Hello, I hope I am allowed to post here this early in my membership, if not do let me know. I have written the first instalment of my trilogy with a main character helping his love interest (who is not human) get back a stolen magical object stolen by the villain (not human). It ends with a fight that sees the villain defeated and killed (although his species can only be reborn and the MC adopts the reborn creature). While on his quest to find the stolen object, the MC trusts the wrong person who betrays him to the villain. The second book follows the story of the traitors months after book one, when he realises the villain had manipulated him for years and he is trying to heal from it and is building a home for himself and his sister with strong bond with his community and the previous MC, thanks to his own love interest (not human). There is no battle, no villains to defeat. It almost feels a bit "Hallmark movie" because he and his LI organise a "mid-winter charity dinner" with all the characters he's met during the book, creating that sense of community. Is that tonal shift too jarring? I wanted to start with something with action but that's not what the second main character needs. Thank you for you input.
Hello @evild4ve , I do not know yet exactly what'll happen in book 4, probably a little mix of both. All books are more or less stand alone except for the fact that secondary characters become main characters, in the same world and in the same place. They are fairly short, book one is 30k words long and I expect book 2 to be about the same.
Completely fine - where we have forums we have with limits (like with the debate room and collab) the software won't let you post in them if you don't meet the limit There are no rules, you can do whatever you want That said if theres a major tonal shift it'll make it harder to get a deal / your publisher may want major changes... if you self publish you may get bad reviews on book 2 if its not what readers of book 1 were expecting... in that case you'd probably want to make the difference in tone obvious in the sales blurb
I'd be inclined to say it's more important to write what the characters' stories are than to try and shoehorn them into a certain type of story for the sake of consistency. Across only 30-60k words we might ask: consistency with what? Changes of tone should always be marked for the reader, but the change from one book to another allows enough leeway for almost anything. Gormenghast and Titus Alone spring to mind but there must be loads of other examples.
Thank you both for your replies. I indeed intend to go for self pub, so I'll make sure to write the blurbs to fit the tones.
I think slow tonal shifts usually work better. Pardon me if I'm too intrusive, but if the second book focuses on a character with so little importance to the plot of the first book, why is that character a focal point of the second one? It sounds like it could be a really good subplot, especially if that character seems very likable in the first book, despite his/her alignment. But shouldn't a sequel continue the main arcs of the story? Look at how Avatar: the last Airbender is structured. People usually quote Zuko's arc as the best thing about the show, but it was still a subplot. It had a different tone than the rest of the story and it was allowed to since it happened alongside the main narrative.
The shift in tone is totally possible to do, but I believe that the smoother the transition the better. Will the readers understand why the tone shift? Will they easily be able to follow it? How can you help the reader here understand this change? Best of wishes to you
It is actually a common structure in romance, each book belonging in the same universe but following a new pairing each time, with one arc per book (sometimes there's an overarching one, but not here). He is not of little importance in book 1, he's actually part of a love triangle before he went and fucked up, and he spends the second book regretting it, trying to compensate for it. Do you think that with the second book referencing events of the first, that might help show the transition, like a consequence of it?
Could you foreshadow it a bit in the first book? And maybe the second book shows the continuing arcs of some of the other relationships? To connect them up?
Oh, ok, I must've missed the part of your first post that said it was romance. Sorry. I imagined an adventure novel. Since romance stories draw tension from the love affairs, I don't see a problem with setting the sequel the way you did. But I think you'd need to include some new love interest for the traitor in the second book. Keeping the source of tension the same is more important than tonal consistency, in my opinion at least.
You didn't miss it, I forgot to mention it, my bad. I don't understand what you mean with the inclusion of a love interest? He does get one, but do you mean I should add another?
Well, that was my first thought, but now that I think about it, maybe I'm a bit too intrusive. I should rather ask, what would be the main conflict in the second book? I thought about adding a new love interest for a love triangle since you mentioned your first book had a love triangle as well. But I should've asked what you want that story to be first.
The character was a minor villain from book 1 because he was being influenced and manipulated by the main villain. Once the whole thing imploded he had to deal not only with the consequences of that but also realise that he'd been acting against his own morals the whole time so it's a story about rebuilding his sense of community and sense of self. The first arc is external, the second arc is internal. There is no conflict except for the character's inner feelings.
You wrote: evild4ve asked: You responded: A trilogy consists of three books. You are working on book two of three, and when asked what the third book will be about you jumped immediately to book four, skipping right over book three (and thereby not answering the question). I don't know if all authors of trilogies start off with the idea that "I'm going to write a trilogy." My guess would be probably not, but I've been wrong before. That said, I think anyone who sets out to write a trilogy should have a fairly clear outline of all three books before starting book one. It does not appear that you have done this. And what happened to book three? I agree.
There's a big difference between no conflict and internal conflict. But it sounds like the first book has plenty of external conflict (I'm assuming, military setting and all), so readers might be expecting more of the same.
That 4 was a typo, I meant book 3. I already have the characters I want to bring together for book 3, I just don't know how yet. Since every arc is constrained to one book, I'm trying to focus on one book at a time. There is no military conflict in the first book, but I can try and fit some external tension in book 2, it might make writing it easier.
We have to understand what conflict means...it doesn't have to be people running about with guns, but a story needs some sort of driver...what does the Mc want and whats stopping him from getting it... it can certainly be an internal conflict only, but without some sort of external conflict to spark off how are you going to show it to the reader... if you only show it through internal monologue its going to get tired quick unless you're very very talented.
We see it through the people he meets, the connections he makes and how he improves other people's lives and them his. That said I am having trouble writing the story because every chapter is pretty "slice of life" character development so I need to think something up.
Like Moose said, there needs to be some serious conflict: Make sure you're not writing a passive protagonist. Though it occurs to me that might be a thing in romance (it certainly was where the sparkly vampires are concerned). Some romance stories are probably built around the MC getting swept off his/her feet by someone else (like Bela was). Now I'm thinking about Sarah Connor. She seems to be a very passive protagonist in the 1st Terminator (which is largely romance). She became active only after her savior Kyle Reece died, and only out of necessity. In the second she became active, but in the first she was just fought over by 2 powerful mysterious new-guys-in-town.
Internal conflicts are all fine and dandy but they need stakes. What's at stake in the second book? Conflicts build tension easily, that's why most stories use them. You can build an entertaining story without an external conflict, but every story needs tangible stakes. The protag of the second book seems to be in a position where he could get something, but what does he have to lose? Would his failure to become a better man have any bearings on his psyche? Would those bearing be severe enough to keep the reader invested?