Hurm . . . Most of what I write is "epic" yet the titles I tend to come up with are interesting rather than epic. Sometimes, I come up with titles based on the overall plot, from a line in the story or from something odd but relevant to the story. My most recent title is "Freelance Savior;" an epic fantasy. I always liked the word "freelance," which its history comes from a coinage for a "medieval mercenary warrior." Then I came up with the simple idea: what if there was this freelance, and all he wanted to do was travel around finding good paying jobs. Yet eventually the freelance would end up in dangerous scenarios, fight his way to survive but wind up being other people's savior in the process. Overall, it's a story of a reluctant hero, one of my favorite kinds. So, this time around I came up with the title based on a simple concept and built the story off it. Good times.
I started out with a title in mind, but I've found that it doesn't do anything for me, now that the story is pretty much written. I'm having a hard time finding something else, however. I'll continue to hammer out the story, and hope that something blossoms.
Exactly my point. Some titles are so incredibly obvious, they work...they may not be original, but they're very moving.
I was thinking of planning out a series...but I have no idea if I should immediately plan the plot line or just start writing a story and see if people want me to continue? Do any of the great writers plan their series in the first place before writing it?
JK Rowling planned out the whole of the Harry Potter series fairly strictly, I believe. I'm not sure about others. Stephen King's Dark Tower series wasn't planned out from the beginning, I don't think, but then he did write it over about a 30 year period. Do whatever you prefer, basically.
Make sure that each book in a series can stand alone, as a book that is obviously part of a series will not be accepted by publishers who are unsure about whether it will actually sell.
for me I think its going to need a bit of both. I've planned book one and currently in edit/rewrite stage. During the 2 yrs i've been at it, the next couple of books stroll into your head. For instance i know the general plot of my next story, but ofcourse that is very flexible. as for the last book, i only have a vague idea of what will happen but i know it will come to me. But yerr, planning i think, one can get hooked up in the research that they forget to write and create, which is where ideas generally come as you see what characters do and develop as you write. RM
Sitting down with no plot or any ideas for a plot is too intimidating for me. I can't do it. Before I sit down to write, I need a general idea of where I am going, else I just sit for hours staring at the blank page. Before I could even begin my book, I needed a general idea of a plot. Specifics were worked out along the way, as holes were discovered, but it was a starting point.
I agree with Elistara. I usually need some sort of plot to start writing, even if it's just a tiny part of it. I would suggest thinking of what you want to happen in the series overall. I also agree that your books should be able to stand alone. There are plenty of series that are series and they don't leave you with a cliff hanger at the end of the book.
Particularly from a first-time author. If your story can stand alone, then it's more likely to get picked up, and then if it is successful, you'll likely find it a lot easier to get subsequent sequels published.
I think that everyone plans out their writing in one way or another. I have to plot and plan and look over everything before choosing which way I want to go. I would say that all writers great or small plan in one form.
I have a very rough outline of my entire series. When I say rough, I mean that it's detailed but I have no qualms about changing things when I need to. Because of the format of the book (chapters resembling interconnected short stories) I'm able to outline the book by chapter names and general ideas first. Then I go back and I write about a page describing everything I want to happen in each story. After that the writing comes easily.
I think for a series to be cohesive and to achieve the greatest impact with your plot points, the entire series should be outlined before you start writing. J K Rowling did it and thats how everything fell in to place in the latter books. If you do this then you can sew seemingly insignificant seeds in the first book that can flourish in the subsequent volumes and escalate to a thrilling and epic climax in the last book, a conclusion that was beyond the scope of any single book. The last thing you want is to be writing book 4 and realize that the hero's brother shouldn't have died in book 2 because he would have made the ideal villainous mastermind that was behind all the tragedies that the mc had suffered.
Both. I have in my mind what I want to write, but at the moment of doing so I improvise some parts or add some tid-bits here and there... It's like when you leave your home. Most people don't leave without their keys or their wallets, but even with these one might not now what's going to happen 'til the end of the day. Yes, you need to "prepare" an outline, but the outcome might be different than planned. Just my five cents.
The question's already been adequately answered, but I can't be bothered to get my ass in gear and read the thread so I apologize if I'm repeating. Series are usually planned ahead if they have an overarching plot. Examples would be ... well, almost every series in the fantasy and historical fiction genres. If they don't have an overarching plot, they may or may not be planned. These tend to be your suspense dime-a-dozens (e.g., anything by James Patterson) and mysteries with a recurring detective or sleuth (e.g., Dennis Lehane's Kenzie series). Of course, there can be planned (as far as I know) mystery/suspense series (e.g., Peter Steiner's Morgon series) or an unplanned (as far as I know) fantasy series (e.g., Steven Brust's Taltos series). It doesn't really matter. If you're writing a series with a grand, overarching scheme, you should probably plan it out ahead of time, or at least before you finish the second book. If you're doing mostly standalone novels, it doesn't make a difference.
Depends, I s'pose. Some people prefer to have everything written out beforehand and some enjoy finding out as they go. Personally I do a little bit of both, as in I don't write the entire plot down, but if I come up with an important idea I do not want to forget I will write it down on a piece of notebook paper and leave it in the back of the notebook I'm using. PS: This is my first Post in what seems like ages!
Haha, yeah. When I saw your username I thought, "Hey, I haven't seen her around in a while." So, how's life for you?
I'd recommend at least getting a rough outline written down so you have something to refer to. For me, I do outlines by scenes, and along side those I put little notes on the characters, settings, action sequence, etc,. I keep an overall outline in my head, but do specifc outlines for each chapter. But I also find it's fun to write whatever comes to mind, but those are usually short stories for me. I almost always write with some sort of plan.
You need to decide which you prefer. I suggest experimenting with a series of short stories. I think you should at least have a basic plot in mind before you start writing a series, but you don't have to follow a strict outline unless that works best for you. ~Eliza
It's a matter of personal preference. Simply do what works best for you and don't worry about what 'people' do.
Something that I've noticed (specifically in movie trilogies) is that the first of a series will be stand alone, and then the second and third will be almost completely dependent on each other. While I can understand why things would be done that way (no one knew Star Wars would be such a hit, and George Lucas had actually planned to have the sequel end up as a book if the first didn't sell well), in some cases there's really no excuse for it (Pirates of the Caribbean is based on one of the greatest theme park rides of all time, and is by Disney. That's almost a no brainer). I think that it would be good if people were either willing to take the chance and make all three books were intertwined, or that all three parts of a trilogy were able to stand on their own and still be together. Though the second is harder and the first is riskier.
I think it's absolutely essential to have a plan. Look at something like Robert Jordan's (may he rest in peace) Wheel of Time. I don't if he really had it planned out or not, but it sure as heck didn't seem like it and he lost me about midway through the series.
Nah RJ definitely had a plan. nobody sets out to write a twelve book series without knowing the beginning the end and a rough idea of how to bridge the two. He just made that plan too elaborate for anybody who wasn't actively trying to memorize character names, and diligently jotting down summaries of the one or two scenes per a book in which each of them appeared.
That's circular reasoning, Joker. Jordan had to have a plan because everyone who writes a complex series has to have a plan in advance, thus illustrating with The Wheel of Time that complex series must have an advance plan. An alternate interpretation: After a book or two, a rough idea began to form to extend what was written as a full cycle. Knowing in detail the first two pieces, and now with a general long term objective in mind, he writes the rest of the series, and as he proceeds, his vision for the whole develops and sharpens. Maybe he did have a plan from the outset. But unless you have his own comments to draw upon, how can you know how he developed the roadmap before he started writing the series?
