When is it time to let a series die?

Acktion

GrumpyOldDude
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Posts
4,429
Since Tolkien, people afflicted with the muse seem to be taken with the idea of series. Sometimes, the series ends with the audience going "wait! what else?!" and others we find the desiccated almost corpse of what was once a vigorous young story being kept alive by life support in a persistent vegetative state. (Mommy, what's that bump under Grampa's sheet?)

Which begs the question, just when is it better to let a series die with dignity?

Unfortunately, this question did not, like so many others, come to me in my housebound medicated haze on a whimsy. No indeed. As an outlet for my own increasing boredom, and in an attempt to rail back against the dark shadows of injury and illness that seem bent on stealing me from me, I began to write and then (oh, the shame!) to submit.

To compound my sin, I too fell victim to the siren call of "The Series". Not once, but over and over.

Either fortunately or unfortunately, my illness does not always let me write. Too often I have sat at the keyboard with the images in my mind and every keystroke feels like a needle jammed into my fingertips to run low voltage electrical current up my arms. Eventually, I end up closing the document and lying down until the muscle spasms and pain pass.

Other times, I do actually manage to write and rather than suffer the stones and rotten vegetables of misfortune choose to save the document rather than submit it. And when I rise to read over it once more, find myself thinking "Yup, need to dial back the meds."

And so, I find myself with no less than three intended series with my inbox peppered with requests for more, outlines of where the story is intended to go, and yet days then weeks and then months will go by without managing a follow up worthy of submission. (Leave my trash file with two to three thousand scraps that even Laurel hasn't seen out of this!)

I can't help but feel SOME requirement to continue to at least attempt a follow up when several people have contacted me more than once wondering when the next will go up. And it isn't as if watching the paint on the walls flake or checking the inside of my eyelids for cracks is more time sensitive.

And yet, in the back of my mind is this little voice whispering "meh, they were just REALLY horny. It wasn't all that with a side of fries. And even if it was, you'll never be that good again anyway. And hey! Didja see the hooters on that nurse when she was taking your blood pressure? You could hide a ton of stuff in that cleavage! Too bad your pressure wasn't higher so she woulda kept pumping longer."

And so I find myself slamming shut Taming Jet Ch.03 v 2085 with disgust and wondering. Should I just admit that I have typing dysfunction and premature submission? Should I even bother taking another look at "Exodus" after all this time? Should I take another stab at "Dreamwalkers; The Awakening"? Or should I just take a nap and see if there are cookies when I wake up?

When do you just let a series fade quietly to silence?
 
Most "read as they're written" stories should die before they do. But there are folks who both like to spin out stories indefinitely (I think I spun one out in my mind from late elementary school until I went to college) and there are folks who like to read a spinning out storyline indefinitely, so I guess you can do it for as long as it happens and you'll still have folks reading it--and folks disappointed no matter how/when it ends.
 
When your story reads as if it's jumping the shark...

Take your cue from television series that went on far longer than they should and "jumped the shark." When your characters seem to be getting tired or in a rut (and you'd rather just come up with new characters and a new story), or when the story plot is taking a ridiculous turn just to keep it going (like soaps with long-lost-twins showing up or evil super villains that dominate the story for episode after episode), then the series has probably gone on too long.

Luckily, you don't have a contract saying you have to keep going or produce 20 episodes even if the show only needs six. And if you do wander into "warning! warning! Jumping the shark!" territory as you write...well, you don't have to post all that stuff. I.e. the stuff that would signal to your peers if not your adoring readers (who, as in a co-dependent relationship, will excuse and forgive almost anything) that you're pulling this out of your ass rather than out of your rich imagination.

When you see that "wrong" season-of-a-show in your writing, scrap it and come up with a satisfying conclusion instead. After all, you can always come back to it if inspiration really hits again years later. But the best television shows (and book series, like LOTRs), find their ends. I recommend you check out "Breaking Bad" which, among writers at least, was viewed as a brilliantly tight series. It didn't go off the rails, it didn't go on longer than it should. It developed its characters to their conclusions and it *did* have a satisfying end.
 
Since Tolkien, people afflicted with the muse seem to be taken with the idea of series.
Not sure what you mean by the reference. The Lord of the Rings, what many incorrectly call a "Trilogy" was actually a single story, published as 6 "books" originally in three volumes because the publisher thought it would be too expensive to publish in one volume, for something like £3, and no one would buy it.

Titus Groan, Gormenghast and Tirus Alone was an earlier actual series.
 
If you're not excited about it, and the characters aren't talking to you, it's time to end it.

If those suggestions from readers spark ideas you like, go for it. If they don't, then move on to your next tale.

A lot of requests for "More!" are really just praise, not demands. Sure, those readers would be happy to follow new adventures, but they're expecting a story just as exciting as the one they enjoyed. If your heart isn't in it, the story isn't going to be that. They'll be content with what you've given them and not penalize you.

If you let the readers hold you hostage, it's going to stifle you.
 
Whoops

I should have said "...was published..." in my Tolkien reference. And I wasn't aware of the earlier series. Sorry about the confusion.

For the rest, I DO appreciate the feedback. Particularly the mention that I could "...come back to it years later..."

I suppose that I was feeling the pressure as people had requested more in PMs and followed up with other messages rather than just one. Also, that I do have an outline and know where the story is going. (And, that I actually submitted Ch. 03 twice and had it kicked back.) And was wondering if six months between submissions was an indication that I should just move on and leave Logan and Jet there on the couch.

Thank you for taking the time to let me know what you thought.
 
To me as a writer its over simply when I feel it is. When the story has reached its end and any other idea seems a stretch.

I have a series here that has 46 parts. It was 51 at one point, but I had some issues with the site on a couple of chapters and pulled the 5 part finale.

At no point did the story not flow for me or seem a "reach" also at no point did I get one comment saying "jeez end this already"

If you get to a point where you are writing for the reader. Example you start taking suggestions. "Have Paul do so and so, I would have Mary do...and you start doing it just to keep it going.

From a reader standpoint I give up on a series as soon as it starts spinning wheels. Especially in erotica. When a series that seems as story driven as it is erotic begins to dissolve into stroke chapters and new characters are brought in just to fuck, its over. It is also over for me the second an author starts commenting in their stories "where would you like it to go next" to the readers.

Once your story has told itself, put it to rest
 
If you write for a living, you end a series when 1) it stops selling, or 2) you get really really bored, or 3) you die.

If you write for fun, you end a series when 1) you run out of ideas, or 2) you get really really bored, or 3) you die.

I'll mention that there are series, and then there are series. My first major submission here was a series of personal accounts, my renderings of my uncle Ron's notebooks. I originally wrote seven episodes that encompass the life story. Then I found material that should have been included inside that time sequence. This resulted in ch.03, ch.03A, ch.03B, then ch.04, et cetera. And I have more material from within the time frame that can be tacked on in later episodes. This series will end when I run out of source material.

I have another personal account series, about Ron's friend Dexter, that is now complete as two mini-series, but has room for many additions. Again, the series will end when the source material runs out.

Another story arc was written as a three-act drama, but I've added alternate endings, and there's the prospect of yet further episodes. This series will end when I run out of ideas.

Yet other stories are written as standalone one-offs, yet might spin into series. When will they end? When I get tired of writing them. And there are stories that aren't really a series, even though they contain the same or similar characters and locales. Such linked tales could be endless.

So I see at least three types of series: 1) the life story, which ends when the life does; 2) the planned series, which might spill over into sequels; and 3) the accidental series. Each lives and dies at its own pace.
 
If you write for a living, you end a series when 1) it stops selling, or 2) you get really really bored, or 3) you die.

Usually when the publisher has had enough (related to #1).
 
Tolkien was a factor in modern book series

Not sure what you mean by the reference. The Lord of the Rings, what many incorrectly call a "Trilogy" was actually a single story, published as 6 "books" originally in three volumes because the publisher thought it would be too expensive to publish in one volume, for something like £3, and no one would buy it.
While this is true, Acktion is quite right that it got writers and publishers thinking in terms of "series" or at least trilogies, especially where fantasy novels were concerned. There certainly were series before Tolkien—including almost every pulp writer you can think of from Tarzan to 007. And, of course, children's books like Anne of Green Gables and Little Women.

So, no, the "series" was not invented by Tolkien or his publishers.

HOWEVER, Gormenghast not withstanding, most fantasy/sci-fi did tend to be a one-book deal prior to Tolkien—you visited that world, had a story there, and then it was over. Though it wasn't intend as a trilogy and was put out as such for cost-effective reasons, LOTR was ENORMOUSLY popular, far more popular than any such trio/series of fantasy books before it. It showed publishers how lucrative it could be to have a series of books in a fantasy world. Had that trio not been so wildly successful, many fantasy authors since might have been limited by publishers to just one book or one and a sequel. Now, for better or worse, many authors find that they have to pitch their story as a series or risk not getting published.

So Tolkien is due a lion's share of the credit for giving both writers and publishers the impetus to stretch out tales and have a series of books (especially epic fantasies) rather than single novels.
 
Last edited:
When do you just let a series fade quietly to silence?

About one episode -- ending with "and then the asteroid struck and killed everyone" -- after I start asking the question. :p

I hate series that just quit; If I invest the time to follow a series, I feel cheated if it ends with just an endless wait for the next episode. I prefer endings like the last episode of M*A*S*H to non-ending of series that is just canceled.
 
So, no, the "series" was not invented by Tolkien or his publishers.

HOWEVER, Gormenghast not withstanding, most fantasy/sci-fi did tend to be a one-book deal prior to Tolkien—you visited that world, had a story there, and then it was over.

I'm not sure I agree with that. There were quite a lot of very influential SF/F series before Tolkien. In novel-ish form there was Frank Baum's "Oz", Edgar Rice Burroughs' "Barsoom" and several other SF series, Lester Dent's "Doc Savage", Dunsany's "Jorkens" series, Conan Doyle's "Professor Challenger", Edith Nesbit.

Then there were other media: various serialised stories in SF magazines, things like Prince Valiant and Flash Gordon, etc etc.

But I do think you're right in saying that the success of LotR entrenched the multi-book series (and a lot of other stuff too) as the Standard Model for writing fantasy.

(I will also say: world-building is hard work, so unless you really love that part of the job, it makes sense to milk your setting for several books ;-)
 
I'm not sure I agree with that. There were quite a lot of very influential SF/F series before Tolkien. In novel-ish form there was Frank Baum's "Oz", Edgar Rice Burroughs' "Barsoom" and several other SF series, Lester Dent's "Doc Savage", Dunsany's "Jorkens" series, Conan Doyle's "Professor Challenger", Edith Nesbit.

Then there were other media: various serialised stories in SF magazines, things like Prince Valiant and Flash Gordon, etc etc.
Serialized fiction goes back much further. I could cite Dickens. but I'm sure he wasn't the first. Let's see, I'll look at Wikipedia... AHA! Serial (literature) points to earlier origins:

Early history: The growth of moveable type in the 17th century prompted episodic and often disconnected narratives such as L'Astree and Le Grand Cyrus. At that time, books remained a premium item, so to reduce the price and expand the market, publishers produced large works in lower-cost installments called fascicles.

I'll suggest that both these earliest examples, and the SF magazine serials Bramblethorn mentioned, are NOT in the same class as the Oz and Barsoom and similar serials. The former are serialized chapters, the latter are a sequence of books with common characters and settings. A good example here are the TOM SWIFT books, and earlier Penny Dreadfuls and pulp westerns.

I'm sure someone with more brainpower than I can currently unleash can cite other examples.
 
If you're not excited about it, and the characters aren't talking to you, it's time to end it.

Thank you so much for that RR. Quite possibly *THE* best hint I have read about how to deal with a series that has taken on a life of its own.

I already know that my current series will run to 25+ chapters, and was honestly worried that trying to find an ending point was going to become a chore I didn't want to address. Thankfully the plot bunny shit out one so that when Josh & Kyle "stop talking to me" I will have the way for them to say 'good bye' to the fans too.
 
I hate series that just quit; If I invest the time to follow a series, I feel cheated if it ends with just an endless wait for the next episode. I prefer endings like the last episode of M*A*S*H to non-ending of series that is just canceled.

Totally agree. If you take on a series, you owe it to your readers to run it to a satisfying conclusion. Especially so if you have a tendency to end each episode with a cliff-hanger.

Yeah I know - it's free stuff made by amateurs. But still...
 
Haven't you read Misery? You don't end a series. Ever. :eek:

:eek: I can just imagine opening the door to a 450 lbs escaped transsexual axe-murderer with the Lit-handle CuteBuns_21 who has come to express his dissatisfaction with me ending a series by killing the protagonist.

You're right - maybe I should skip Harolds meteor finale and instead do a "happy ever after thing" with kittens, unicorns and non-fattening Ben&Jerrys...


:D
 
:eek: I can just imagine opening the door to a 450 lbs escaped transsexual axe-murderer with the Lit-handle CuteBuns_21 who has come to express his dissatisfaction with me ending a series by killing the protagonist.

You're right - maybe I should skip Harolds meteor finale and instead do a "happy ever after thing" with kittens, unicorns and non-fattening Ben&Jerrys...


:D

Oh boy. Here we go with the unicorns. And glitter. Don't forget the glitter.
 
How could I forget the glitter!

And pink cherubs of course... mustn't forget those... :)
 
The answer is simple, really; when the thrill is gone for the writer.
 
While this is true, Acktion is quite right that it got writers and publishers thinking in terms of "series" or at least trilogies, especially where fantasy novels were concerned. There certainly were series before Tolkien—including almost every pulp writer you can think of from Tarzan to 007. And, of course, children's books like Anne of Green Gables and Little Women.

So, no, the "series" was not invented by Tolkien or his publishers.

HOWEVER, Gormenghast not withstanding, most fantasy/sci-fi did tend to be a one-book deal prior to Tolkien—you visited that world, had a story there, and then it was over. Though it wasn't intend as a trilogy and was put out as such for cost-effective reasons, LOTR was ENORMOUSLY popular, far more popular than any such trio/series of fantasy books before it. It showed publishers how lucrative it could be to have a series of books in a fantasy world. Had that trio not been so wildly successful, many fantasy authors since might have been limited by publishers to just one book or one and a sequel. Now, for better or worse, many authors find that they have to pitch their story as a series or risk not getting published.

So Tolkien is due a lion's share of the credit for giving both writers and publishers the impetus to stretch out tales and have a series of books (especially epic fantasies) rather than single novels.

You're overlooking Asimov's Foundation series. The original trilogy was written and published as a series of short stories between 1942 and 1950. They were combined into three novels published between 1951 and 1953.

At the same time, he was also writing his Empire series, which was published between 1950 and 1952.

Of course, that's science fiction. However, the Chronicles of Narnia series was written by Tolkien's good friend, C.S. Lewis, and published between 1950 and 1954. More than anything else, that series paved the way for LOTR.
 
Other side of the coin

I couldn't help but think about the other side of the coin that goes with this question.

Comments made like: "How could you end it that way?" or "The story was good up until the ending which sucked?" and the one I can never figure out "What happens next to these characters?"
I'm not the smartest guy writing and submitting to LIT. and I freely admit to that yet, for my stories at least, I usually know when and how they are going to end when I start writing. It might evolve during the writing to more chapters than I'd originally thought, but nine out of ten times the ending is still the same as the one I envisioned in my head at the beginning of the story.
I also freely admit that my mind seems to have a slightly different twist than any other I've ever encountered so my endings don't always please the casual reader, but I didn't write it that way for them, I wrote it that way for me.
For me the story ends right at the beginning. I know that's probably not too much of an answer to the original question, but its what works for me.
 
I couldn't help but think about the other side of the coin that goes with this question.

Comments made like: "How could you end it that way?" or "The story was good up until the ending which sucked?" and the one I can never figure out "What happens next to these characters?"
I'm not the smartest guy writing and submitting to LIT. and I freely admit to that yet, for my stories at least, I usually know when and how they are going to end when I start writing. It might evolve during the writing to more chapters than I'd originally thought, but nine out of ten times the ending is still the same as the one I envisioned in my head at the beginning of the story.
I also freely admit that my mind seems to have a slightly different twist than any other I've ever encountered so my endings don't always please the casual reader, but I didn't write it that way for them, I wrote it that way for me.
For me the story ends right at the beginning. I know that's probably not too much of an answer to the original question, but its what works for me.

Having a reader wondering/concerned about what happens next with the characters is, more often or not, a good thing, in terms of story quality, whether the reader appreciates that or not. You got them hooked. What you do about that then is more about how experienced and confident a writer you are. If their stated wish for more strikes your muse with an urge to write more, sure, go ahead. If it doesn't--and you like the ending the way it is--if you are an experienced and confident writer, you'll walk away, knowing that you did well in keeping the reader engaged. And when you stop agonizing over it on Internet forums, you've truly arrived in having confidence in your writing.
 
Back
Top