When planning ahead- the difference between a story with a sequel and without one?

I see- Thanks a lot for that. I think that's the direction a lot of people seem to be telling me about. "Not need to pick up previous books to be able to jump in to a book further down the line."

Thanks a lot Selbbin. This really puts a lot more in terms of perspective and options. Harry Potter and Hunger Games are connected, and those where I usually get a lot of my thoughts come from when it comes to sequels. (I don't read a lot of books, sadly.)

"Write however much story needs to be told."
And on that note, I think it's also worth mentioning to write JUST ENOUGH of what needs to be told. I think a lot of times, people (including me) over think a lot of things that "don't have to be included and doesn't contribute to the story" for the sake of exposing more reasoning/lore. I forgot the term used when you shove a lot of settings to the reader and becomes a drag rather than in the more subtle context.

Thanks Mr. I Am Vague.

I am doing great. Haha. This 22 page-comic I'm currently working is doing pretty well. I'm really proud of it so far!

That's great to know ClassCannuck. Speaking of planning though and direction,
That must take a lot of time, huh? I mean... Sometimes, there might be lore/setting/world info that might be still be pretty volatile- but that just means you have to plan better I guess? I can't imagine starting off with 1-, doing 2, and then finally, 3- but you realized that there should have been something in 3 that goes back to 1 but have 1 already published by then... *scratches head*

Sounds kinda scary if you ask me. Does this mean you should start writing the BULK of the book once you've maybe done the summary of ALL THE CHAPTERS in books 1-3?
I'd love to hear what you think on this.

 

Remember, every book must be self-contained. It must have a beginning, middle and end; an objective and an obstacle; rising action, a climax, and a resolution. That said, it all depends on the story you're trying to tell, and the scope of that story.

I would say it might be best to take some time developing the story you want to tell. This is a question mainly of plot, of story arc. How you write will depend on how it arcs and vice versa. If you have one story in mind, think of your beginning, middle, and end, and then go right that story. If at the half way mark or at the two-thirds mark, you have a great idea for a sequel, and you decide you want to do it, then you have to consider the grander scope and what kind of series you want to write.

Some sagas are very serial, as in, you have one story, then the same cast in another story in the same universe, and then another, and then another, and on until they have their last adventure. This type of series works well and an overarching plot isn't necessary. A good example would be The Chronicles of Narnia.

Other sagas are tied together by a grand arc that is carried by the events of each individual book. Consider the original Star Wars trilogy, the recent Hobbit films, LOTR, the Harry Potter series, and even The Hunger Games. In each of these franchises, the protagonist is introduced in the first installment, as is the villain. The protagonist has a clear goal to accomplish in that installment with clear obstacles. In the end, an entire story is told, but the protagonist has has yet to meet the main objective such as defeating the empire, reclaiming the Lonely Mountain, destroying the ring, vanquishing Lord Voldemort, or overthrowing the Capitol.

Now one thing I like about The Hunger Games is that the first book is clearly a stand-alone. It didn't call for a sequel, and the franchise could have ended there. It gained the green light for more because it was a success! The second one was something of a rehashing of the first, until the end, which leaves readers with something of a cliffhanger. They had to buy the next one to finish the story from that point on.

All this is to say, when you're thinking of planning your series, it's more important, in my humble opinion, to plan out your story. If I want to take a prince who's soon to take the throne and ultimately turn him into a happily married farmer or chef with the kingdom now a republic, the question is not "Should I tell it in one book or three?" but "How does he get from A to B? Who's involved? How long does it take? What does he want in the beginning, and what is introduced to make him change? etc"

This is a story that could probably be told in one book. But I'd rather plot the story out and let the divisions fall into their natural place based on the pace. I could focus on his downfall in the first Act (or the first part of the first act). I could spend the second focused on his quest to reclaim his kingdom and reveal how his own cousin plotted his demise. Perhaps there is a confrontation and he ultimately fails, but meets someone he cares about. Then, in the final act, his goals start out vengeful but shift to noble as he endeavors with this new figure or whatever.

I probably wouldn't read that story, just like that, buuuuut that took me all of 3 minutes to think up. That story might span a few books. then again, it might be truncated into one longer one. it all depends on what really happens in the story.