Wednesday, September 21, 2011

What's with series?

With my book, Weaver's Web, I ventured into series territory for the first time.  The rest of my books stand alone.  The character arcs are self contained, and if I turned them into series, I would destroy my carefully constructed arcs, or I would hold them in an ugly gray stasis.  With Weaver's Web, I had more story to tell, simply, than when I got to the end.  But I admit I didn't plan it that way, and still have to plan the next two books.

All the same, I'm a stand alone fan.  That's why I write them.  Stand alones create compelling, self contained arcs and plot.  I find serials, in general, end up with static characters, or they Jump the Shark.  The original concept of the series ends up destroyed in order to further the series.  Instead, however, it kills the series.

So give me a shout--my few commenters--and weigh in.


  1. I agree, as a rule. However, I liked the Garth Nix Sabriel series, though I think the first book has the strongest physical descriptions--that world seems so real to me, and I've never cross country skied or faced a revenant in my life--maybe because I loved the dog and the moget (mogget)--the dog with it's philosophy, what was it? A new day, new things to pee on?

    Will be glad to see the Weaver's Web characters again, with their unexpected character revelations and the steamy (can a vampire be steamy?) and realistic sexual tension building between Weaver and Jamie).

  2. I like Nix's series as well, but it is a classic example of a series going down hill! Sabriel is amazing. Liriel--has it's great parts but is uneven. Abhorson--I could barely get through.

    Glad to hear you are looking forward to the next in the Weaver series. I am too. I am still in my prep stages. I think I may have to scrape together the money to take a trip to New Orleans. Ah, research.