This is great advice, especially for those who write series. I have a series in which all six books (so far) tell a larger story. However, I write each as if the reader has never read the previous books. There's a fine line between giving them just enough to understand the context of the current story without boring those who've been burning through the series. It also helps those who have read everything prior to a new book but have forgotten a lot since my last book came out.
This is a very important theme for writers like me who write a series of novels. I knew it was important already when I wrote my first books, but not to the degree that it is. To make every novel in a series stand on it's own, the rules of the universe must be explained in every book in some way, and it is therefore a very good idea to avoid that headache entirely by setting the scene in the universe we all know and love. J.K. Rowling solves this dilemma brilliantly by beginning in the ordinary world, and making excursions into the unknown with twists and surprises. I'm doing something of the same in my books. Most of the characters aren't aware of the magic behind the curtains, but get to see glimpses of it together with the readers. Great video. Keep up the good work.
i think it would be interesting to have a series of novels that tell the same story from different POVs and have the chapters of each novel numbered by the order in which they need to be read compared to the other volumes. Volume 1 (first character POV) would contain chapters 1, 3, 8, 9, 11 etc, volume 2 (other character) would have chapters 2, 4, 5, 12 etc, volume 3 (third character) chapters 6, 7, 10, 13, 14 etc. And each character would be a main character in his own POV volume, so each reader would choose their own villain. all novels would have to be written and read at the same time though.
You know who knocked this out of the park? Jean M. Auel. Those Clan of the Cave Bear novels were HUGE with lots of historical lore and all different kinds of relationships between clan members, civilizations, tribes, etc. Those of us who read them when they first came out used to joke with one another about how far we'd get into the newest novel in the series before she brought up that dang red otter bag that Ayla kept her ingredients in, where she got it, how it was made, why it was red, etc. It was probably the 4th or 5th book before it got laborious for those of us who'd been there since the beginning. (I just skipped those parts!)
I'd throw out that Terry Prachett's Discworld series does a good job of this. There are like 40 books and a variety of orders you can read them in. Some books carry on the story of older characters, but don't really require any of the previous books to stand up on their own. In that same note, you can follow along with the books about a given character and appreciate their growth and development from book to book.
I understand your point here. On the other hand, my favorite fantasy series by far is Malazan Book of the Fallen. Steven Erickson famously doesn't believe in infodumping, which can be very siscteacting in a fantasy series with millions of years of in universe history, undead neandertals, sentient dinosaurs with sword arms, etc. Personally, I loved feeling utterly lost at the beginning of each book, having to figure out the context as I went along.
I found the constant confusion utterly exhausting, but that goes to show how different people are. Reading Gene Wolfe was much the same experience for me, so I've never gotten past the second book in The Book of the New Sun. On the other hand, I think there should be a limit to how much the world needs to be explained. If you write a historical novel for instance, you would risk talking down to your audience if you spent a lot of time turning it into a lesson on the basics of well known events like for instance World War II, or the Great Depression. I would assume I was writing for someone with some degree of pre-existing knowledge in such a case, but it's a fine balance of course.
Good advice. I am actually writing a novel that is based off of a popular series (not my own), however the series is critical to my book in theology. Like say my book is about religion and I'm not actually planning of explaining religion to my readers because I hope they actually already know about religion. Yet my book isn't about religion and I know if someone who hasn't read the original story they might be confused, so this video is good because my intention isn't really to use the prior 'lore' as a base for my story proper but use my book to get readers interested in reading the original concept... if that makes sense? So yes less dependent upon the original concept while still using it as inspiration including using references.
I've had this mindset through years of film critique, but I'll go one further- The best stories imho are enjoyable on their own, ones that require extra knowledge not contained within the chapter cannot be as entertaining, BUT THEN there's a special 3rd variant of story. Those that are actively worse for having extra knowledge of the universe the stories take place in. A very VERY common way this is found in modern movies is the dreaded meaningless sequel-bait. A story is told, it might even be satisfying, but at the last second the move just HAS to pull out a random "oh no, we've got an even bigger problem over here!" before the credits. The most likely outcome? No sequel is made anyway, and this leads nowhere. This is honestly, the best outcome. You'd think the sequel addressing this bait would be the best outcome, but that's a trick you see. Those don't exist. The second "best" outcome is that the sequel bait is acknowledged, before being quickly dismissed and the sequel just going off on it's own about a totally unrelated story anyway. Finally, there's the worst, and far more likely outcome. The sequel happens, and the bait is never even brought up. After enough series with these kinds of things happening, I'm getting to where I'm feeling like I'm being actively punished for paying attention. Anyway, it's for these reasons and more I've figured on the story I'm working on - while my little brain cogs go on and on about the expanded universe and how to set up sequel after sequel to follow a big overarching story, I'm not going to "tee it up" with some sequel bait or anything like that at the end of the first story. If I can make another, great, we can cover it then. Until that point? The baddies can be beaten and the heroes can rest.
I ran across this topic in a discussion about William Gaddis' book, JR. Most people say it stands on its own merits, but you really have to pay close attention and be an active reader. When people recommend books like Joyce's Ulysses, I'm sceptical that it'll be a good read (for me) because it contains allusions to a lot of books like the Bible, which I haven't read. Maybe those allusions are 'extra' layers of meaning that aren't necessary, idk.
I think, it's important to keep in mind that different readers have different knowledge about the "universe" the novel takes place in. Hopefully your novel gets recognized and not soon forgotten, so your readers may come from different backgrounds, different countries, different decades or even centuries. (Will young people twenty years in the future know how a pay phone works? Twenty years ago, nobody would have even thought about explaining it to a reader.) So you can't assume pre-existing knowledge. On the other hand, you don't want to annoy your readers by explaining stuff they and probably everybody already know. (Twenty years ago, pay phones were already on the way out, as most people had a cellphone. So, should a writer have thought "I have to explain this, because forty years from now, nobody will understand"?) I think, you must keep the balance. For example, some people will know if a staff sergeant is ranked higher than a gunnery sergeant, some will not. Is it important for the reader to know? If not, there is no need to explain. If yes, you might not tell, but show by letting the higher one give some order to the other. Or, you might let a side character without that knowledge ask which one is higher.
I worry for my sequel in this sense because there are a LOt of things the reader needs to know from previous book for it to work... It's not a book you can grab and read without reading the first one...
What would you suggest in terms of revision for a series of four novels that rely on one another to create a complete story? Should they be published as a single volume with each part trimmed to novella length?
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
This is great advice, especially for those who write series. I have a series in which all six books (so far) tell a larger story. However, I write each as if the reader has never read the previous books. There's a fine line between giving them just enough to understand the context of the current story without boring those who've been burning through the series. It also helps those who have read everything prior to a new book but have forgotten a lot since my last book came out.
This is a very important theme for writers like me who write a series of novels. I knew it was important already when I wrote my first books, but not to the degree that it is. To make every novel in a series stand on it's own, the rules of the universe must be explained in every book in some way, and it is therefore a very good idea to avoid that headache entirely by setting the scene in the universe we all know and love. J.K. Rowling solves this dilemma brilliantly by beginning in the ordinary world, and making excursions into the unknown with twists and surprises. I'm doing something of the same in my books. Most of the characters aren't aware of the magic behind the curtains, but get to see glimpses of it together with the readers. Great video. Keep up the good work.
i think it would be interesting to have a series of novels that tell the same story from different POVs and have the chapters of each novel numbered by the order in which they need to be read compared to the other volumes. Volume 1 (first character POV) would contain chapters 1, 3, 8, 9, 11 etc, volume 2 (other character) would have chapters 2, 4, 5, 12 etc, volume 3 (third character) chapters 6, 7, 10, 13, 14 etc. And each character would be a main character in his own POV volume, so each reader would choose their own villain. all novels would have to be written and read at the same time though.
Thanks for another great video 🤪 I knew what you meant in the original video, but this makes it clearer for those who didn’t 😁
You know who knocked this out of the park? Jean M. Auel. Those Clan of the Cave Bear novels were HUGE with lots of historical lore and all different kinds of relationships between clan members, civilizations, tribes, etc. Those of us who read them when they first came out used to joke with one another about how far we'd get into the newest novel in the series before she brought up that dang red otter bag that Ayla kept her ingredients in, where she got it, how it was made, why it was red, etc. It was probably the 4th or 5th book before it got laborious for those of us who'd been there since the beginning. (I just skipped those parts!)
I'd throw out that Terry Prachett's Discworld series does a good job of this. There are like 40 books and a variety of orders you can read them in. Some books carry on the story of older characters, but don't really require any of the previous books to stand up on their own.
In that same note, you can follow along with the books about a given character and appreciate their growth and development from book to book.
I understand your point here. On the other hand, my favorite fantasy series by far is Malazan Book of the Fallen. Steven Erickson famously doesn't believe in infodumping, which can be very siscteacting in a fantasy series with millions of years of in universe history, undead neandertals, sentient dinosaurs with sword arms, etc. Personally, I loved feeling utterly lost at the beginning of each book, having to figure out the context as I went along.
I found the constant confusion utterly exhausting, but that goes to show how different people are. Reading Gene Wolfe was much the same experience for me, so I've never gotten past the second book in The Book of the New Sun.
On the other hand, I think there should be a limit to how much the world needs to be explained. If you write a historical novel for instance, you would risk talking down to your audience if you spent a lot of time turning it into a lesson on the basics of well known events like for instance World War II, or the Great Depression. I would assume I was writing for someone with some degree of pre-existing knowledge in such a case, but it's a fine balance of course.
The Stand... Good Steven King book...
Cat!
Ah also nice video and I'd agree overall, although I love side stories etc. It's giving more depth, even if the novel should work on its own.
Good advice. I am actually writing a novel that is based off of a popular series (not my own), however the series is critical to my book in theology. Like say my book is about religion and I'm not actually planning of explaining religion to my readers because I hope they actually already know about religion.
Yet my book isn't about religion and I know if someone who hasn't read the original story they might be confused, so this video is good because my intention isn't really to use the prior 'lore' as a base for my story proper but use my book to get readers interested in reading the original concept... if that makes sense? So yes less dependent upon the original concept while still using it as inspiration including using references.
I've had this mindset through years of film critique, but I'll go one further-
The best stories imho are enjoyable on their own, ones that require extra knowledge not contained within the chapter cannot be as entertaining, BUT THEN there's a special 3rd variant of story. Those that are actively worse for having extra knowledge of the universe the stories take place in.
A very VERY common way this is found in modern movies is the dreaded meaningless sequel-bait. A story is told, it might even be satisfying, but at the last second the move just HAS to pull out a random "oh no, we've got an even bigger problem over here!" before the credits. The most likely outcome? No sequel is made anyway, and this leads nowhere. This is honestly, the best outcome. You'd think the sequel addressing this bait would be the best outcome, but that's a trick you see. Those don't exist. The second "best" outcome is that the sequel bait is acknowledged, before being quickly dismissed and the sequel just going off on it's own about a totally unrelated story anyway. Finally, there's the worst, and far more likely outcome. The sequel happens, and the bait is never even brought up.
After enough series with these kinds of things happening, I'm getting to where I'm feeling like I'm being actively punished for paying attention.
Anyway, it's for these reasons and more I've figured on the story I'm working on - while my little brain cogs go on and on about the expanded universe and how to set up sequel after sequel to follow a big overarching story, I'm not going to "tee it up" with some sequel bait or anything like that at the end of the first story. If I can make another, great, we can cover it then. Until that point? The baddies can be beaten and the heroes can rest.
I ran across this topic in a discussion about William Gaddis' book, JR. Most people say it stands on its own merits, but you really have to pay close attention and be an active reader. When people recommend books like Joyce's Ulysses, I'm sceptical that it'll be a good read (for me) because it contains allusions to a lot of books like the Bible, which I haven't read. Maybe those allusions are 'extra' layers of meaning that aren't necessary, idk.
I think, it's important to keep in mind that different readers have different knowledge about the "universe" the novel takes place in. Hopefully your novel gets recognized and not soon forgotten, so your readers may come from different backgrounds, different countries, different decades or even centuries. (Will young people twenty years in the future know how a pay phone works? Twenty years ago, nobody would have even thought about explaining it to a reader.)
So you can't assume pre-existing knowledge. On the other hand, you don't want to annoy your readers by explaining stuff they and probably everybody already know. (Twenty years ago, pay phones were already on the way out, as most people had a cellphone. So, should a writer have thought "I have to explain this, because forty years from now, nobody will understand"?)
I think, you must keep the balance. For example, some people will know if a staff sergeant is ranked higher than a gunnery sergeant, some will not. Is it important for the reader to know? If not, there is no need to explain. If yes, you might not tell, but show by letting the higher one give some order to the other. Or, you might let a side character without that knowledge ask which one is higher.
I worry for my sequel in this sense because there are a LOt of things the reader needs to know from previous book for it to work... It's not a book you can grab and read without reading the first one...
A bunch of aliens discuss LOTR with a human. I read such scene.
What would you suggest in terms of revision for a series of four novels that rely on one another to create a complete story? Should they be published as a single volume with each part trimmed to novella length?
I guess trimmed if each one of them is not complete whole.
@ That’s the approach I’ve taken. Thanks.
Preloading the beta readers with questions was a good thought bomb for me.
Hi