I don't want to create a series of books.

[Colbey Frost]

Or should I say my brain doesn't want to.

I see the logic behind having a trilogy and having people commit to this, buying more etc, but I don't want to. I've thought of, and will think of more, plots that can span over as many books as I want, but once I've written the first one I don't want to continue, I want to create something new.

Sometimes I find myself trying to force things into a trilogy etc, but I naturally only really want a single novel.

I've decided that, as writing is what I do because I love doing it, I'm going to ignore the logic behind creating a series and write one off novels. Now I'm not saying they have to be in different worlds (although almost all my new ideas are) but I have to satisfy my urges.

I will tell you that I don't get attached to people / characters all that much in real life, or in fiction. I do LOVE for short periods of time, but that can soon pass.

I can be emotionally cold unfortunately, so I'd rather love and enjoy for a novel at a time and move on.

What do you guys think?

 

[Boneman]

Go for it: Guy Gavriel Kay writes some astounding standalone novels (even though I'd like more of the story), and I'm only just coming round to appreciating him, so there are treats in store. Trying to force yourself to do something because it's expected of you will foul up all creative skills and your muse will go and work for some bum who doesn't want to even publish a standalone.

 

[Mouse]

Yes. Agree. I'm impatient, I don't want to have to wait bloody ages for books in series to come out so I can find out what happens. I want everything now, damnit.

I'm writing a standalone. I prefer reading standalones too.

I do get attached to people/characters, but I'm quite happy letting them go at the end of a book.

 

[nubins]

Nothing wrong with writing a book on its own. I think of my current wip as the first story in a series, but havent decided what form the next might take (i think i may change the main character in following books for example). I think sci-fi/fantasy writers spend a lot of time crafting a whole new world to set their stories in and sometimes it can feel like a waste if you only use that world for one story?

 

[Montero]

Lois McMaster Bujold has written three fantasy novels that are in the same world, but not a series.
Curse of Chalion - one of the secondary characters becomes the primary character (a little later on) in Paladin of Souls
The Hallowed Hunt is same world but separate characters.

I like stand-alones, series of what are essentially complete books (but are in chronological order for the characters) and series which are slicing up a story (but not too many).

Diane Duane's Stealing the Elf King's Roses is another stand-alone.
Charles de Lint mostly writes stand-alones.

And anyway - you could always come back and write a linked or later book some years in the future, if you fancied it.

Hope this helps.

 

[Bowler1]

I think it shows creativity, and that your not stuck with the one idea. Go for it I say.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Makes sense to me.

Over time, as a reader, I've gone from loving series to slightly preferring stand-alone books. It's not that I dislike the concept of a trilogy or larger series, but there are some practical issues. Later books can take longer and longer, and sometimes it feels like a book is not so much there to tell its own story but to tie up loose ends from the previous book and set up the storyline of the next.

Stand-alones set in the same world have some of the benefits of series and none of the drawbacks. You can use the same world, and have characters return fully or make cameo appearances.

My first book (Bane of Souls) is stand-alone, as will the second be. After that I plan to write a trilogy, but that's because the story (a civil war that will take some time) wouldn't fit, I feel, in a single book.

 

[Erin99]

I have the same advice: standalone books are what publishers are after these days, particularly if they're selling well AND the author has plans to write more books in the same universe (but not even with the same characters, necessarily).

Saying that, my series is one continuous story over several books...

 

[Ursa major]

A story, and one's way of telling it, requires a certain length. Whether this is a short story, a novella, a novel or a trilogy/series, should depend solely on those two things.

Iain M. Banks's Culture books are all standalones and combined with the way he writes them, their stories fit that length. Joe Abercrombie's story in First Law, required three books (if only because the font has to be readable, and the spine not too big).

I'm writing a tetralogy, but only one character from WiP1 is in WiP2 (and he isn't in WiP3).

 

[Colbey Frost]

I'm happy with these replies. I thought people might say "It has to be a series or they won't sell" kinda stuff, but I'm encouraged.

Another thought I had was to use characters from books I've written (Always having new protagonists and antagonists, but back up characters from other novels) They won't have the same history, but their personality will be the same etc. I don't know if they work well, if people would be pleased to see characters from books they've read.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Sometimes I find myself trying to force things into a trilogy etc, but I naturally only really want a single novel.

I'm completely with you CN

All big fiction-ideas I've ever planned, jotted down or written are for standalone novels. I spent my teens reading trilogies of all sorts and perhaps I gave myself some sort of disease doing so. So I vowed never to subject the world with more.

To be honest, and this is just my opinion - nothing else, I found trilogies and higher order series tended to be bloated and quite unsatisfying reads, as usually they're really just a very big single book split into parts. Therefore each individual book is quite fragmentary.

On top of that it can take years for the whole lot to come out. Then there is the fact they have a tendancy to expand in all directions like the blob if successful, but each new book/additional series only diminishing the original ideas (Foundation and Dune books I'm looking at you)

Also the horror of picking up a book and realising while just getting to the end of the book that it is in fact volume 1 of a series of 5, or even starting somewhere in the middle books by mistake (although they're not officially a series, I definitely read William Gibson's neuromancer books in completely the wrong order. Quite strange.)

Hence I haven't read proper trilogies and bigger for at least 15 years or more now. Give me a good solid well written standalone everytime.

 

[Hex]

I was told about 6 months ago that series are the sensible way to go in fantasy writing. That surely doesn't mean they're the only way to go, though. Many authors write only standalone books and do very well.

Often, I agree, trilogies etc are bloated but that's not always so -- sometimes they are designed as trilogies and have a beautiful and approriate shape. I tend to prefer standalones and series of 2-3 to longer series.

 

[nightdreamer]

I confess to writing series, but I try to make every novel stand on its own. I've also been burned by the half-finished story syndrome. I remember being angry at Alan Dean Foster for decades for having never finishing his Flinx books, not knowing that he went back and did it. I'm not convinced it was worth the wait.

 

[MstrTal]

As much as I fear my current WIP will span more than one book I tend to agree. If you don't want to write a series then don't. I have so many ideas spawned off my WIP that I went back and World Built until I can tell you almost any aspect of it without checking my notes. Well save the new twist I am researching. . .

I have also been burnt as a reader when an author falls out of love with a series. Rawn's Exile Trilogy is the example I always go back to. For whatever reasons she stopped writing the trilogy after the second book and then went on to work on an entirely different series! I have been sitting here as a reader and former fan with books 1 & 2 in my library without the 3rd book even being started last I checked.

Jordan's Wheel of Time is another example of an author who went the series route and then unfortunately died before finishing it necessitating a different writer finishing it from his notes. Very frustrating from the readers stand point.

 

[Grinnel]

As a writer, I'll have to say that I don't know if I can make one salable book, never mind three or more. I would say plan to do stand-alones, if that's what you want to do, but be open to possiblities.

My father (who hates reading) wrote a book 30 years ago. A publisher said 'this is great I'll publish it if you write a triolgy!' Dad said 'no thanks, I got better things to do.'

He never looked back or regretted it, but I would have.

As a reader, if I read a book that I like, I hope there are more books in a series with the character and world that I have come to love. BUT I am often frustrated by buying a cool looking book and finding out it is book 2 of 3, D'oh!

Worse, I'm horrible with names. I will read an interesting book one and then forget who wrote it, so never find book two.

As far as using the same character with the same name in different worlds, my vote would be NOOOOO! At least change the name! (Unless, as a theme, you write "The intergalactic lives of Nathan-who lives in limitless parallel universes"

 

[Boneman]

You can understand publishers wanting trilogies; if the first of the series is successful, then they can be assured the others will be - if not as successful' then at least 'almost as' successful. Whcih means profitys for them and further bisiness in the future. And that must go for series of books set in the same world. But the danger of watered-down writing means that the best trilogy is one story, so long that it had to be split into three books.

I've probably posted this before, but here's Agent John Berlyne's take on trilogies:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5619859&postcount=55

 

[Bowler1]

I've not read Bonemans link as I'm in work and it's blocked, so if what I'm about to say is a repeat, well, tough.

In my experience, fantasy tends to run on to more than SciFi, where SciFi books have more stand-alone works as the norm, or so I think.

Mine will be stand-alone stories all in the same universe, the Culture series has a big influence on that decision.

 

[Hex]

I've probably posted this before, but here's Agent John Berlyne's take on trilogies:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5619859&postcount=55

*sigh* I love that man. Why can't he be everyone's agent?!

 

[Tecdavid]

I agree wholeheartedly with Zero regarding the worlds we devise. Really, surely I'm not alone in jotting out a few crude maps - in my head or on paper - and then, intentionally or not, sculpting out details and backstories for each and every lake and mountain I put there?
When I write up lores and histories for my world, I feel rather proud of myself for it, and I realise I've gone and spent more time writing up details than I expected to. I don't think I could bring myself to throw that world away after only using it for one story.
Then there's the characters and setting. I personally disagree with Christian in that I love my characters, and would feel a little heartbroken to let them go just yet.

If you want to write standalone stories, go ahead! It's your writing. But a couple of suggestions could be as follows:
If you write up details for any world and you don't find a use for some of those details, keep them. Who knows, you might not feel like writing a series now, but maybe you'll change your mind sometime.
You could write numerous stories in the same world, but without many connections to one another. Terry Pratchet does this often, and his stories are immensely popular.

 

[Brian G Turner]

So far as I understand it, the publisher's main concern is that an author produce works in their genre on a regular basis. A series may be a preference, but I haven't seen it suggested as a mandatory requirement.