Hello everyone,
I often hear people saying that even if you're writing a series of books each book has to be able to stand on its own, especially the first. How true is this? Or maybe a better question is what does 'stand on its own' really mean?
Let's take the classic example of LOTR: TFOTR (I know Tolkein wrote the series to be one book). It ends with the fellowship broken, Boromir dead, Gandalf presumed dead, and Merry and Pip kidnapped. That hardly seems like a story that's standing on its own. How about a contemporary example like the first ASOIAF book? It ends with Ned dead, Joffrey king and Sansa in his clutches (basically all the Stark children in limbo), Dany despondent, having lost Khal, but then giving birth to dragons. Again, brilliant ending, but not one that gives any sort of closure or completion to the story.
What's your guys' take on this? Just how much closure do you want from a book if it's just one in a series?
How complete does a book in a series have to be? (spoilers for the first ASOIAF and LOTR books)
I often hear people saying that even if you're writing a series of books each book has to be able to stand on its own, especially the first. How true is this? Or maybe a better question is what does 'stand on its own' really mean?
Let's take the classic example of LOTR: TFOTR (I know Tolkein wrote the series to be one book). It ends with the fellowship broken, Boromir dead, Gandalf presumed dead, and Merry and Pip kidnapped. That hardly seems like a story that's standing on its own. How about a contemporary example like the first ASOIAF book? It ends with Ned dead, Joffrey king and Sansa in his clutches (basically all the Stark children in limbo), Dany despondent, having lost Khal, but then giving birth to dragons. Again, brilliant ending, but not one that gives any sort of closure or completion to the story.
What's your guys' take on this? Just how much closure do you want from a book if it's just one in a series?
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire