This is a split idea from the trillogy topic, but I was wondering what you guys thought enough was? In my story, I found it was excessively detailed in the planning and how everything intermingled. Unnecesarily so. When things get so complicated in one story, it becomes unrealistic. So, this is probably why many authors split their ideas into separate novels. This is the way I think it should go: 1.Tell your story, the main characters, the MAIN conflict 2.Fill it with feeling and character flavor, if you desire length 3.Make an appendix, like Tolkien, if you want a world that is so deep with history... DON'T WRITE EXCESSIVE NOVELS ON THE SAME PLOTLINE! I suppose one exception would be if there was a reference to the next novel in the first, such as having someone find something important, then writing a sequel about how that something is to be used. Does that all sound good as far as knowing the end?
Posted by Ransom (Member # 2712) on :
Basically, you have three possible ways to show a story:
Parallelism: Most common in fan fiction, and most popular - around here - in OSC's Ender series. What you have is an entire world with history and culture, and you have multiple characters with multiple quests that take multiple books to complete. I love Ender's Quartet and the Shadow Quartet equally, and for different reasons. This is good stuff.
Sequentialism: Most common in literature in general, this is the basic foundation of series books. Sequential stories are one quest that takes many books to complete; think LotR. The trilogy is a perfect sequence, showing a beginning, middle, and end very effectively. Some are longer; too long, and your readers either run out of money or patience, or both.
Historicism: This idea isn't much touched on, but is best represented by C.S. Lewis' Narnia series: each book is a separate quest to be fulfilled, but they still take place sequentially. Roots is another good example. You have one overall theme, but not one overall plot. You have one highly complex world, but still lots of stories.
If you're going to make a complex world, it's very hard to do this in one story sequence and still keep the reader. Tolkein succeeded in that, A, his sequence was only three books long, and, B, the story dealt with the entire known world.
But worlds are immensely complex, and showing this in one story arc is -nearly- impossible to do. My favorite stories are parallel stories, because they can best explore in depth the culture of a single time period. Histories are second, exploring a culture over time. Single quests are good reading, but they don't capture you like the others.
Posted by JmariC (Member # 2698) on :
I understand the words posted, but I'm not sure I have the idea down. How would the above apply to something like the Valedamar series, by Mercedes Lackey? Each set is a trilogy, but it's all part of a long series, sometimes not involving the same characters outside of thier respective trilogy/set?
Posted by Ransom (Member # 2712) on :
I'm not familiar with that particular book series, but if I understand your description correctly, there are multiple plot arcs with multiple characters in a chronological sequence. Therefore, it's historic.
Posted by dpatridge (Member # 2208) on :
Actually, it sounds more to me like a combination of Sequentialism and Historicism.
Each trilogy is a "Fat Fantasy" (Sequential Series) as Kate Elliott calls them, and then the trilogies combine to make a historic series.
Of course, I could be misunderstanding what he said. I'm good at misunderstanding people.