I have to grit my teeth to say kind things about her, because, whatever her merits as a writer or kindheartedness as an individual, she loudly donated A MILLION POUNDS to the campaign to scare Scotland against voting for independence. She talks all the time about how wonderful it was that the British welfare state supported her as a single mother—to the extent that she could sit in cafes and write Harry Potter books—but at the same time, she throws huge amounts of money at supporting a government dedicated to removing basic support for single mothers today.
I think you're missing my point, or I'm not making it well enough. You don't have to read for hours on end if you don't have time. I am retired now, but when I was in my 20s and 30s I used to work long hours (often 6 days a week) and had a very active life outside of work as well. (Very active social life, political committments, musical interests, outdoor activities, etc. ) However, whenever I did have spare time, I used to read. I didn't even have a TV or computer before I moved to Scotland. If a book was long, it took me a longer time to finish it, that's all. I enjoyed slowing down for reading—even if I couldn't do it all that often—and I didn't demand that a book seize me by the throat and turn me upside down, shake me around and empty my pockets on the very first page, either. I found that reading was a very calming activity ...MY time, so to speak. I still feel that way about it, even though I now can read pretty much whenever I want to. I have always liked slow books, even when I had a very fast-paced life. The notion that you have to write a fast-paced book because people lead fast-paced lives is not really true. People have always led busy lives. What has changed is the number of different ways a person can spend tidbits of personal spare time. That's what I meant when I said we are being encouraged to write for people who would rather be doing something else.
I get it now! From what I understand, trends are moving in two ways: novellas becoming more popular, for people who can only snatch time during their commute or work breaks. And novel readers wanting series, or longer standalones, rather than a standard 80k. That was confirmed for me when my agent pitched my novel as standalone but the first in a series (which is true), and an editor replied asking for a synopsis of the second book. So I don't think we're being asked to write for people who don't have time to read. I think novellists are being asked to give readers more time with their characters. This is in traditional publishing. I don't know what word count sells best for self-published works.
That's excellent that they're happy with the idea of a series of books. It's fun to keep going with characters, isn't it? After all, while a story may 'end' in terms of plot resolution, in fact you'd like to think there will be more interesting things to write about in your characters' later lives. Or maybe peripheral characters can get their own story. I know the chance to read 'more' about a favourite character always made me excited about a new book, even if the story in the earlier one had finished satisfactorily.
Exactly. It surprised me because I MUCH prefer singles to series, but it seems I'm in the minority. I didn't even intend to write a series, it was just that I'd created a side character I liked and wanted to explore her further. Luckily it turned out well for me...
I wonder if this trend for series will start to wane. In TV for example there are lots of British shows that would make a really good one off 6-8 parter, but because the 'trend' is for a follow on series they leave it open (or worse don't finish it properly) for a second series. There seems to be a bit of a backlash against this: an example of this is Undercover, recent BBC 6 parter which was really good until the last episode. I like some series like the Rebus books (books featuring one or more returning characters, but with distinct stand alone stories - preferably ones that you don't need to have read the previous ones first), but get tired of series of books, or TV, where it is clear that there is no plan or ending (like Lost, GoT) the original series of The Prisoner (1967) started it I think - they had no idea what the ending would be when they started it.
I'm the same, @BruceA -- I don't mind series where each book stands alone. I just hate being tied to reading 2, 3, 5, 7, whatever books to see the resolution of all the plots and sub-plots. I hate a cliffhanger of any kind. I think with TV (and with books, too) there's often uncertainty about how many series or books will be commissioned. Like Joss Whedon killing Buffy at the end of Series 5 because he thought it might be over, then bringing her back from the dead for the final two series. Obviously he wanted to tie everything up rather than leave it open, but it made it a bit awkward when he was then asked to write more. With books, if the first in a series doesn't sell well then the publisher probably isn't going to foot the bill for the others. Authors wanting to write series have no choice but to leave threads open and hope for good sales figures. I guess they could self-publish the rest? I don't think I'll ever write what I think of as a series: where there's an arc in each book and a bigger one over the whole series. I'd just write standalone books set in the same community or in the same group of friends, like I'm doing now. Even with that, I've run into some problems--I couldn't feature the other MCs much without giving spoilers for the other books. Still, if it makes my books more sellable, I'll continue!
Yes, I agree. But there are some TV shows (and books probably) that have told the tale they need to tell and so should finish (you don't NEED to kill everyone off, just there should be a satisfactory ending). Now, if they are recommissioned there is nothing to stop them carrying on, IF THERE IS SOMETHING MORE TO SAY!! The whole expectation that every TV show is going to run and run and run is a bit tedious and it is refreshing when you get a one off mini series or full series that stops after 3-8 episodes. No shit!
I always imagined that if my trilogy had been published at start, but then cut down before the end, I would still finish it 100% and put it out there. Just because I believe it deserves to be finished.
Yup. One of the most disturbing trends of recent years (IMHO) is the season arc, so called. They take a perfectly good show, inject a season arc, (and especially in comedy) the show suddenly has these dead serious bits that end up taking over the entire show and within a few seasons (most of the time) the show ends up getting cancelled because the audience has moved on. Person of Interest started with a great premise and a tongue-in-cheek attitude. Now, five seasons in, it's gotten way too serious, the original episode flow is gone and the tongue-in-cheek has gone by the wayside. Castle was the same way. By season four, it was getting far too serious and after Castle and Beckett got married, the original (and fun) dynamic they had was hard on the wane. After she made captain, it disappeared altogether. I'm amazed that show didn't get cancelled several times. My Name is Earl is another one. Great premise, gentle (well, most of the time) humour and great characters. Then they brought in the season arcs and it went downhill. I don't understand why the studios insist on season arcs when it's so obviously the downfall of almost every single show that uses one. Long-running shows that don't include The Simpsons (rewinds to a baseline for each episode [at least it used to; haven't watched it in years]) and Law & Order.
I love series of books but agree that I can't stand cliff hangers. The first book should definitely be stand alone, I don't mind as much a cliff hanger in the second book because at that point I probably already like the series. I recently read Branden Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy and think it was a great example of how to do it. The story in the first book was almost fully resolved, but left plenty that could happen next. Then the remaining books revealed that what you thought you knew, was in fact only part of the truth and the bigger story is revealed. Very masterfully written that means the whole series works together but also allows the first book to appear resolved.
