backs as people lug it home from the shops*.

By contrast, a series is a connected raft of works which may feature the same characters and/or the same world, but which tell more than one story. There may be themes running through (and building up), but ultimately each part of the series is a self-contained tale.

So, if you are writing a series, you can start wherever you like. Whichever book comes out first will be seen as the first in the series, even if subsequent books predate it within the time frame of the narrative.
The only thing to watch out for is that the first book doesn't act as a massive spoiler for the books which predate it in time.

But if you are writing a genuine trilogy (one story divided into three physical books), I think you will have problems. You will find it very hard to avoid spoiling the first book and many readers will feel a bit cheated - most would want to know how things resolve, not how things started.

Regards,

Peter

* Or, as is more likely, as postpersons lug it up our driveways, along with the usual sack of marketing ordure.

 

[The Judge]

Hi, ctg. I'm delighted you're getting on well with the writing -- long may it continue!

I agree with Langadune. Press on and write book 2, and then when it's done go back and revisit book 1. It may well be that themes, incidents, even characters have appeared in 2 which need to be introduced earlier or foreshadowed in some way which will involve re-writing the action in book 1. More importantly, as you say, you have improved as a writer since beginning book 1, and since you are continuing to learn -- as we all are (or should be) -- by the time you have finished book 2 you will be better yet. So when you revisit 1 you will be in a position to see what needs doing and how to amend it so they are each as strong as the other. Certainly I think 1 needs to be as strong as possible so that it can go out into the world on its own terms, not simply hanging on the (reverse?) coat-tails of 2.

Good luck with them both.

 

[Toby Frost]

I once heard about some guy who started a set of films at number 4. Trouble is, by the time he made the first three...

I can't see why not, but I think there would be technical problems with getting readers to buy something with Book 2 on the cover (or apparent in some other way) when getting into a series. I suspect that the average punter spends about 2 seconds looking at a book cover and about 4 reading the back. I suspect you'd be better off making what was book one a separate prequel.

However, all of that said, there's nothing to stop you starting a story mid-way. One issue I have with superhero films is the perceived need to explain how everyone got that way before allowing the actual story to begin. I am all for slightly older characters who are firmly in their roles and are dealing with the experiences that brings.

Stephen King once wrote that he was prone to "throat-clearing" in his writing, and would have to cut the first few paragraphs of any novel to get straight into the story. My own computer is littered with deleted prologues. I wonder if this first novel that you're skipping was much the same?

 

[HareBrain]

Hi ctg, I'm not 100% clear what you're suggesting -- is it to do away with book1 altogether, and feed in the necessary info from it as exposition in book2 (which will then be book1), or, as some have interpreted, to try to publish book1 after book2?

I don't think the latter would work, but the former could. I know someone who is prone to picking books up, flicking to a middle page to see what they're like, getting caught up in them and never reading the beginning. And as Tobytwo says, often the beginnings of books can prove to be redundant.

On the other hand, sometimes necessary exposition is very difficult to get into the action without it seeming really clumsy. But if it's a choice between this and laying it out in a first volume which doesn't have the necessary kick, it's worth working at.

 

[ctg]

I wonder if this first novel that you're skipping was much the same?

No, it's not. I love it, but as I progress with number two I think that its easier to write but I also put in exposition (info-dumping) as narrative to explain to the readers what happened in the book 1. However, I feel that I could cut them away and feel that the people need to read book 1 to understand how things happened, and why we are here now.

 

[HareBrain]

No, it's not. I love it, but as I progress with number two I think that its easier to write but I also put in exposition (info-dumping) as narrative to explain to the readers what happened in the book 1. However, I feel that I could cut them away and feel that the people need to read book 1 to understand how things happened, and why we are here now.

So your reader would read "book2" first, then "book1", then "book3"? Or "book1" last?

 

[ctg]

So your reader would read "book2" first, then "book1", then "book3"? Or "book1" last?

They could read book 2, then book 3 and if they want, they could go to read book 1. Then again they could start from book 3, go to book 1 and so on.

 

[HareBrain]

I think it would be really hard to write without having an order in mind, unless the stories were only minimally connected, as in some series.

 

[Boneman]

It could work... I was in Waterstones t'other day and picked up book 2 of the dwarves series. I was attracted to it quite strongly, just by reading the synopsis of what had happened in book 1, but that just made me want to actually read book 1. And naturally, they didn't have it in store... I could have started with book 2, but I wanted to flesh out the characters, understand their motivations (their character arcs, for want of a better idiom) and read what happened as it happened, rather than in back story.

I'm with the Judge on this, press on and finish book 2 and then look back, as a writer whose ideas have crystalized and improved, and see which idea best suits.

At the risk of a good slap, Patrick Rothfuss wrote his novel as a standalone book, and it came to over a million words, (and the publishers love trilogies and series) so 'twas broken down into 3 books. But he's rewritten and rewritten and rewritten what his first effort was, which is what we all have to do.

I wrote the first book of my own trilogy, got 60,000 words into the second, and have now gone back to making book 1 the best it can be, before picking up with book 2. But I'm excited about writing books 2 and 3, as more ideas have tumbled out of improving book 1. So it can work either way: go with what works best for you.

 

[chopper]

horses for courses.

i reckon that if book 2 is more enjoyable to write, carry on with it. after all, we're all writing because we want to, not because we have to (well, not yet, anyway. touch wood...).

the key thing is, as long as you are writing, it's a good thing.

 

[mygoditsraining]

I've always thought that the GRRM A Son of Ice and Fire books felt like they were starting a book (or even a few books) ahead of some truly awesome story material.

So yeah, I don't see a problem with it.

 

[Michael01]

I'm starting Coven of the Tiger from book three, so maybe. Of course, each book, although in the same world and dealing with descendants of the main character in book one, will have a separate MC and plot. I also plan not to mark them necessarily as "book one, book two, book three." And part of the reason is just in case I never get around to writing the first two books....

 

[ctg]

Just so that you know, I feel strongly about my first book. It is as good as I've been able to make it. And to be honest, creating all that backstory, and fleshing out the characters has helped me.

The reason why I'm saying that is that I can use all those references and let the characters to play their roles. It is almost as if they've come alive. Another point probably is that the main character in the book one is now a prisoner, and therefore more and less out from the play.

So to me, it's much easier for me to write the characters that don't have 'mysterious' powers, or even mystery on how he came to be, and much to my delight I can now use those things in the dialogue and close 3rd person narrative as I progress with the book two.

 

[jennyjj]

i think its a great idea! i love the detective part of reading, finding out who/what/why..and Narnia did start with book 2, i'd forgotten that!

 

[ctg]

"At its most basic, a trilogy is only a trilogy because there are too many words to go into one or even two normal size books. LOTR was written in six parts [2] and was never designed as a trilogy from the get go.

A trilogy is effectively one story divided into three chunks [1]so that it doesn't contravene hand luggage restrictions or cause bad backs as people lug it home from the shops*."

I know. I know. And you know. I've thought about the series, and yes it's a series. Could be a long series, who knowns. Maybe God could tell me? Don't know.

But here's the thing. LOTR was written mainly in Frodo's, Gandalf's and Aragorn's POV's, where the main characters split in their own separate story-lines bringing up the minor-major characters as the main POV's.

He importantly split the book in sizable chunks to understand what he needed to raise, but the important thing is that the reader has to go through back again in the time-line wise. Meaning that the storyline didn't happen in the 'real-time' element.

Also I do believe JRR meant to write more, but just didn't have time or will to edit through the Silmarrion, and The Unfinished Stories. Leaving the LOTR and Hobbit to be one of the best books from the twentieth century.



What I can and what I intend to do with the trilogy is two write it as a cycle and split it in the two time-lines. One that was created to break through the possible out-come of the positively breaking the time-loop and one that happens in the negative solution. And see what sounds better to me.

Difficult. Yes.

Mind-exploding, mainly yours. Checked.

Odds to success. Don't know.