Stand-alone Volumes or Cliffhanger Endings ?
Some time ago, I’ve realized that when it comes to novels, one of my projects simply can’t be done in one book only. There is too much to be told, and trying to cram everything into 400 pages (or 500, or 600…) would be very detrimental to the story itself. This said, there is one thing I can’t determine: in the case of a trilogy, or of any other kind of series in more than two volumes, what is the consensus, if there can ever be any, on how each book should stand? What do readers as a whole tend to prefer? (I’m talking of fantasy and science-fiction mostly, as they’re the genres I like to write in, but opinions about every other kind of story are welcome.)There’s the stand-alone book, for starters. I’m not sure that lots of readers like to be left with the feeling of “having to buy” the next volume, and building frustration over this isn’t a pleasant thing. Evidently, here the marketer in each of us may chime in and say “but we need to keep the readers hooked, else they won’t buy the next volumes!”. To which I think I can answer by “then let’s write so well that they’ll want to read the rest of the series just for our style and brilliant ideas”. A noble goal, though really easier said than done. As a reader, I normally don’t have a problem with such stories, although I think they’re more adapted to a series longer than just two or three books. It works well, for instance, with Marion Zimmer Bradley’s Darkover world, but I wonder if it may not be a little weird for series with a “bigger picture” in tow.Read More