towards some thoughts on series

[swan_tower]

I've had discussions with other writers about how there's tons of advice out there on writing novels, but very little on writing series.

File this one under "stuff I know how to do, but don't know how to articulate or explain." But this one will be less polished than the pieces I wrote on the structure of paragraphs, scenes, and chapters, because I'm really thinking out loud as I go here.

Step one, I think, is to take a look at what a series is. A set of interconnected books, okay. But there are ways and ways of connecting things, and they're not all going to operate the same. After chewing on this for a while, I've decided that you can very roughly sort different types of series into a spectrum from discrete to linked (with two semi-outliers that I'll note as we pass them.) So:

The Non-Series

At the absolute discrete end, you've got books whose only connection is that a single author wrote them. Not actually a series; 'nuff said.

The Setting Series

In this type, the connection between the books is that they take place in a single setting, but otherwise they share no connection of character or plot. (They may not even share authors.) I'm having trouble thinking of any pure examples of this; most often this tends to be a superset of other series, e.g. Discworld or Valdemar being settings that contain both stand-alone novels and series within them, or a shared world like the Forgotten Realms. If you can think of an example that is purely stand-alone novels, whether written by the same author or different ones, let me know. (I think it would need at least three books to serve as a good example; two books in the same setting is a series by the most technical definition, but I'd like something stronger.)

The Cast Series

This is the type of series you commonly find in romance, where each book follows a different set of protagonists and a different plot, but characters from one book appear in another. (Romance often sets this up by presenting you with a group in the first book, e.g. a set of siblings, with the implicit promise that you'll get to see each of them get their own story eventually.) These naturally share a setting as well.

*The Reset Button Series

As the asterisk indicates, I think this one's an outlier. It's the Nancy Drew model: each book shares a setting and a core cast with all the others, but in between books the slate gets wiped clean, which means they have less plot continuity than the Cast Series. Nancy will always be eighteen; Ned will never graduate from college. I'm not sure this is very popular anymore, except maybe in children's fiction -- and maybe not even there?

The Episodic Growth Series

Closely akin to the Nancy Drew model, this has a core cast and a new plot with each installment, but there's no reset button. As a result, change and growth do happen over time. You see this a lot in mystery novels and police procedural TV shows, because it's very well-suited to those genres: each installment starts with a crime and ends with the crime being solved, while in the background there might might be some ongoing character-based subplot about the detective's marriage falling apart or whatever.

The Episodic Arc Series

This one is a hybrid between the previous and the subsequent types. It has self-contained episodic plots, especially early on, but there's also a longer-term metaplot that those episodes may be helping to set up, and the episodic structure tends to fall away toward the end. Examples include Harry Potter and each season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and yes, I realize the creators of both those works are not exactly looking great right now, but they're well-known illustrations of the model). Many trilogies feel at least a bit like this, because it's sensible from a business standpoint to write a more or less stand-alone novel that can serve as the foundation for the later two installments.

*The Perpetual Motion Series

Our other outlier, which I think I've only seen in soap operas on TV. Here there can be many arcs going at once, such that while an individual plot may end, the series as a whole doesn't (until it gets canceled). This would be an extraordinarily hard trick to pull off in traditional novel publishing, I suspect, though it could work in indie.

The Metaplot Series

Here there's no real attempt to wrap up a self-contained plot in any particular installment. From the start, you know you're getting a long-term story, and unlike that trilogy approach I described above, the first volume doesn't feel like it could stand on its own. A Song of Ice and Fire is a prominent example of this, along with TV shows like Lost.

The Single Book

And to cap off the other end, we have our other form of non-series: a single novel that just happens to have been published in multiple volumes, i.e. The Lord of the Rings. The difference between this and the Metaplot Series is that in theory the author of the latter type gives each book its own satisfying structure, even if that structure doesn't end in resolution; the author of the Single Book non-series just whacks it apart at the necessary intervals.

I think that covers the whole gamut. Obviously some things are going to straddle the divisions, because no system of categorization is ever perfect; the goal here is to distinguish what shifts of interconnection happen along the way, rather than to make clean boxes that absolutely everything will fit neatly into. And series can change over the course of their lifetime, e.g. what the author intended to be Episodic Growth sprouts an arc plot along the way. I'll chew more on those bits of the concept later. But for right now, I think this is a decent framework? Is there anything significant I'm missing?

(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/KmOFjZ)

Comments

[green_knight]

For a while (I understand this has changed) Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen worked as an example of the Setting Series. I can't think of any other examples right now, either.

Personally, I'd see the Cast Series as separate from the roman-fleuve (nearest term I'd use is Saga), which is how I'd describe Discworld: a set of connected novels, many of which share characters (but the main character of one may be a walk-on part of another), and overall they chronicle world development (if you think of all the technological and ideological changes, DW moves on a lot over the course of the series.)

Re: Perpetual motion: a lot of Pern works like this: the first third is a recap of the previous novel, the last third leads into the next novel, so that of each novel only one third was truly unique. I stopped reading Pern at around that point...

[alexseanchai]

does Anne McCaffrey's Ship Who series count as a setting series, given that characters from earlier books cameo in later ones?

[edenfalling]

I cannot speak to this from personal experience, but I hear that Iain M. Banks's Culture books are pretty damn close to a Setting Series, with each being a standalone though there are occasional passing references to other books.

[sovay]

If you can think of an example that is purely stand-alone novels, whether written by the same author or different ones, let me know.

Le Guin's Hainish Cycle is as near as dammit. Planets and cultures recur, but individual characters do not except in the short stories "The Shobies' Story" (1990) and "Dancing to Ganam" (1993), which is the only instance I can recall across more than thirty years. If that disqualifies it, fair enough. None of the novels are so linked.

this has a core cast and a new plot with each installment, but there's no reset button. As a result, change and growth do happen over time.

A narrative model I really enjoy when done well and really resent when it gets short-circuited.

Here there can be many arcs going at once, such that while an individual plot may end, the series as a whole doesn't (until it gets canceled).

I haven't read them for myself, but C.J. Cherryh's Foreigner series has always sounded like this model, in that I believe it consists of interlinked trilogies across which larger movements of plot and people's ongoing lives take place; all loose ends are not tied up at the conclusion of each three-book arc. Anyone who actually reads the books should feel free to correct me.

From the start, you know you're getting a long-term story, and unlike that trilogy approach I described above, the first volume doesn't feel like it could stand on its own.

A narrative model I just resent.

[davidgoldfarb]

Lawrence Watt-Evans' Legends of Ethshar is pretty close to a "Setting Series". It's not absolutely pure: some characters who star in one book will guest-star in later books, and there's a noticeable sub-series about the start and end of a particular kind of magic. (Although even in that sub-series, the star of one book won't be the star of the next.)

The first dozen or so of Piers Anthony's Xanth seems like it also qualifies — I limit it to that because I have no idea what he's done with the series since the late '80s.

[marycatelli]

The danger of the last two was warned about as long ago as Aristotle.

"Again, a beautiful object, whether it be a living organism or any whole composed of parts, must not only have an orderly arrangement of parts, but must also be of a certain magnitude; for beauty depends on magnitude and order. Hence a very small animal organism cannot be beautiful; for the view of it is confused, the object being seen in an almost imperceptible moment of time. Nor, again, can one of vast size be beautiful; for as the eye cannot take it all in at once, the unity and sense of the whole is lost for the spectator; as for instance if there were one a thousand miles long. As, therefore, in the case of animate bodies and organisms a certain magnitude is necessary, and a magnitude which may be easily embraced in one view; so in the plot, a certain length is necessary, and a length which can be easily embraced by the memory. "

[edenfalling]

It occurs to me that the Oz books are somewhere between a setting series, a cast series, and a reset button series. There is clearly some continuity -- new characters are introduced, people have and use items they pick up in previous books, people move to Oz -- but it's also a fairy country where people don't really age. And especially once you get into Ruth Plumly Thompson's continuation books, they often move away from Baum's core cast and explore random new corners of Oz and minor background characters from previous books.

[jreynoldsward]

I have found in writing series (three so far!) that the main story arc really does come to a conclusion at some point, and when you reach that endpoint, it's either time to start a new series in that world or move on.

Interestingly, of my three series, only the fantasy series has a "new series in that world" prospect. The first science fiction series, The Netwalk Sequence, really has a full arc and while I might write about different characters in that world, the most I might do is write a short story or two about those characters. We'll see what happens because I plan to do new covers, fix a few tech issues, and reissue this fall.

So it's somewhat interesting to look at series from this perspective. I can't imagine working on an open-ended or reset series (though suddenly I have a notion about how such could be...entertaining...) but I know other people who couldn't do anything else.

The most recent science fiction series, The Martiniere Legacy, is a mix. The first three books (Inheritance, Ascendant, Realization) are a definite trilogy. The fourth book, The Heritage of Michael Martiniere is a standalone that takes off from the trilogy but does not require reading the trilogy to know what's going on. Broken Angel: The Lost Years of Gabriel Martiniere (out late April/early May) is a prequel to the trilogy but again, does not require reading the trilogy first.

As far as the fantasy series is concerned, I'm getting ready to write another trilogy in that world because while major arcs were concluded at the end of the Goddess's Honor series, there was enough left over to kick off another trilogy.

It's interesting thinking about series from the writer's perspective. While I can't imagine writing an open-ended series or a reset series (though I just got an interesting notion about how to do that and have some fun with it) I know that there are other writers who do like writing those series. Mileage varies.

[carbonel]

Patricia Wrede's Lyra novels count as a Setting series, I think. There are five of them, all unconnected and distributed in time, though there are occasional references to events in others of the books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Wrede#Lyra

[mindstalk]

The Chalion novels are close to a Setting series. 3 novels, 3rd one is centuries before the other 2. 2nd promotes a minor character from the 1st into the main character, and others get mentioned, but it's still a big jump; none of the 1st mains appear on page.

But the same world has the Penric series of novellas, Episodic Growth I guess?

I second the Culture series, it's pretty Setting. Diziet Sma pops up in a couple of books, that's about it.

Some shared world settings might try for Setting series: Merovin Nights, maybe Thieves' World, Man-Kzin Wars? Wild Cards does share characters among stories, I think.

Oh! People mentioned Foreigner but overlooked Alliance/Union. That's pretty close to Setting. Signy Mallory shows up in 2-3 books though she's only POV in 1, but there are a lot of cast-distinct books.

[tortoise]

Claire North's most recent book (The Pursuit of William Abbey) has a paragraph in which someone lists a bunch of rumors of weird events, and they're essentially North's past bibliography. I guess this straddles the boundary between setting series and non-series.

A couple other variants of cast series are:

-One secondary character who shows up in everything. I feel like this may be a kids-book thing; the two examples I can think of are the Chrestomanci series (originally, before it started developing more continuity) and Bruce Coville's magic shop books.
-The thing Tana French did with the Dublin Murder Squad books: each protagonist after the first book was a secondary character in a previous book, so by the time you get to the last one I think they're three or four degrees of separation away from the original protagonist. I can't think of any other examples of this, but I wish I could!