The Mega-Novel

[Pythagoras]

I read this today and thought it was interesting enough to share:

Fantasy must shake off the tyranny of the mega-novel | Books | The Guardian

 

[Russ]

I agree with a lot he has to say.

The series, or "mega-novel" particularly in fantasy is a really difficult thing to build properly. But you have to give the public what they want...

Thanks for sharing that interesting read.

 

[Brian Scott Allen]

This was a good read. Thanks for that. Although I wonder, if the mega-novel format is going to morph into something else. Like what King did with his works or what Brandon Sanderson is going with his "Cosmere" works. What I mean is that are authors and publishers going to shift away from just a series and then start pumping money and time into whole interconnected universes that have an overarching plot in order to gather more money from an avid fanbase/casual readers.

Although, I have to admit, I do feel freer writing books I know that will be standalone in their stories than writing a sequel to a book with a planned series.

 

[Snowpoint]

I assumed before reading that Mega-Novel would refer to Game of Thrones, where each volume is the length of 6 complete novels. The article makes a good point - most bad trilogies are just one big novel cut into pieces.

Honestly, I like serial format. Each book is short and to the point and if the quality drops, I can just quit.

One of my favorite books ever is a stand alone, "on Stranger Tides" Tim Powers.

 

[Nimue]

Most of my favorite books are standalone, and my novel plans are all standalone. I like a thumping great ending! And I really don't like it when books in a series don't have satisfying climaxes. Don't bet that I'm going to pick up the next book and find out how things really end, buddy.

/definitely a personal opinion, not a state-of-the-industry thing

 

[Feo Takahari]

This has been a common complaint for quite a while. Back when I was in high school, I remember some author saying that he'd not only stopped reading "book 8 of The Shit Cycle," he'd stopped touching every book that proclaimed itself to be "book 1 of The Chronicles of Shit." I keep thinking the demand has to drop eventually. Sometime. Any day now, right?

 

[Chessie]

Ugh, amen to this! I've never been one to complete fantasy series (except for Narnia, it's the special one). While I appreciate the form of the mega-novel, it's definitely not my thing to read or write. I can't get over the fact that the end will come in 5, 6, 7 more books. Stand alone novels are my preference.

Although, I will say that Agatha Christie is the only author (aside from C.S. Lewis again), who has captivated my interest in this way. And I wouldn't even say that her mystery novels are mega novels either, because they all have their own mystery, plot, etc making the story stand by itself and not depending on any others in the Poirot or Miss Marple series to really understand what's happening.

 

[MineOwnKing]

I think it can depend on the author's style.

I love to read Stefan Zweig and he created many short stories that are very powerful.

Yet every time I start writing something short, all I can think about is how it would fit better into my series.

I'm not at a point where it's overwhelming yet. Perhaps readers have biblio-radar that can detect when a writer has stretched his creativity to the max.

I'm not even close yet.

 

[WooHooMan]

I agree with this article like crazy.
But maybe I'm a little biased since I generally prefer short stories to novels (to both read and write). And I prefer stand-alone novels to series.

I love to read Stefan Zweig

You have great taste; Zweig is the man.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

He has a point, but the sad truth for me is that readers want series - especially i sci fi and fantasy. They sell a lot better. If I were to actually write one instead of my standalones I'd probably double or triple my sales.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Philip Overby]

I find it interesting that so many people here have said they prefer short stories and standalones. I do think there will ultimately be a shift towards shorter works. Readers may eventually get "series fatigue" and want to read something that they don't have to invest years of their life in. I find the same pattern works with TV shows. If the series stays strong (like a novel series) and consistent, then it can be awesome. But if it falters or loses cast members or the plots get muddy, then it can lose it's original fan base. For example, I stopped watching True Blood after Season 3, I think. I just wasn't as invested in it at that point. Not to say it was bad, I just preferred to spend my time watching something else.

I do think that's why Netflix is so popular. It allows people to watch a show in completion, even in a couple of days if they want. I think this is where society is shifting: instant gratification. I guarantee if someone like George Martin wrote short stories in the Westeros world after he finished the main series and sold them once a month, he would be even richer than he already is. That's why the advice "write, write, write" always comes up. The more books you write, the more chance you have for sales, the more you can build a fan base. If readers know they only have to wait a short time for their next fix, they'll keep their attention longer. If they have to wait years, it may not work as well.

I heard one author even say, if you go this route, write the whole trilogy first (even thought that's a huge risk.) Then release the books throughout the year or even all at once. That allows people that loved Book 1 to jump right on Book 2 and 3. They've then completed the series, saw what you can do, and will more likely anticipate what you're next move is.

In any case, I do think huge series and trilogies are here to stay because readers want them. I just think the way they're released could be modified to appeal to this instant gratification that society needs nowadays. Louis CK makes a good joke about cell phones that I think can somehow relate to books. People don't really like waiting on anything anymore.

I'll admit, I'm like this, too. Though I'm trying not to be.

 

[cupiscent]

I like stand alones. I do! But when I really sit down and think about it, my absolute favourites are series. But what I like are finite, planned series that feel like they have an intentional, thought-out and planned story at their heart. I've been thinking about this a lot recently as I take great enjoyment in Daniel Abraham's Dagger and Coin series, while simultaneously not bothering with Song of Ice and Fire (nor do I think I will bother reading more until the series is completed). Abraham's work is five books, has always been planned as five books, and never feels like it's dragging or woffling, or gives any sense that its pacing is uncertain. Martin's epic, on the other hand, has been meandering all over the place. (I'm actually enjoying the show as a pared-down, more polished version.) Similarly, there's a point in the middle of the Wheel of Time where it feels like Jordan remembers that he should be moving towards the ending of this, and starts bringing in a whole lot of new elements. That sort of thing just feels sloppy, and like the author hasn't been thinking of the story as one cohesive whole.

Bottom line: I don't mind reading a really, really long story, as long as it's a well-written really, really long story, and part of that is in overall pacing.

 

[ThinkerX]

Series. I have read...quite a few...of these.

Feists 'Riftwar' took a good thirty years to write. First ten or twelve books are some of the best fantasy ever. But after that, they went downhill in a hurry. He was stretching things, and it showed.

Kerr's 'Devery' series showed the effects of reincarnation and long term change. Given that, a series was the way to go: the stories were separate, yet interlinked, with little clues connecting the one to the next.

Logston's 'Shadow' or 'Elf' series (for want of a better term) had multiple independent novels, some with recurring characters, some with different characters in neighboring regions.

Three different approaches to the mega-series thing. Of those, I was least impressed with Feists - when he started stretching things, the whole series suffered. Logston's approach worked, but seemed a little too disconnected.

For myself, well I have multiple stories set in the same world. Major characters in one story might make a minor appearance or get mentioned in another, and while there is some interconnectivity, the idea is all the stories will stand alone. More of a web than ought else.

 

[WooHooMan]

I think this is where society is shifting: instant gratification.

I remember reading an essay (I wish I could remember the title or author) that suggested that the strength of film was that it can be experienced first and evaluated after viewing. With a book, you read some of it, stop, think about it, read some more, stop, think about it and so forth.

I think that now that film/tv/video is arguably the default form of storytelling in modern society, people naturally want to experience a story in one sitting and then evaluate it as a whole afterwards.

I think it's reasonable that people don't want to wait weeks/months/years to know for sure what they think of a story.

Which, of course, isn't to say that series are bad or whatever but, y'know, it's reasonable to want to get through a story in a comfortable amount of time.

Hi,

He has a point, but the sad truth for me is that readers want series - especially i sci fi and fantasy. They sell a lot better. If I were to actually write one instead of my standalones I'd probably double or triple my sales.

Cheers, Greg.

It doesn't mean they sell because they're series. Perhaps readers like the writer and want to read the writers other works, which just so happens to be a series.
If readers are given series, they'll buy series. If they're given stand-alone books, they'll buy stand-alone books.
I think the prevalence of series in fantasy is just because writers and publishers think they're "safer bets" than new works. Or worse: they feel like fantasy stories have to be series because that's a rule or something.

That's the way I see it anyways.

Sincerely,
Brian Scott Allen

 

[ScipioSmith]

I actually prefer series to stand-alones. Partly this is because I have a hard time trusting an author I don't know, and so I like the comfort of knowing that my favourite authors will keep providing me with reading material.

I think also I just don't like endings. I loved the first nine books of the Shadows of the Apt, but the tenth and final volume left me rather unsatisfied. That was it? All done? When a good story ends it like a friend moving away and you won't see them again, and I like to try and put that moment off.

 

[Mythopoet]

This has been a common complaint for quite a while. Back when I was in high school, I remember some author saying that he'd not only stopped reading "book 8 of The Shit Cycle," he'd stopped touching every book that proclaimed itself to be "book 1 of The Chronicles of Shit." I keep thinking the demand has to drop eventually. Sometime. Any day now, right?

Writers should always be very wary of thinking that the opinions of people who analyze fiction (writers, critics, commentators of various kinds, editors, etc.) reflect the opinions of the general reading public. They don't. Not at all. People who are just readers experience fiction very differently than people who are readers and analyzers.

 

[MineOwnKing]

I agree with Mythopoet. Plus, nothing is definitive and many readers never write reviews, so I would have to say that most people are just guessing about current trends.

If a fantasy fan is also a bibliophile, they will probably want to read whatever takes their fancy, regardless of whether it's a short or a series.

It's good to have an idea of what is popular in literature, but it's useless to obsess about it.

 

[skip.knox]

Another vote for Mythopoet. Pretty much any article that says what a genre (or writing in general) *must* do is more full of itself than of meaning. As someone else pointed out, this bit of self-important advice has been doled out for years now. Fiddle.

Moreover, the article author shows he is pretty much clueless as to what's actually happening in the electronic world, where shorter works are selling like crazy. So, my own advice, born from years of nothing in particular, is this: don' worry 'bout it. Write your story. If it's good, it'll sell.

 

[Mectojic]

I agree also with the article.
My own book series is planned at being 8 books long, which may seem contradictory.
Rather than having it as one of those mega-novels, where the books could really be put together, every book in my series is separated by in-world time by a few years.
In this sense, when the reader returns when the next book has been published a few years later, the characters also are a few years older.
This also makes each book feel more complete in itself. With multiple PoV characters running around, each one gets a satisfying finish at the end of each book. Although, that doesn't mean cliffhangers don't exist

 

[ChasingSuns]

I definitely enjoy a good series, but I also hate it when it is done poorly. I am planning a multi-novel series right now, but I am also working on some stand-alone stuff as well. One thing that I can not stand in a series is a lack of conclusion in each book. I'm not saying that it has to be a story conclusion, just a decent stopping point. I haven't read the LOTR books in many years, but I remember that one of my favorite parts of the films is that each film can be watched by itself. While the story doesn't completely end in the first two films, the viewers are still left with a satisfying stopping point. I really like to see these stopping points when I am reading a series. It makes me feel like I had a bit of a payoff, and that keeps me interested.