Into the Fire

7 responses to “To “series” or not to “series” . . .”

1. 

   BK Jackson

   October 28, 2020

   Whether series or stand-alone, I’m not typically likely to read outside my genre. These are interesting questions but I guess I haven’t read enough series to answer. In fact, I can only think of 2 series of books I’ve read in recent years.
   One series I began simply because it was based in Arizona (JA Jance’s Sheriff Joanna Brady series) which features the same protag.
   Back in May, because I was trying to find examples of historical mystery set in the U.S., I started reading Victoria Thompson’s “Gaslight Myseries”. It primarily features the same protagonist but it has been interesting to follow the series. I just finished book 23, and in the later books, due to some family changes, the protag has somewhat more of a background role, but that allows the writer to explore other characters more, but without the stiff formality of saying “this book is about Jane” or this book is about John”. Those books simply let the other characters grow a little more.
   In my own writing I tend to think in terms of series–mostly because, if you’re going to put in all that work and research, you may as well have a series. And I tend to focus on the same protag. But don’t mind other main characters stepping up in a non-formalized way to take greater attention in a particular plot.
   Either way, the trick is an engaging story.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Nicole Petrino-Salter

   October 28, 2020

   Interesting and excellent points, Brenda. You made me realize that’s why I tend to write the “longer” full-length novels – I guess it’s because I want the reader to have the complete story without having to look for more. Hmmm. Interesting, too, (to me) that the singular mystery I wrote (Race) had characters that could easily continue in another mystery – and that novel was shorter than the others and was a killer to write (no pun intended 😉 )

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Brenda S. Anderson

   October 28, 2020

   I enjoy both types of books. I love series following the same character when they’re mysteries, suspense, thrillers because then the focus of the book is on solving or surviving whatever the story’s about and the main character’s development happens across books.
   In series that focus on a commonality between the main characters, you get full character development within one book.
   As BK said, ultimately, the trick is writing an engaging story.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Debra

   October 28, 2020

   I enjoy “series” books, but I sure hate to wait for the next one to be published. I like when I find out about a series after it’s completed! It’s always tricky, too, for the author to “catch us up” without just doing information dumps. I definitely need the reminder of what happened, but I want to enjoy it.
   Sometimes the second book doesn’t start out as compelling as I had hoped. Then I force myself to keep going since the first one was so good. It’s usually worth it, but still a bit disappointing.
   With romance or historical fiction, I hate to “leave” the main character in book 1 to focus on another, but I’m always rewarded with enjoying the deeper look at another character. With mystery or thrillers, I like to stick with the same main character.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Nicole Petrino-Salter

   October 28, 2020

   I prefer the same character too in the mystery, thriller genre – at least in dynamic stories with larger than life characters as I mentioned above. If given the right “feel” in the first book of a mystery series, I can go with featuring a secondary character in a following book as long as a good character from the first book doesn’t “disappear”.
   So, Bren, as an author of series and standalone fiction, which do you prefer to write: the standalones or the series alternate character developing?

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   Brenda S. Anderson

   October 29, 2020

   Good question! I hadn’t thought of it before, but I do enjoy writing series. One huge advantage is that you’re not completely rediscovering new characters. Even if the mc in the new book was a secondary character in the previous one, there’s still a sense of familiarity with them, so that’s what I begin the next story with. The hard part is when that secondary character was a jerk or a diva. When they have their own book, it’s hard to make them worth rooting for in the beginning. Yet, those who were divas or jerks often have a more compelling story that explains why they were that way.
   In my standalones, I write in “Easter eggs”–I include characters from previous books just for the fun of it. It’s even more fun if readers find those eggs.
   Also, from a marketing standpoint, readers do go from one book to the next.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Nicole Petrino-Salter

   October 29, 2020

   I’m with Debra as far as the agonizing wait for “the next book” in the series. However, with the heavily researched novels (i.e Mitch Rapp, etc.) I get it. Doesn’t make it any easier to wait. My point being, for new series it would be nice if the next book in the series follows somewhat quickly. After too much time, just one book is hard to remember with all the other reading.
   You’ve done a great job with them, Bren. Truly.
   I obviously haven’t tried to write a series. So far, I’ve got a bunch of standalones. I will say I have a few readers who keep prodding me to continue a couple of mine. Haven’t felt compelled to do it . . . yet.

   LikeLike

   Reply