Professional Writing Workshops at HollyLisle.com
11/02/01 -- Plotting the Series Novel
<@SLViehl> All right, let's get this show on the road. Welcome to Plotting
the Series Novel. I'm S.L. Viehl (Sheila), author of one open-ended, one
mid-length, and one trilogy series.
<Robert> 20,000 sims if you'd do up something to say Editing Theme
Anthollogies with Robert (Aristophenes Mr. Robert's Cat) Sloan
<@SLViehl> You've all heard the rest of my laurels so we'll skip that junk.
<@SLViehl> Tonight we're going to talk about plotting series -- how to do
it, how not to do it, and what you need to do it.
<@SLViehl> I'll present some material, as usual, then throw up a QUESTIONS
<@SLViehl> That's when to hit me with your best shot.
<@SLViehl> And as this can be very complicated, I'm going to break for
questions frequently.
<@SLViehl> Ready to go?
<Robert> Yep!
<gayle> yep!
<Jehane> yes
<James> Sure am.
<BklynWriterturned o> turned off call waiting, i'm ready
<Jenny> Yes.
<@JimMills> ready as I'll ever be...
<@SLViehl> Okay. First, how to determine a series length -- as in, how many
books do you write?
<@SLViehl> It's important to establish how much territory you want to
tackle, so consider your idea carefully.
<@SLViehl> A trilogy, for example, has a very tight focus. You've got three
books to deal with this idea of yours, and that's it.
<@SLViehl> A mid-length series, say 5 to 7 books, gives you a little more
room to go exploring.
<@SLViehl> An extended series, which can stretch to ten, fifteen, or twenty
books, gives you even more room, but you still come to a conclusion.
<@SLViehl> Then there is the very scary territory of planning a series that
never ends.
<@SLViehl> Let's wrestle with the trilogy first.
<@SLViehl> Don't underestimate a trilogy. Shorter does not mean
easier.
<@SLViehl> You face writing three connected novels, in which the
first generally establishes your main story plot, the second in some way
challenges or changes that plot, and the third provides closure.
<@SLViehl> They also have to be standalones -- not breaking off in the
middle of things and making the reader wait for book two or three
<@SLViehl> Running threads have to be tightly controlled, while characters
generally remain the same set (with a few additions and subtractions)
<@SLViehl> Plot development goes through three stages -- what I call the
one-two-three punch, the same way I plot a single novel. It just takes
three books to work the main conflict out.
<@SLViehl> And while you're lugging this main conflict around through three
books, each novel should have its own inclusive conflict which you will
establish, explore, and resolve.
<@SLViehl> Trilogies are not easier. They are tighter. They are more
demanding of your skills as a storyteller.
<@SLViehl> They are also classic. Readers like trilogies a lot, because
they are depending on that one-two-three punch.
<@SLViehl> QUESTIONS
<gayle> can you have a universe that lives in sets of trilogies?
<Jenny> I'm not quite sure how you can have a strong central conflict and
still not make the reader wait for the next book.
<@SLViehl> Sure, Gayle. You can explore the universe in stages, in
generations, and keep each "chapter" of the exploration enclosed in trilogy
form.
<gayle> cool
<James> I'd hoped to get away with a slowly evolving, low-key overarching
story that concludes decisively in book three but which isn't completely
apparent until book three - is that an acceptable variant?
<Robert> I see what you mean by tight, because the trilogy plot's like the
series plot in Babylon 5 from season to season but there's a season plot
that makes sense.
<@SLViehl> Jenny, I think it's like war. In a trilogy, you wage battles in
every book, but you don't win or lose the war until the end of the third.
It keeps readers in suspense, but you're still giving them the satisfaction
of a battle win/loss in each book.
<BklynWritercan_> can the setting be the only constant in the series?
<Jenny> That makes sense. (Whether I can pull it off is another story.)
<Robert> Sheila, why are the projected series numbers odd numbers? 3, 5, 7,
extended...
<@SLViehl> James, as long as you're delivering an inclusive conflict in each
book, how quickly or slowly you develop the trilogy conflict is up to you.
You don't want to dump everything in book three, though, because it changes
book three into a convenient wrap-up type of book, instead of keeping the
trilogy flow even, if that makes sense.
<BklynWriter> Ok, so you have an idea, how do you determine the length of
the series
<@SLViehl> I like the idea of a trilogy being based inside the same setting
but with entirely different characters and plots, BW. You'd be taking a
different approach, which is always good, and you can have a lot of
contrasts between the books. The setting has to be one the readers want to
return to, though.
<James> It does make sense - I was looking at a structure along the lines of
Firmly entrenched power/power called into question/power shattered, old
holders of power utterly destroyed - so it should be gentler than a sudden
resolution of all plotlines. I think.
<@JimMills> You can also have the characters continue too, though, right?
<@SLViehl> Robert, I've found that for me, the odd numbers work better.
There's no even split, there's always a mid-series novel that provides a
transition. I went from eight to nine books with Blade Dancer for that
reason.
<BklynWriter> I was thinking like James White and the Sector General
novels....its set on a huge floating hospitals with characters coming and
going
<@SLViehl> Sure, Jim. Character continuation is almost always what series
writers do.
<BklynWriter> He's been writing them for what....20 years or so
<@SLViehl> BW, on how to know the length, you have to outline your books.
If your idea is epic, you're going to need a lot of books to explore that.
If the focus is more intense and direct, then the idea lends itself better
to a trilogy, for example.
<@SLViehl> Sadly, Mr. White died in 1999. No more Sector General novels.
<@SLViehl> Now let's move on and dissect the mid-length series.
<@SLViehl> I consider a mid-length series to be between five to seven books.
Feel free to add or subtract to that to suit your own story line needs and
writing style, btw.
<@SLViehl> It's the books that come between the first and last that make a
difference.
<@SLViehl> Take a five book mid-length series -- you've got three books in
the center. The second and the fourth are transition novels. The third is
like the second book of a trilogy.
<@SLViehl> In a mid-length series, you've got more room to explore your
story line. More room to play in your universe.
<@SLViehl> You can run more threads, end some, and start new ones beyond the
first book, too.
<@SLViehl> There are two main things to remember when writing the mid-length
series.
<@SLViehl> First, don't wander off. Always remember to address your main
conflict in every novel.
<@SLViehl> The second is, watch your story flow. There is a big temptation
to write "middle" books -- books that do not present an inclusive conflict,
but merely serve as movers -- ways to get characters somewhere, set up for
the next book, etc.
<@SLViehl> Each book in any series MUST be a standalone on its own merit.
An editor will not buy it if it isn't.
<@SLViehl> Your time committment is going to be different with a mid-length
series. You're going to be writing more books, for one thing.
<@SLViehl> Also, you're going to be developing more details, characters,
settings, etc to track and maintain.
<@SLViehl> Keep a tight leash on your story elements. Make sure you track
your running threads. With a mid-length, it helps to have a flow chart
plotted out so you can manage all the details.
<@SLViehl> QUESTIONS
<James> If you start new plot threads after book one, should they be wrapped
up before the final book - leaving the final books for those plot threads
that have spanned the whole series?
<Robert> Seems like one way to do that is that the series characters have to
deal with direct consequences of what they won last time. Like if they
captured a city now they have to defend it.
<@SLViehl> If it serves to avoid confusion, James, I'd say yes. But I don't
think there's an inflexible rule about when to start and end threads. You
get a feel for it, believe it or not, after you've written a couple of
series. The main thing is to keep your reader on track. If there are a
bunch of open threads all being wrapped up at one point, it also dents the
momentum of the series.
<@SLViehl> That works, Robert, but only in the cause-and-affect type of
threads. Sometimes threads don't manifest until a certain element is
introduced, and you can't always fit all those elements in chronological or
sequential order.
<BklynWriter> how many threads should you keep going
<Jehane> yes, I've read series which have too many threads to remember.
<@SLViehl> Depends on your comfort zone, BW, but I don't recommend anyone
try to carry more than three to five main running threads. It's just too
much for the reader to remember.
<@SLViehl> Jehane is reading my mind tonight.
<James> Can you rudely leave a few plot threads open against the possibility
of returning to the series universe (little ones, nothing crucial)?
<@JimMills> Dune comes to mind...
<@SLViehl> Sure, you can always leave a thread open. You'd better have a
damn good explanation for why, though, and I'm quoting my editor when I say
that.
<James> It kind of worked for Dune though - contributed to that feeling of
massively Byzantine politics.
<@SLViehl> Remember your readers eventually want answers.
<James> Oh - you mean editors notice that sort of thing and ask?
<@SLViehl> The "Maggie" thread in StarDoc is currently driving my editor
insane.
<@JimMills> ...if they're doing their jobs...
<@SLViehl> but I can justify everything I'm doing with it, so she leaves me
alone and lets me run it.
<James> So, if you can't promise to tie it up later, don't leave it open?
<@SLViehl> Threads should never be accidental. Plan them. Meticulously.
<James> Got you.
<@SLViehl> I think the threads I've liked the most in other authors' books
are the ones that pose a question to the reader at the end, rather than
provide a big answer. But I like thinking about the mystery of things, and
other people don't. As for what editors expect, they like things to be
wrapped up.
<@SLViehl> Now, on to the extended series (drum roll.)
<@SLViehl> The extended series is any series which stretches past that
mid-length, five to seven books but eventually does come to an end.
<@SLViehl> If you really like to play in your universe, and have a big idea
that's going to take some time to explore, the extended series is for you.
<@SLViehl> These are much more complicated stories, with many threads
beginning and ending between the first and last books. Character changes
are frequent. The main conflict of the series takes a lot of territory, and
time, and exploration.
<@SLViehl> However, the central core theme still remains the same.
Something must tie all these books together.
<@SLViehl> So when you're thinking "I'll write twenty books about my idea"
your idea had better be up to the challenge.
<@SLViehl> Think of conflict like a snake, and the conflict in a extended
series is like a hydra -- you cut off one head, three more pop out.
<@SLViehl> There are some serious challenges to writing an extended series.
First and foremost is keeping the reader interested.
<@SLViehl> You need to present fresh new inclusive conflicts in every novel,
yet keep them tied together.
<@SLViehl> So many authors of extended series find themselves rehashing old
problems, simply because their idea runs out of steam, or they get tired of
writing about the series.
<@SLViehl> So be very much in love with this idea, be willing to devote the
years to it that it requires, and remain faithful.
<@SLViehl> How do you know if you can do that?
<@SLViehl> For me, it was an idea that I carried around for two decades
before I ever put it down on paper. And it was a very personal, tailor-made
type of idea that I never got tired of thinking about.
<@SLViehl> Also, remember that an extended series still has a final book
waiting for you to write, somewhere down the road.
<@SLViehl> When you end something that epic, you'd better do it in an epic
fashion, or the reader, who has been with you through ten or twenty books,
is going to feel cheated.
<@SLViehl> QUESTIONS
<BklynWriter> wow. a lot to think about.
<Jehane> How would you class Terry Pratchetts Discworld series?
<Jehane> It doesn't have an overarching plot thread, they are all just set
in the same universe
<@SLViehl> I'd say Pratchett has an open-ender with Discworld. He loves it
too much to shut it down.
<@SLViehl> The universe becomes the central theme, and main conflict then,
Jehane.
<BklynWriter> and the Piers Anthony series...that started with Death, The
Fates, etc.
<Robert> What about something like a future history, where you have it all
plotted out for millennia and jump around in time?
<@SLViehl> The problems posed by that universe, I should say.
<James> Do you think it wise to built a bit of redundant complexity into
your universe, just in case you need to mine it more deeply than you first
thought?
<@JimMills> You'd have to be very careful not to confuse the readers,
Robert.
<@SLViehl> If you can't see it coming to a conclusion, Robert, that would be
an open-ender too.
<Robert> I guess it is. I didn't think of taking it to the heat death of the
universe or even extinction of humanity.
<@SLViehl> Creating a universe is like building a mansion. If you don't
show all the rooms to the reader, but hint that they're there, or there are
secret passages or doorways, you give yourself room to return to the
universe and explore it further.
<Jehane> I like that metaphor
<Robert> So the main difference between open ended or extended is whether
the author knows there's a resounding conclusion?
<James> It is a good metaphor.
<Robert> I agree, it's a fantastic metaphor.
<@SLViehl> The difference is that the author plans a conclusion with the
extended series. There is a linear sense to the series.
<Sarah> What about when supporting characters start demanding their own
stories?
<@SLViehl> Everything in the extended series still leads to a conclusion.
With an open-ender, you don't write toward a conclusion, but we'll discuss
that next.
<@JimMills> Sarah: Those are called spinoffs.
<@SLViehl> Ah, that's my problem, Sarah. All these darn seconday characters
get so INTERESTING on me. Ha
<@SLViehl> Folks, I'm going to call for a five minute break here, because
I've got a cat fight going on I have to break up. BRB
<James> No worries.
<@SLViehl> Everyone take 5!
<Robert> Seems like an advantage I've got an only cat.
<BJ Steeves> A fight among the cats, or the kids having a cat fight???
<James> Or the cat having a fight with a kid?
<Robert> She put the kids to bed so the cats must be going at it.
<@SLViehl> Sorry. The felines (three of them) are feeling frisky tonight.
The two big ones gang up on the little one.
<@SLViehl> Then the little one kicks their butts.
<@JimMills> LOL
<James> Just the way life should be
<gayle> that's called the undercat getting the last word.
<@SLViehl> Rush (the little one) was a stray for a couple of months, so he's
more street smart than my other two.
<gayle> they'll learn...eventurally
<Robert> Nothing like some punk kitten upsetting the natural order...
<@SLViehl> They're learning to get a long, though. This is the first rumble
in a few weeks now.
<Jinx> Am I here?
<Robert> I see you, Jinx
<Jinx> Oh, there I am. <g>
<BklynWriter> who is anon?
<Jinx> It doesn't seem to be a proper class if I don't get dumped out at
least once.
<@SLViehl> Poor Jinx. Sorry about that.
<@SLViehl> I have an announcement to make for the class, in case any of you
need to take off early
<Jehane> ?
<@SLViehl> For those of you interesting in reading more of my stuff, I am
offering a free e-book in .pdf format, to anyone who e-mails me. It's
called "Sink or Swim" and it's all the short stories from my web site, plus
two that never made it on there, from 11/00 -- 11/01.
<@SLViehl> It's going to be posted on my web site in December, if you want
to wait.
<Robert> Cool! Thanks!
<Jehane> Great!
<gayle> thank you sheila
<BklynWriter> Fantastic!
<@SLViehl> Just send me an e-mail and I'll shoot it along to you.
<BJ Steeves> Again, Many Thanks!!!
<James> That is great, thanks Sheila.
<BklynWriter> i look forward to the reading!
<BlairB>
<@JimMills> To which email should we send our request?
<@SLViehl> SLViehlworkshop@aol.com. Also, any questions left over from any
session, please feel free to send them.
<Sarah> Aargh. I have got to get Acrobat Reader working.
<@SLViehl> They will be available in html format on the web site in
December, too.
<Sarah> Oh, great!
<@SLViehl> I don't have those files, though -- dumped them all on my web
designer.
<BklynWriter> has it ever happened that a series get contracted, but for
whatever reason, the final book is never published
<@SLViehl> Sure. Authors die all the time.
<James> Didn't Frank Herbert die (no fault of his own) having started a
significant new plot thread in the Dune series?
<@SLViehl> That's who I was thinking of, James. But then his son picked up
the series with Anderson
<Robert> Generational cathedral building...
<James> <whispers> I hate the new Dune books.
<BklynWriter> are publishes, in general for or against series? I've heard
conflicting stories
<@SLViehl> I always advise unpublished writers to pitch the first book in a
series as a standalone. Then, if an editor expresses interest, you can
pitch more books.
<@SLViehl> Publishers aren't willing to commit to more than two books,
generally speaking, from a rookie.
<@SLViehl> My SF editor had no idea I'd already written two books when I
pitched StarDoc. When she asked me if I had an idea for a followup novel, I
sent her the manuscript for book two, and she bought both.