No, I'm trying to help new authors avoid mistakes that will keep them from being successful. The fact is that a new author approaching a publisher with talk about a book being part of a series is torpedoing his or her chances. And even a more established author must understand the limitations of the books comprising a series. So it's fame, rather than money. But you still need to understand the limitations of books comprising a series. Really? You began this discussion with the response: Instead of trying to differentiate between a first novel and novels by an established writer. You merely reject anything that you interpret as preventing you from reaching your goal. In very absolute terms.
In my view, a series is a group of books that are tied together by something - usually repeating characters - but each book nevertheless stands alone. You might enjoy the books more if you read them in order, but if you happen to pick up a book out of the middle and read it without reading the preceding books, you won't feel confused or cheated. If you _would_ feel confused or cheated, then I wouldn't call it a series, I'd call it a multi-volume novel. I think that the thing that a first-time author most likely cannot sell is the multi-volume novel. Random examples: - The Lord of the Rings: Multi-volume novel. (Though The Hobbit does stand alone.) - Robert Barnard's Charlie Peace books: Series. I enjoy watching the change in Charlie's life, but each book absolutely stands alone. I read them completely out of order, and wasn't bothered a bit. I think that the same is true of most mystery series. (Though Barnard isn't straight unadorned mystery; he has a lot of faces.) - Barbara Michaels' Georgetown books: Series. They're very loosely tied together - A marries B, and then A and B are supporting characters in the next novel, which is primarily about C. Then C appears in the next novel, which is primarily about D. And so on. I read most of them before I even realized that they were linked. - Elizabeth Peters' (same person as Barbara Michaels) Amelia Peabody books: Series, but much less clearly so. Each book repeats the same characters, and is much more tightly tied together. But all the same, the core plot of each novel stands alone, and it's perfectly plausible to pick up a novel out of the middle. - Sarah Caudwell's Hilary Tamar books: Series. They're so independent that I don't even know what order they appear in. Her characters don't really change, and that might be an issue if she'd written more of them, but as it is we see each really delightful character from a slightly different angle in each book, and that works very well. - Frank Baum's Oz books: A merging of the two, because you really want to read the first book, but after that the order doesn't matter all that much. - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and The Great Glass Elevator: A merging. The first book stands alone; the second book, IMO, can't stand without the first. - C.S. Lewis's Narnia books: A merging; they gain substantial value by being read in order, but it's not mandatory. - Agatha Christie's Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot books: Series - Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser: Series. - Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials: Multi-volume novel. - Game of Thrones: Multi-volume novel. - Wheel of Time: Multi-volume novel. - Hitchhiker's Guide: Multi-volume novel, but so very funny that they're worth reading singly anyway. - Harry Potter: The first book stands alone. I read them all in order, so I can't judge whether the rest is a series or a multi-volume novel. ChickenFreak
I completely agree with Protar and have basically the same plans myself. Apparently series have different formats. Some are more or less a continuous story with different climaxes throughout, while others consist of standalone books. Even the standalone ones still must have something tying them together, otherwise it wouldn't be a series. I myself prefer the continuous ones. I like big and heavy (stories, of course...).
There's a kind of resolution at the end of each story. There's a battle that's won or lost. In Harry Potter, there's a resolution at the end of every story. Just not with Voldie until the last.
There may be a fair bit of confusion going on caused by misuse of the word 'series' as a blanket term. Nowhere in this thread does the word serial occur. They are two entirely different things
I apologise, I overreacted a bit because you touched on a bit of a sore spot. I have already agreed with you in previous posts that a new writer should not be trying to get a series of books published. I was simply disagreeing with your notion that all book series had to be comprised of standalone novels, because I can think of plenty of examples that go against this. That's why I presented my side as fact because if you come up with a blanket rule about something and then someone else comes up with a load of exceptions, well clearly that rule has been disproven. Now perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying, though if so I would've thought you might have made a clarification by now. So essentially, my personal plan is to make a start on a series then after the first book put it on the backburner and get some standalone novels published first to establish myself as an author. I realise this is a difficult option. Now I won't deny that fame has a certain attraction, but mostly I want recognition for my work because it means (hopefully.) that people like it.
