Christian Speculative Fiction discussion

Continuing our novel writing theme, do you prefer stand-alone books or series? You can answer this as either a reader or writer. Historically, stand-alone books were much more common. Since the nineties, it seems like every book is part of a trilogy or longer series. Which do you prefer to read? Which do you prefer to write?

I have read many series, and I am currently writing the last book of my Truthseek trilogy. I can honestly say I prefer stand-alone books for both reading and writing. I like being able to have a complete story in a short period of time. I'm even enjoying short story anthologies so that I can have a complete story in one sitting. What about you?

Depends on how good the author is, lol!

No, seriously, my wife likes to say I don't read a book, I read an author. If I find someone really good I'll devour everything I can find by him or her. So my natural inclination is more towards series than stand-alone books. When I come to the end of a good stand-alone, I often feel cheated that there isn't more in the series…

I, too, tend to read more by author than the book. I find a few authors I like and read everything they write. Most of them write standalone books but some to series or standalone books with recurring main characters. I can't say I prefer one over the other. Those with the recurring characters I enjoy due to the familiarity, but also like the standalone story.

My first book turned into (or will turn into) a series only after I realized the story was too big for a standalone book, but each book will be independent enough to stand on its own. Though, there are plenty of unanswered questions to make them want to keep reading the next volume.

Actually, this brings me to a question I'm debating (not to derail the current question.) The sequels will have many of the same characters but I'm thinking of switching the main protagonist and character POV for each book. I'd love to hear thoughts on that.

I like to read series, but only if they're all out. I hate having to wait for the next instalment of something. I also go back to authors if I like their work and read everything else they have out. I've only once regretted that.

That said, I have nothing against great standalones, and quite often read a swathe of them when I discover the next in a series I'm reading isn't ready yet.

From an author's view instead of a reader, I'm currently writing a series that keeps growing and growing. I love the galaxy I've created, and I'm happy setting several stories there for now. If I ever get bored, I have a few other ideas I can write about instead.

Stoney - my series does that. Each book has a different MC and will complete their mini arc within the overall story. The first was based on Moses's birth mother, the second reimagines his life with the princess, the third will tell his wife's story the fourth his sisters, etc. His entire life will be wound through them all, but the protags are the women first and foremost.

I'd be interested in what other people think of changing MCs within a series too.

Hah! This is interesting. I've set out to do virtually the opposite: I have 4 protagonists, not one, and I've done my best to give them all equal prominence. They are all the heroes of each book in the series—with an unspoken assumption that great things are often achieved by many playing their part, not just one lone hero. (Which is not a rejection of the single protagonist approach—just a suggestion that there are other possibilities.)

Lauren, that sounds pretty cool. I like that idea, very different but still holds the thread.

My first book (still a WIP) is written entirely from the protagonists POV. In fact, there are NO scenes written from any other POV. I was hoping to do the same with other characters, but I already know that will be impossible in subsequent books, so I'll have to shift POV, but still focus on a single protagonists that interacts with the protags from the previous book(s).

But I'm still debating this. Trying to figure out how "wierd" it is to the reader. Each book will be part of the overall liner story, picking up a few years after the previous. Just tryign to figure out if readers will be jolted from the protag switch or it'll add layers.

Also think each book will have a vastly different tone as well, which is another question. First book is an adventure, second is a mystery (think reporter uncovering a conspiracy) and third a war novel. Maybe this lends better to the protag switch.

Just thinking out loud.

All my books have multiple POV characters, somewhere between 2 or 3 depending on the book. Even so, I find that one character does end up standing out and that changes through the series. Each book in my trilogy can be read by itself which makes it kind of odd. All my books and short stories take place in the same world. So I then find myself wondering if I am writing a longer series covertly but just dealing with different characters. I suppose if the Recluse world of L.E. Modesette is a series then I'm a hypocrite as a writer.

I agree with Steve. I also tend to follow authors. If only I had the time I used to. I remember those magical days when I would step into the bookstore and find another book by Christopher Pike, then it became John Saul or V. C. Andrews. After high school, it seems I just never found that author that I loved everything they wrote. But, when I find a series I like, I don't want it to end. Like Harry Potter and Eragon. But I wonder how much television killed that for me. I'm happy to say I'm once again reading more than I watch TV. Perhaps I'll find and author I love to the extend that I want to devour all their books as I had as a teenager.

I tend to like a series if I like the characters. And ... perhaps I'm weird, but I like to follow the train of the same MC through the books. (I do like multiple POVs but with greater emphasis given to the MC.) I tend to invest in my MC and so I get upset when the MC switches in different books. I remember the first time I experienced this, how angry I got when I had been waiting for the story to continue from that character's perspective in the next book in a series, only to have another person take main stage. Just my preference. ;-)

I really like books dealing with the same world and maybe greater story arc, but with recurring main characters. I think of Tom Clancy's original series of Jack Ryan stories. They were not really a series, unless Ryan's ascent was the series. Otherwise, they were all very stand alone stories.

What I don't like is a series that ends book one with so little resolution that it feels like it stopped in the middle of a story and left the reader hanging.

Now, here's a question. When you have multiple stories in the same world with recurring characters, is it bad form to release books without the same story arc between books that have the same story arc?

C.S. wrote: "I tend to invest in my MC and so I get upset when the MC switches in different books."

That's good feedback. That's one of the things that I'm worried about. In my book I would kind of think about is as if Star Wars was a standalone movie, and then came The Last Jedi. The second is a later continuation on the first with new characters but bringing in the MC from the first.

Stan wrote: "When you have multiple stories in the same world with recurring characters, is it bad form to release books without the same story arc between books that have the same story arc?"

Good question. I think readers might be disappointed if the "side story" is a full-length book rather than, perhaps, a short story to keep them hungry for the next full-length book following the same arc.

If I find that a publisher would prefer the MC continue in the second book then I very well might do a short side-story for what I'm now considering to be the second book, and then pick up from there for the second full-length book.

Stan wrote: "When you have multiple stories in the same world with recurring characters, is it bad form to release books without the same story arc between books that have the same story arc?"

There are a number of classic fantasy fiction series that don't keep the same story arc: The Shannara series by Terry Brooks, The Saga of Recluce series by L.E. Modesitt Jr., and I think Discworld by Terry Pratchett. These three examples are very long series with between 20 to 40 books. They are mostly stand-alone plots with some trilogies mixed in. The plots do jump around, picking up and dropping issues as they want. The only thing that ties them together is that they are in the same world, but they don't deal with the same characters all the time. Sometimes they do return to a character later in the series. Many of these books progress in chronological order, but not all.

The Legend of Drizzt series has 34 books that are tied together by the world and the main character, but the plots are only tied together by chronological order even though they weren't written in order. All of these were very popular traditionally published series. Only The Legend of Drizzt series keeps the same POV character for the whole series.

Modern publishers may not like to publish stuff like this much anymore. I honestly don't know. I have not seen this done with any one of the younger generations. I think the main thing that makes all of these books work so well is that you can pick up almost any of them (except the trilogies) and read them without reading any of the others and still have a satisfying story.

So to answer your question, Stan, I think you would only want to interrupt a story arc with a different story if the general story arc is interruptable. Other words, that primary story arc needs to not be the main story for each of the books, but a larger more subtle movement of character development or world progression.

Lara wrote: "Stan wrote: "When you have multiple stories in the same world with recurring characters, is it bad form to release books without the same story arc between books that have the same story arc?"

The..."

Thanks Lara. And, thanks Stoney.

I have about 9 storylines all in the same world. One character, at minimum will be in all the stories, but possibly not the main character in all of them. I'm thinking a trilogy will be the backbone, but other stories fall within the chronology of the trilogy. The trilogy covers at least a 10 year timespan, if not longer - a time consuming revenge plot. But, other events happen along the timeline that develop the character and the question of revenge. However, they don't all include the same characters in all the stories. There may be other stories that develop, some shorts, some novellas, maybe a full novel with some of the other characters as well. But, right now, I'm thinking 9 novels and novellas in my cyberpunk world.

If I ever make the time to write fiction.

When it comes to fiction: stand alone.

With few exceptions, you should be able to say all that you need in one book. When I'm done with a book I want to move on with that closure.

It seems today a majority of budding authors feel the need to write a series. I have to wonder: are they doing it because their story really takes that many books to tell, or are they doing it for marketing purposes? Personally, I want a good story (told well), not a mass produced story written for the market.

If I read a book description that interests me, as soon as I see the words "Book One in the ______ Series," I put it down and move on.

A trilogy is my limit. However, I am currently on Book 8 of the Chronicles of the Nephilim by Brian Godawa. It is this many books to cover the many issues relating to the Nephilim mentioned in the Bible and its associated bible accounts. I guess this would be the exception rather than the rule. This topic needs many novels to cover existing material seeing the Chronicles are based on real events, whereas other authors who construct just based on imagination may feel they need to cover all the story arcs from their imagination.

I guess for most readers, it becomes frustrating when there is a year or more between instalments of the trilogy. I know myself, I would rather wait until all the instalments are published, then read them one after the other, you then appreciate the story as a whole. I have given up on some trilogies when the gap becomes 2-3 years or more between instalments. This seems to be backed up by the lack of reviews on Books 2 and 3 and the reviewers from Book 1 are not seen in the review list on subsequent novels.

I don't know how readers cope with series that have up to 15-20 novels in the series. for me, it becomes too much information and I am over it by that number.

When I am asked to review Book 1 in a trilogy, I do get frustrated that I will have to read this again when I review Books 2 and 3. But I do as I have experienced that when I don't it affects my review especially if I am reviewing as part of the pre-release marketing and to booster the Amazon rank at release.

As a reader, I like both "Stand alones" and a series. I don't like waiting years for the "next" one. If I like an author, I will seek out other books written by him or her and read those as well.

As an author, I'm new to writing so I haven't written a stand alone. I started with an idea I thought would make a good trilogy but I haven't been able to get everything neatly tucked into a trilogy, thus a series was born. It wasn't particularly a marketing ploy but we're doing the best we can with how it's unfolding.

Reggi wrote: "As a reader, I like both "Stand alones" and a series. I don't like waiting years for the "next" one. If I like an author, I will seek out other books written by him or her and read those as well.

..."

That sounds a bit like the story series I have in mind that I mentioned above. It isn't something we can completely control. We just have to make sure it is high quality and pursue it until the characters tell us it is finished.

A quick, related question.

Do we have so many trilogies these days because of what has become the standard length of a novel?

How many modern books would War and Peace be? Or The Count of Monte Cristo?

I would imagine that our desire to fit a story into three books of three hundred pages rather than one book of one thousand pages influences the choice to write trilogies rather than stand alone books.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Stan wrote: "Do we have so many trilogies these days because of what has become the standard length of a novel?"

That's a good question and one in which the answer is more a sign of the times than anything. As a marketing blogger for almost 20 years, I tend to want to write a series of 1200 word posts rather than a single post of 5000. Which is better is open to debate, but from a purely selfish perspective, four 1200 word posts covers me for a month or more of writing. A single, long post needs to be followed up with the next. That means it's a lot more "work" to create the same number of posts.

Books are different, but not entirely. I would rather publish (and sell) three books than publish and sell just one. In the end, there is less money to be made by one long book than three.

And from what I understand, this isn't just from the author's perspective but from the publisher's as well. They'd prefer to have three books since the cost of a 1000 page book is much more than a 350-page book. And since most people (like me) are not inclined to want to try to drill through 1000 pages, a large book will sell fewer copies. But break that up into three, you get 3x the sales and I'm willing to read all 1000 pages because it's in reader-size chunks.

J.L. wrote: "are they doing it because their story really takes that many books to tell, or are they doing it for marketing purposes? "

I agree it should be about the story first and foremost. I had a story idea that once I started fleshing it out I realized it wouldn't fit into a single book. Each book will be a bully complete story, but there will be a larger arc finalized in the third book.

I'm also with SHINE. Too many books in a series and I'm not inclined to start reading unless I got in early. If I see there are already half a dozen volumes, I'll pass. I'm almost like this with authors too. I will rarely pick up an author that's been publishing for 20 years vs one that's new and only has a few books so far.

Peter wrote: "I am currently on Book 8 of the Chronicles of the Nephilim by Brian Godawa."

Great case-in-point for me. Totally interested in this but at 8 volumes at 400 pages each, I'm out.

Stan wrote: "Do we have so many trilogies these days because of what has become the standard length of a novel?"

I think this is part of what turns me off about a series. I feel like a lot of writers just don't know how to end a story. There is a lot of rambling in the middle. With these long stand-alone classics, the ending is seen as worth it. I can't stand a series in which each book just leads to the next without a real conclusion. Then, after committing all that time in reading, the ending is just lame. A series that has stand-alone books versus one long continuous story is the only thing that interests me right now. Any series I have started because of my review blog, I am waiting until the series is done before reading the next one.

I have read a few series in which the writer never finishes. I promise that I will not even begin George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones series because I honestly don't think he is capable of completing it. Each of his books takes years before they come out.

I honestly believe that the quality of a writer is shown in how they end a book or series. The more I read, the more I stand on that statement. Lots of people can write a good hook, but I find very few can end well.

Lara wrote: "A series that has stand-alone books versus one long continuous story is the only thing that interests me right now."

Does that apply to series that have a continuous arc, but each book has its own conclusion? Maze Runner comes to mind (the movies, not the books--never read them.) Each book has its own story within the larger arc.

Stoney wrote: "Lara wrote: "A series that has stand-alone books versus one long continuous story is the only thing that interests me right now."

Does that apply to series that have a continuous arc, but each boo..."

I haven't read those, but I have read the Harry Potter series which does what you describe. I don't mind the large arc as long as each book ends well. If I do read a series, this is the way I like it. The whole series still needs to end well and I may still wait to find out if the last one gets written. I read The Bear and the Nightengale thinking it was a stand-alone book. Turns out it is a trilogy and the last book's release date has been pushed back twice. At least each book has an ending, so if it doesn't get finished the larger arc is just a background annoyance.

J.L. wrote: "When it comes to fiction: stand alone.

With few exceptions, you should be able to say all that you need in one book. When I'm done with a book I want to move on with that closure.

It seems toda..."

I didn't specifically start out to write a four-book series. I initially thought I was going to write a trilogy. But as I wrote, the story evolved into four books. No marketing ploy on my part; just the need to tell this particular story. In fact people recommended I shorten each book to stretch it to seven or more books so I could profit from selling more.

Instead I followed the rule 'write what you want to read'. I like series that are long enough to allow me to invest in characters I come to care about, but not so long the series becomes overwhelming to finish. I also look for books that I can't finish in one or two readings. (I tend to read fast and have been known to finish a book in an afternoon and then feel cheated because it ended too fast.)

So ... I ended up writing Epic Fantasy with Christian themes (I love when Christian principles can be embedded in an exciting story and sound like they are an intrinsic part of the story), a story arc that took more than one book to tell (time for the story to ferment and grow), and characters that feel like family (characters worth my time and emotional investment).

And ... I put in the effort to have the books all released within one year because I hate waiting and waiting for the next book in a series! The last book, The Light Unbound should be out within the next week or two. (I expected it out mid November, but ran into a few snags along the way.)

I'm kinda planning both with the project I'm currently planning.

I want to do a series of novels with a superhero team, but I also want to do standalone novels or novellas introducing each member before they team up.

Does that make sense?

David wrote: "I'm kinda planning both with the project I'm currently planning.

I want to do a series of novels with a superhero team, but I also want to do standalone novels or novellas introducing each member ..."

It sounds Marvel-ous!

Sorry! Couldn't resist.

It does sound like a great plan though! Happy writing!

Stan wrote: "It sounds Marvel-ous!"

Punny, Stan, very punny!

Stan and David ...
LOL!

The ironic thing is, this morning I noticed a story on Twitter that Netflix's Daredevil series is showing a drop in viewership, same as happened to two other Netflix superhero dramas.

Makes me wonder if we haven't reached peak saturation on superheros and people are starting to get bored.

David wrote: "Makes me wonder if we haven't reached peak saturation on superheros and people are starting to get bored. "

The TV shows are definitely overly saturated. And most aren't that good. As long as the movies stay good (and I'm referring to Marvel, because we all know the DC movies are mediocre at best) I think they have longevity. But TV shows will probably die out except for maybe a few.

David wrote: "Makes me wonder if we haven't reached peak saturation on superheros and people are starting to get bored."

It may be due to the season of The Defenders before a return to a season of Daredevil.

As we're discussing in another thread - the time between books in a series may cause readers to lose interest. The same may be true of the shows.

Stoney wrote: "As long as the movies stay good (and I'm referring to Marvel, because we all know the DC movies are mediocre at best) I think they have longevity."

I agree with you completely here, though I have high hopes for Aquaman. His character in Justice League made me think he might be DC's Wolverine - bad boy and vicious. Honestly, watching Justice League was like watching actors. Watching the Marvel superhero movies is like watching superheroes.

We all know DC missed the boat casting Ben Affleck as Batman!

I'm a fan of the current Wonder Woman. Marvel needs to do a Black Widow movie or something. Like where are the women?

Lara wrote: "I'm a fan of the current Wonder Woman. Marvel needs to do a Black Widow movie or something. Like where are the women?"

A Black Widow and Scarlet Witch team up!

Stan said, "As we're discussing in another thread - the time between books in a series may cause readers to lose interest. The same may be true of the shows."

My take on it is a little different, at one point Star Trek had done four shows either back to back or overlapping, and interest waned until there were a few years between them, then the new movies (which I intensely dislike) kinda sparked a renewed interest.

Lara wrote: "I'm a fan of the current Wonder Woman. Marvel needs to do a Black Widow movie or something. Like where are the women?"

Captain Marvel is coming!

I like the current WW as well, and I can't wait to see Aquaman, but on the whole, I prefer Marvel. It's what I got into first.

As for novels, I'm thankful for the comments on this thread. It's giving me a lot to think about in terms of how I approach my series.
It was always going to be a minimum of 6 books, because it's based on real characters and to put them in fewer volumes would be to summarise their roles rather than explore them. That said, reader questions have sparked other ideas and generated side novels between the originals.
I know it's going to be a nightmare to market them all, and that readers might not pick any of them up until they're all out. It seems my career as a writer is going to have an extremely slow burn. ;-)
That said, I don't know of any other way to approach stories that simply cannot be told in one book. I think the most important thing will be to finish it, and to have each book work (mostly) as a standalone.
I've read a couple of series where the last book was never and apparently will never be published. That was so frustrating I ended up devising my own endings just to get a sense of conclusion.

Lauren wrote: "It was always going to be a minimum of 6 books, because it's based on real characters."

The series of books about the O'Malleys by Dee Henderson runs about six books. It isn't spec fiction, but it is an great concept and I read each one as they came out about a year apart. They are all pretty well stand alone, but later books don't repeat a ton of information from the previous, so if you start late in the series you won't know some of the characters well.

Done well and with steady and consistent releases you should be able to pull it off.

David wrote: "...then the new movies (which I intensely dislike)."

You’re dead to me.

Speaking of superhero oversaturation, Netflix officially cancelled Daredevil yesterday.

David wrote: "Speaking of superhero oversaturation, Netflix officially cancelled Daredevil yesterday."

Wow! That was fast! Netflix is notorious for canceling shows that don't hit a certain profit margin.

Yeah, they said viewership was down, which matches with my theory.

That's a movie, Shine, Daredevil was a TV series. 🙂

I think the only superhero series left on Netflix is Jessica Jones.

Forgive me if that sounded snarky. It's been a day at work but that doesn't justify spreading it to strangers.

Lara wrote: "I'm a fan of the current Wonder Woman. Marvel needs to do a Black Widow movie or something. Like where are the women?"

I want to know what happened in Budapest!

Reggi wrote: "I want to know what happened in Budapest!

Don't we all!