Is it a bad habit to cause too many deep permanent changes in the status quo of a story that envisions sequels?
I have a story I'm writing which envisions some sequels. However, although the timeline and world are the same, such sequels are so different from each other that I feel I'm causing too many deep permanent changes in the stories.
As far as I know, and based on what happens in the market I study and what its audience says, a sequel is, generally, similar to the previous work, being kind of a "The New Adventures of X", keeping the world/universe, feeling and atmosphere, but putting the same characters (or most of them) in new events, and such audience like it that way, because that way they can have again the experience they had in the previous work but now with a new story with the characters they love and some new things, very usually keeping the status quo.
However, in my story, if there is a very special and rare race, it's sure that they will be extincted; if there is a bloodline that inherits a powerful ability, it's sure that such line will be broken; if there is a group of very likeable characters, it's sure that the protagonist will be unable to be with them again; if the protagonist goes to the future, it's sure he can't return; if there's a powerful artifact, it's sure that it will be destroyed; if the protagonist has special powers, it's sure he will lose them, etc.
As if it's not enough, there's also changes in the content and genre of each story: the first is a fantasy, one of the sequels is a sci-fi, another one is close to horror, etc.
So, the reader is likely to not expect the sequel to be so different from the previous and end up disappointed. And with that, I lose opportunities to create more sequels with these things that got removed.
Should I be more careful with the status quo of my stories?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/31339. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
It's a balance. When readers look forward to the next book in a series, they're looking for an experience that's both new, and similar to the previous installments. That's a tough line to toe -- and you're never going to keep all readers happy.
Some thoughts and observations:
Start By Writing A Book, Not A Series
It's easy to get swept away by the thought of a grand epic and the awesome gradual progression you'll have through the series. But never lose sight of the fact that your first book has to be awesome, or there might not be a second book.
It needs to work, and be gripping, and stand on its own right -- without the promise of "oh if you keep reading, then by Volume IV it starts getting really good." And if the book stands on its own, it doesn't matter where the rest of the series goes -- you've got at least one awesome book to sell!
What's more, you need to keep doing this. You want your second book to be awesome too, not just coast on the momentum of the first. And so on. If you are capable of keeping this up, you will have a series of worthwhile books. Maybe they'll appeal to different audiences. Maybe this will be a hard series to sell. But if you work to make each book good in its own right, there are plenty of readers who will appreciate that and be willing to follow you.
Make The Right Promises
If your series is going to be full of cataclysmic events and changes, that's fine. That probably means you need to take care that your subsequent book doesn't look like "Like the previous book, but a new storyline"; instead, you're aiming for "See what happens next after that last earth-shattering volume!"
If you're truly capable of making such huge changes to the world on a regular basis, and write stories that reflect those changes, that's awesome. It just means you need to be clear, in your writing -- set up the right expectations; make the right promises. For example, maybe don't start out with grizzled adventurers, veterans of a dozen quests and known as heroes -- that might make your setting feel like one where one adventure is pretty much like the other. If instead, you focus on, say, somebody who realizes there's a huge threat and nothing will be the same again, then you'll be promising the "right" kind of story, and drawing in readers who want to see a world reshaped.
Establish the Pattern Immediately
If your books are going to be all different from one another, make that clear from the very second book. Don't write, say, a fairly-consistent trilogy, and then try to shift -- readers will have gotten used to your world and style as being consistent.
Instead, make sure the second book demonstrates how you're going to be varying things from story to story. Yes, you'll lose some readers, who don't want to go from an epic fantasy into SF. But anybody who is willing to make that leap should know upfront what he's getting into (and, that might be exactly what those readers might really love!)
So, demonstrate how far you're willing to jump, as early as you can. Change the genre, the characters, the style. Change is the style. DO keep some clear links and common elements; have the second story be a clear offshoot of the first -- but make very certain it doesn't feel the same, because "the same" isn't what you want to do.
It's not easy. Formula and repetition are easier. But if variety is what you want, then 100%, go for it :D
0 comment threads
I prefer the type of universe you describe wanting to do. I lean towards those sorts of series, because I can enjoy the worlds more fully. Such a structure allows you to broaden the scope of issues you explore.
Brandon Sanderson has done this sort of time - jumping with his Mistborn series. I believe he expects three time frames, each one having a trilogy. He has written six books so far (2 time frames.) His second trilogy imo is not as strong as the first trilogy, but that could be for a number of reasons (the writing struck me as more rushed.)
JK Rowling is beginning her new time frame with Newt Skermander. Seems to be working OK.
Sanderson and Rowling are successful (very much so) and so i believe you're fine. It may depend on the audience. A younger audience, say in their teens, might prefer a good long stretch with the same storyline (seven harry potter books, three mist born books) before moving into a new area of your world.
2 cents.
p.s. Historical fiction authors work in different settings and characters all the time. I think you're fine.
p.p.s. Changing genres is problematic, though, because a reader will feel that they were tricked somehow.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/31340. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads