I guess its just a gut feeling from reading the books ( the first six anyway). Each one had a partial conclusion, but there were so many storylines occuring simultaneously and many of them didn't recieve any semblance of resolution at the end of whichever books they featured in, it felt like they were part of one long twelve thousand page story. But perhaps you're right about the first two books written independant of any preconceived road map. As far as I can remember they were the best formed out of the lot. The second one, The Great Hunt, was Jordan at his best. But even those weren't self contained in any way. If he did do what you're suggesting, then when he had to write the outline of each of the next ten books, the plot would have been circumscribed by what he'd already written in the first two. He wouldn't be able to include anything that conflicted with those books. And if he did, then he'd have to find some way of writing himself out of the inconsistency which would involve more words and an even more complicated plot. Considering the the sheer complexity of his latter works, maybe thats exactly what happened... In which case, you two are probably right
When the topic of first time authors writing series comes up I'm always curious. Is the publisher weary of taking the chance because they aren't sure if the book will be commercially successful? Or are they concerned that the author hasn't proven they can consistently produce quality work, and the remaining books in the series could flop? Or is it a mix of the two? In other words, would a publisher be more willing to take a chance on a first time author's series if they had already completed the entirety of it and the publisher could see the quality of all of the books is steady? As for the topic, I've never attempted a series myself, but from reading them I feel it's essential to plan a certain amount. As a reader I find a tidbit from the beginning playing a large role later down the road extremely satisfying for some reason. I also find it brilliant when an author can lead me to remember a little, seemingly unimportant fact from the start throughout the entire book, without leading me to realize it is important until the right time.
definitely both... the first book has to prove itself with the reading/book-buying public, by hitting [and 'having legs' on] the bestseller list and the writer has to prove her/himself with subsequent books quality-wise, so it's extremely rare for a publisher to contract for a series from a beginner... ...still only in extremely rare cases, since the first book usually has to first gain a huge following, to make publishing sequels a sound economic option... and until the first one is out there and selling, no one can really tell if it'll hit the top, or not...
How do you come up with the title of your novel? Do you decide it before or after you finish the book?
I usually come up with a title before I begin, because I have an outline and know how my story will end. Usually, by the end of the novel, I think of a better title. Vampire Stasis became Bending Nature.
Usually I'll have a temporary title, whether it be a name of a character or the theme of the piece, etc. After the piece is finished, I change the title into something better and which fits better with the piece.
Usually the titles come to me. Like my NaNoWriMo novel this year which is called Becoming Dead. Which pretty much describes how my main character goes from a full of life guy who didn't have worry in the world until the Zombie Apocalypse came. Through the novel he grows cold and distrusting. He comes to the conclusion that he himself is dead on the inside. I usually think about my story and characters and the title sorta just pops into my head. I almost always try and find the right title before I start writing, and if a new and better one comes to mind then I switch.
I tend to have a problem with titles. I am working on a novel right now and wish to God I had something to call it. Just a slug title for now would be fine.
I usually have a pretty good idea of the title I will use early on, but I keep an open mind throughout the writing. You really don't need the title until you're ready to send out queries. Even then, the publisher may suggest a title change. All you need during the writing is a working title, so you can keep it distinct in your mind from all the other projects you're working on.
I've just finished my novel's first draft, but I'm already on the fourth title - and still not sure I'm happy with that one. I think it's a waste of time agonising over it, though, until I finish the twentieth or whatever edit and I'm ready to send it to publishers/agents. On the other hand, with my second novel (still in the planning stage), I already know the title for the book and its potential sequels, and it was the title that suggested the plot and characters to me, and I know that those titles will not change.
I work with 'codename' titles to start with and wait for a title to present itself in the narrative. The first novel I started (<-- almost completed too!) was FES [First Ever Story] Not very original but it helps me keep an eye on the projects that are banding around. I don't like to try an pick a title before hand, but that's because normally I don't have a plot or summary or anything - just an image or idea that I would like to develop. Sometimes they don't lead anywhere, sometimes they do. But I'd have an awful lot of titles to think up if I had to have one before I started something.
Some authors believe that a book's title must indicate what the story is about. If it doesn't, include a sub-heading that does. For example, Harry Potter doesn't mean anything to someone who hasn't read the story. So, it's Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, etc. Do you guys agree with that? Must a book title hint at the tale's contents?
I quote Twilight as the answer to your question. Successful book, but what does the title have anything to do or hint at the story?
Well not sure about the other book titles, but in Twilight Edward explains its importance. Its brief and doesn't have much of a connection with anything. But it does ultimately have some importance towards the characters. But I guess you are right. It doesn't hint at the story or give away anything. Not really. But its still not a random title with no connection.
I had an idea of the stories title for mine, but it chanced, once, twice, many times. Even though i have finished my original draft, i'm still unsure about it (So until its actually 100% complete i'm probably going to debate it). Unless im troubled after its finished completely, i'm not fussed. When i started my story i had an idea about how it was somewhat going to go, thus my first title, but it changed (story a little) and i discovered more solid themes and goals for the story and main elelments. So the titled changed to fit it.
I believe the title should give some kind of clue to the feel of the book at least. Certain words can inspire certain images and ideas that should be connected with your story. Twilight makes you think of dusk and sunsets and reds and it's about vampires so I can see it. And twilight is a cool word, too. So as a title for that book's contents, I support it. The story itself, I despise.
On an out of subject comment, I won't go near the Twilight Series because of certain things pertaining to the books. On the subject however; Titles can be easy to come by or they may be difficult. They can and will be subject to change at times, or they may just remain whatever you as the author decided to call them in the very beginning. I myself have a book that's title has changed several times now and I still can't seem to find the right title for it. I also have many stories of which I cannot create a title for and therefore have temporary titles to them until I can come up with something better. I do have a case where a book already has a title though it's not even started yet. This book also has a title that indicates what it's story is about without giving away the full content.
Just to add to my post, I want to make it clear that I only quoted Twilight in response to marcusl's question of "Must a book title hint at the tale's contents?" The answer being "No, it doesn't have to be." Before any of you have ever heard of Twilight being a book on vampires, would the name "Twilight" make you immediately think of vampires?
Tonton, take a look at my post. The feeling of a book can be derived from its title many times and that, to me, should be the very minimum. I don't want a title that is completely and utterly misleading.
Why would you create a title for your book that is deliberately misleading? Wouldn't that be kind of silly? I mean, if you want them to think it is about something then why wouldn't you have written about that something? Or, to rephrase - if you write about something, why lie and say it is something else, instead of writing about that something else? I had a title for my book before I began writing it. I like the title, I like how it has multiple meanings. But I also realize it may not be the snazziest title, and another might fit it better. I am not worried about the title until I am finished with the writing of it though, since no matter what I come up with, it may later change at any time anyway. After all, it doesn't matter what it is called. The story inside is what counts most. I have better things to think on atm.
