Writing: Keeping a Series Fresh

[jpskewedthrone]

First off, the winners of the Barbara Campbell books. Congrats to glitteringlynx and sylverwolfe! They were chosen by a random number generator to receive either Heartwood or Bloodstone by Barbara Campbell, simply because I think these are great books and deserve a little more love. So, glitteringlynx and sylverwolfe, I need you to send me your snail mail address either as a message here on LJ, or an email to jpalmatier@sff.net, so I can get those in the mail this week. Whoever sends me the mailing address first gets Heartwood. Remember that when you finish reading the book (whichever one you get), I'd like you to post a review either on LJ, or at Amazon.com or bn.com, to help spread the word about the books.

OK, now the main topic of the post: Keeping a Series Fresh. This was a topic of a panel at Boskone this past weekend. I wasn't on the panel, but I did sit in the audience, and it brought up lots of interesting comments and questions about how to keep a series fresh. This is not a post about the panel, since I didn't take any notes. This is merely my thoughts about the topic. Maybe pbray has better notes on the panel and can make further comments based on those, since she participated in the panel herself.

Anyway, I think it makes sense to start talking about what makes a series . . . not so fresh. There are a couple of things that go wrong. Probably the most prevalent is that the series gets boring. I think part of this is natural for a series, since in the first book EVERYTHING is new. The characters, the world, the magic . . . literally everything. So readers get involved in the world and the character and the sheer discovery of everything in that world. By the time you get to book 3, the world is already fairly well established, as well as the character, so that initial sense of discovery has vanished. Because of this, there needs to be something else compensating for this lack. The most common compensation, I think, is plot. The author tries to make the plot more interesting . . . which kind of leads to the next way that series can go wrong.

If the author is making an effort to compensate with the plot, it usually leads to what I'll call escalation. The plot in the first book has to be different and engaging, but when you move on to the next, most authors try to make the plot even more exciting, and then even more exciting for book three, etc. By the time you get to book 5, the trend is that the plot has been "escalated" to such an extent that it's no longer believable.

In a similar vein, the character developes throughout the books. Changes in the first few books can be rather extreme, but after a few books such extreme changes start to feel . . . well, either schitzo or unstable at least. You still want some character developement, but it has to be more subtle. Some authors reach the point where it doesn't seem like their character is changing at all (which is just as bad as having them change too drastically, too often), and sometimes the characters just settle into a rut.

Which is another way things can go bad. Sometimes, the series just becomes an extended series of the same book, same plot, etc told over and over and over again with the character names changed from book to book.

And then there's the series that goes on and on . . . and yet you never seem to get anywhere, even if each book isn't different than the last. Even if the book is 1000+ pages long. (I will name no names here. *cough cough*)

So, there are plenty of ways that a series can go horribly wrong. Pretty much all of these things are under the control of the author and can be "fixed".

What did I do to keep my series fresh? Well, I tried to make each book different, and to keep things moving. I didn't want to fall into the trap of having one of the books just be a "bridge" from one book to another, which meant that each book needed to have its own self-contained coherent plot, with a beginning, middle, and end. I think this solves a few of the "not so fresh" problems, such as the 1000+ page book that doesn't seem to do anything. If each book has a different plot, then it solves the repetitive plot problem as well. It doesn't necessarily address the extreme character changes problem, or the escalating plot problem. Hopefully, though, it does resolve the "steadily getting boring" problem. If each plot is distinct and different from the previous plots, and self-contained (more or less), then hopefully it keeps the world and characters fresh.

The other problems are harder to handle. I certainly don't want the character to go through extreme changes or the plot to escalate to such a point that the characters that resolve the plot suddenly seem to be superheroes or gods who can handle any situation without a problem. So how to you keep the plots of each book fresh without escalation? Well, one trick I can think of is to have one of the plots of a later book shed sudden and horrifying light on a previous book. What if it brings into question everything that the character (and reader) assumed was true in an earlier book? Then the reader enjoyed the previous book, with those assumptions, at the time, but when they get to the later book and realize that everything they thought was true, isn't . . . it not only makes the current book interesting (without escalation), but it suddenly makes them want to go back and read the previous book as well. Or at least relive it in their mind. I tried to do this in my series in The Cracked Throne when I ********SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER!!!!!!************ had Varis suddenly have to rethink everything she thought about Avrel and the Mistress in The Skewed Throne. I didn't do this in The Vacant Throne though.

Another way to make the later books interesting without destroying the previous books or characters completely is to (slowly) introduce new characters and explore how those characters interact and change the main characters. This gets into the point I made earlier about those character changes being more subtle in later books. I think that's key. You can't give up on having character changes, but they can't be too extreme either. New characters are a way to change things up for the main characters so that these subtle changes can happen. This is what I tried to do in The Vacant Throne. By introducing the male Servant from Venitte, it put new pressure on William and on Varis. All of the Lords and Ladies in Venitte forced Varis to reevaluate how she handled her own duties, and how far she could go in a foreign city. She couldn't necessarily do the same things she could in her own city. So I used the new characters and setting to force Varis to change, but in more subtle ways than she changed in The Skewed Throne.

Not that I did all of these things consciously of course. Hindsight is great. It makes it look like you planned all of these things, when in fact most of it just sort of happened. You can make a conscious effort to make each book different in the series, and to make each book its own entity, but if you write like I do, lots of the other stuff sorts itself out as you write. I know that as I write I am consciously asking myself if I'm repeating myself, if this action or that action is just like what happened in a previous book, etc. I know that as I wrote The Skewed Throne, especially toward the end, I already knew that what Varis thought and what Avrel and the Mistress were actually planning, were totally different things. So that was planned. But alot of the rest . . . not so much. That's an aspect of the way I write though. I'm a seat-of-the-panster is most respects.

OK, so I've droned on long enough. Are there other ways that series can go horribly wrong? Are there other ways that you can "fix" these problems before they occur? I'm sure there are. So what are they? Discuss!

Comments

[ravens-shadow.livejournal.com]

I've seen a couple of these issues pop up in one series I enjoy. I prefer the earlier books because of it. On the one hand, I appreciated that the author wanted each book to develop greater complications, so the characters had to work harder to overcome the villains/catch the bad guy/etc. On the other hand, the protagonist keeps getting more and more powerful, so the worse encounters don't seem so bad. Do a little bit of new-fangled magic and you're fine after one big fight. I like it less now with these issues overtaking the story.

I enjoyed it more in the most recent book when it felt like the author went back to an earlier way of dealing with the case/mystery at hand.


Unrelated to the above: I have a professor who doesn't really care for it when every other character is smiling or grinning. After she told me that, I feel more aware of stories where the same expressions or movements (i.e. running a hand through one's hair) occur way too often.

[theguindo]

I notice that sort of repetitiveness too! I've also found that, after having it pointed out to me, it bothers me when people overuse epithets. I'd rather have a character's name overused than see a lot of "the soldier" and such. Unless you're specifically calling attention to that aspect of their character, it just grates on me.

[ravens-shadow.livejournal.com]

I've actually been avoiding that issue in my story, as well. I know I used those sometimes when I didn't want to say their name over and over again, but then I'd think, "Well, we're in Person X's head, and he has no reason to think of Y as 'the bartender' anymore, especially in this scene."

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

I have to be careful of the repetitive phrases thing in my writing too. I don't worry about it in the first draft, but in the revision process I try to cut all of these kinds of things out. I'm not sure I'm completely successful.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

GAH. You had to include spoilers and not put it behind a cut and not put a warning at the top? *cries* I haven't read the books yet...

up to that point, though: very good points & worth chewing on, thanks!

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

It wasn't much of a spoiler. But sorry!

[theguindo]

Sometimes, the series just becomes an extended series of the same book, same plot, etc told over and over and over again with the character names changed from book to book.

This is what the Redwall series has become, really. Maybe Brian Jacques should've attended that panel 8|a

(And I still read them anyway, ahaha. Why.)

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

Oh, there are MANY, MANY series that do this. Quite a few of them on the bestseller's list, too.

[theguindo]

I think the reason for that is that you start out good, get a dedicated fanbase, and then you fall into the slump but your fanbase keeps buying in the hopes that EVENTUALLY you'll write something good again.

[clarentine]

That, and your publisher wants you to keep churning out a book a year....

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

Well, I churned out a book a year . . .

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

I don't mind a plot further on shedding new light on an earlier book, but I hate the feeling of everything they thought was true, isn't - because I trusted the author, and trusted the characters, and *it was true* and I now feel manipulated because if *that* turns out not to have been true, how can I trust them that *this* insight is the truth, and not something else entirely?

And so I might read on, but with far less investment.

One strategy you haven't mentioned is the David Eddings school of long series (he's not the only one, but the most blatant, but LOTR does the same, to a degree. You start with your characters in one corner of the world, and you keep moving them around - putting them in new situations, have them come up against new geography and cultures posing different kinds of problems. That way you allow readers to go back to the earlier books and look for clues without devalidating those books.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

I don't think I did the "everything they thought was true, isn't" thing with my book. I left some doubts in the first book, and simply clarified everything in the second book. So the main character's whole world wasn't turned upside down and inside out. She was just suspicious something else was going on (there were clues) but couldn't figure out what it was . . . until later. *grin* Hopefully that doesn't bring in all the trust issues you bring up here.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

Clarifications, and adding another layer etc are fine. Particularly in a trilogy with a general arc I don't expect to understand everything right away. But I was thinking particularly about Robin Hobb's Assassin, which occasionally has turns of taking you along for half a book and then going 'but I was really stupid to have believed that, what was really going on ws x' and, hey, I had believed it, too, and now I am being called stupid for having information withheld from me - thank you very much, author.

(And I really must get around to reading your books. Sigh. So many books, so little time.)

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

Yes, you really do need to get around to reading my books. *grin*

Yeah, I knew what you were talking about. My comment was more me ruminating about my own books (and hoping they didn't come across that way). I thought I'd foreshadowed everything, so that when someone went back and reread the first book, they'd go, "Oh yeah, I see where that came from!"

[jaxom92.livejournal.com]

I think the best way to go about this approach is to use good and subtle foreshadowing. That way, the reader won't feel cheated or deceived. As the think back through the previous book or reread it, they'll come across the foreshadowing that's now obvious. They'll know the author didn't abjectly withhold information, but they also didn't reveal everything. It's a fine balance and in my experience, subtle foreshadowing is one of the most difficult things to do as a writer.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

That's what I tried to do: plant seeds of doubt and to foreshadow everything that needed foreshadowing, but without actually, you know, POINTING MY FINGER at all of the foreshadowing and going, "See, see, see!"

[spcpthook.livejournal.com]

I think the one series I read that truly wore itself out contained eleven books. the first five (maybe even the sixth)were great then the story changed considerably, became sorta preachy, but the worst of it was that I started to feel like about a quarter of each new book was spent reminding us of what came before. The tenth book I made it to page 125 without any fresh ideas...put it down and didn't pick it up for more than a year. When I did it was simply to scan through the next umpteen hundred pages to get a feel for what happened and now I'm hoping the library will get the last book in so I don't have to waste money on it. I'll probably do the skim through thing on it just to close the series out but I have no real interest in reading it at this point.

I think an author has to have a little more faith in the reader that if they're still with you at book ten they're probably into your world and your characters enough that they remember what has gone before and if they don't, hey, the books are probably good enough to reread. Throwing in the occasional reminder is fine, but constantly rehashing whole scenes from older books is monotonous. The only way I want to see this happen is if the protag has a new way of looking at the earlier scene and it sheds new light on an old problem.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

Pern? I stopped reading Pern when I got 1/3 previous book, 1/3 new plot, and 1/3 preview of the next book - I like a novel's worth of plot per novel, thankyewverymuch.

[(Anonymous)]

No. I read a lot of the pern books, probably more than I did of Sword Of Truth before I tired of them. I think there are a whole lot more than eleven of Pern but I could be wrong, and I did like how Anne Mccaffrey(sp) tied the whole thing together by bringing it back to the beginning with the colonists landing.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

I only got to book 3 of Sword of Truth. I got significantly further with Pern but then I think I just outgrew the target audience for that series. Basically, I grew up.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

But this can suffer from the problem spcpthook described - you've already read the story, and now you're seeing it again.

If you write about another character, it will be a different story. Events might overlap, but their importance will *not* be identical, their function in the narrative needs to be different, and thus, their treatment.

I have one scene where a guy meets a girl he's sweet on on the steps to the library, they talk, she invites herself to dinner, and he goes on. She, on the other hand, has been keeping a lookout for him, and sees approaching enemies over his shoulder, so she's cutting the smalltalk short. Most of the words (= the dialogue) are the same, but their context has radically changed, and while it's the same event, it's no longer the same scene.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

I think christinerains meant that you switch character POVs from book to book, but continue progressing the story, not retelling the same part over again from a different perspective. But I could be wrong.

Juliet E. McKenna did this with her Einarinn series. The 5 books alternated between 2 POV characters, but each book was the next part of the whole story.

Orson Scott Card didn't when he went back to Ender's Game and retold it from the other perspective. I've heard differing opinions on whether he pulled it off or not.

[hildebabble.livejournal.com]

Good food for thought. I especially like what you said about a book not being just a bridge between the previous and next. Plot matters!

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm a firm believer in each book being its own story.

[wbm.livejournal.com]

Ditto. As elusive as a *great* story can be to write, & how few writers get published, I'm amazed any storyteller privileged enough to be professional (meaning paid) would consider writing any longform tale as merely a bridge.

[cedunkley.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this post. It's real food for thought and has highlighted a few logistical issues I know I'm going to have to tackle in a big writing project I hope to get to soon. It's a 5 book series that spans 20 years, with a 5 year gap between each book. Trying to find a balance that will allow me to tell the overall story and yet keep each book as self contained as possible, while making each book stand out from the others, will be quite the task.

Your thoughts on keeping a series fresh is a timely one and I think something any writer should try and plan at the start of a series to avoid.

[jpsorrow.livejournal.com]

I read your LJ post where you were talking about your prequel and how you need to do some foreshadowing for the 5 book series in that. I'm glad the post provided some food for thought. *grin*

Good luck with the prequel and the 5 book series! That's . . . and rather daunting project.

[maeve-the-red.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this. I'm currently on the third book in my first series (the first book was my first novel), and though I write SF (so the rules differ slightly) this is just the kind of advice that I need right now.

I've already employed the SF equivalent of moving the characters around the world by setting each novel on a different world. The plot escalation problem and that of keeping characters fresh are ones I need to watch for, so thanks for that warning. I like the idea of turning round the reader's perspective in later books very much, but that would require a level of planning I don't think I can manage; at this stage I'm not sure how long my series is (of course, that does depend partly on my publisher...)

Series Variations

[vespican.livejournal.com]

(Had a busy week, so haven't had time until now to comment on this.)
When discussing "how to keep a series fresh" I think we need to look at some variations that can occur in different series.

Sometimes there is a single sweeping story that is simply to complex to be told in one book. While there must be a beginning and an end to each of the books that tell the story, the primary story thread continues through from the beginning of the first to the end of the last book in the series.

In other series, the only real connection between stories is that they have the same characters, settings and follow one another in pretty much a chronilogical order. (There might be references in one story to events that happened earlier. However the connection is so slight that a particular book from any where in the seris may be read as a complete series.

And then there are series that feature the same characters, etc, but there is really no connection between the individual stories.

I think these series variations also compare to how television series have worked over the years. When I was young, it seemed that each espisode of a series was completely self-contained. You could watch any episode and come away with the feeling of having seen the entire story. Now, so many series have a common story thread (sometimes several threads) that run through the season, or at time through several seasons. These continuing stories make it more imparative that one watch every espisode in order so as to not lose the big picture. Written stories can also fall into this pattern.
Dave