Is this the best way to make a book series?

When i was writing a fantasy story, i decided to make it one among a planned book series, one that would be called "Tales of Magic and Myth". However, now, I'm having a strange new idea on how to handle it.

Originally, my story was gonna have a back and forth type of narrative: some chapters would focus on the main lead and his adventures, while the others would tell what was going on meanwhile elsewhere. But now, I'm leaning more towards the first book setting certain things up at first and then completely focusing on the main lead's story. Then, in the book to follow, I would tell the "what was going on elsewhere at this time" story.

I have to ask though, is that a good move?

Personally I prefer the zig-zag approach. If you focus on one character exclusively than if you have a break like another book and hardly mention him, than the audience is going to feel cheated. "We love X why are we focusing on this smuck now? Is the rest of the series going to be like this?"

The zig-zag approach does have a bit more balance and even if people are reluctant to leave your main character you can still hold their attention with the unspoken promise of continuation during the course of the book.

But books as any medium have their radical outside-the-box ideas and sometimes they are successful and hugely influential. But it's usually a one-in-a-million shot, if you think you can do it go for it, but personally I like to play things a little safer.

Totally my opinion, feel free to ignore it if you want to.

Okay, how about this: i do the whole back-and-forth story line, only the secondary plot will have a misleading story line; I make it seem like the antagonist was after one thing, but after that plan is thwarted, they'll hint that they had another plan in mind all along. Meanwhile, the "journey" of the characters in the main story is hinted to only be beginning.

How does that sound, too cliche?

Are the "happenings elsewhere" pivotal to the outcome of the MC's story? Would the "first" story suffer from the removal of all to do with the things that are happening elsewhere?

If "no" to both, then there's no reason at all to include them in the main story at all, so just writing the main character's arc and ignoring them is not only possible, it's advisable.

Next thing is: are those happenings interesting enough to warrant a story of their own. Do they have a good enough narrative quality to hold a reader's attention for the book?

If so, then "yeah" no problem. I wouldn't say the "best" way to make a series, but it is a way.

I had ideas for a lot of stories set in and around the same place and approximately same time, involving different people - with the possibility of cross-contamination by minor characters (like the same shop keeper turns up in most of them) - and different story arcs that technically are "taking place simultaneously" within the setting.

If I'd actually got them completed, I'd've had a series of stories set in the same fictional universe and, although you wouldn't need to read them all to understand what was happening in any given plot (each is fully self-contained) a perceptive person who had read them all would be aware that while A and B were doing such-and-such in this place, C and D were less than five hundred metres away doing so-and-so and that A and C missed each other by maybe ten minutes at E's Deli.

As it was, people who regularly played my Cyberpunk games were aware that their current characters were doing one thing at roughly the "same time" as the previous group they'd been involved with had been working on their mission. Occasionally, I'd throw in little references and in-jokes - such as random news reports that referenced the antics of their previous characters or they'd hear the name of the company their previous characters worked for.

First, the best way to make your book series is the way that gets it done. Done is better than theoretically groundbreaking, or theoretically cliched, or theoretically perfect because it actually exists.

Second...it really depends on the reader, I think. I couldn't abide Rick Riordan's Heroes of Olympus series because of the point-of-view switching. My favorite fantasy series, Discworld even tended to have those flash-sideways and I just skipped ahead to follow one storyline until the climax where the storylines met, then I would go back and catch up on the other storyline(s). Obviously, lots of other readers could stick with the story from start to finish and appreciate the series that way.

So I guess it just depends on the sort of writer that you are. Readers can make adjustments for that (or, you know, just not bother) if it's not their thing (I would definitely regret not bothering with Discworld because the writing didn't suit my reading! Not so much the Heroes of Olympus...)

I kind of do wish that Philip Pullman had some hints of Will Parry in his first book of the His Dark Materials trilogy because it was difficult for me to stick with that switch at all, because I loved Lyra and didn't like Will taking scenes away from her.

What you're describing sounds to me a lot like The Neverending Story novel where it's a bunch of short stories (well, short scenes) that end in cliffhangers, which suggests that's why stories never really end.

Basically, I think it's always good to shake it up a bit, but I can't criticize whether the way you did it is the best way until after the thing is done.

edited 2nd Apr '15 6:18:41 AM by Faemonic

A big thing to keep in mind (which is actually pretty universal and I'm surprised nobody explicitly mentioned yet) is that there's no singular "right way" to make a thing. If it works, good; if it doesn't, find another way.

But here's a couple tricks for writing parallel stories, based on what I've learned from my screenwriting and filmmaking background:

1: If you switch storylines just as the tension in the scene starts to resolve,^note not before, because you want at least a little resolution so people don't think "What?! It's jumping around too much! Why don't you tell me what happens?" it can be a lot easier to keep people interested. For an example, pay attention to the switches between Luke/Yoda and Han/Leia in The Empire Strikes Back.

2: When the scene is mostly just talking, one great tool you have is the segue (not that one!) Basically, the conversation leads up to a point that happens to connect (literally or thematically) with another storyline. Here's an example I slapped together:

Now, I'll admit that that's a terrible example (partly because I wrote it in less than 10 minutes) but it should get the point across. And it doesn't even have to be as Anvilicious as a name-drop — you could easily get the same effect by mentioning a place ("At least we're better off than Far Far Away" / Cut to the subplot in Far Far Away.), an idea ("... And so the wheel turns." / "Revolution!"), or an action ("If you betray me again, I'll cut you up and feed you to the dogs." / A chef chopping up vegetables for dinner.)

Another tip, since you talked about cutting away to side-stories: You have to make them connect to the main arc in some way. Luckily, there's a lot of ways to do that. Side-stories could connect as an allegory relating to the main story, or as some kind of wisdom the main character needs, or to show us some history from the perspective of someone who was actually there, or any number of creative ways.

Personally, I don't recommend cutting away to side-stories within the book itself. Maybe you can do it as a prologue, or an epilogue, or a halfway-point-divider, or just a separate short story. I'm planning something like that for one of my own stories, where I make short "prequel" stories for certain characters, partly to set the mood for the next installment of the main story.

I have a friend who considered doing a setup like that, for a while. He might still be, in fact.