I have recently been looking at some fairly interesting ideas about plotting a series using some of the more creative storytelling structures. Trilogies are fairly obvious, but there are also a few more exotic ideas like ring or chiastic structure (ABCCBA) as well as that of adapting a five act (Shakespearean tragedy) structure to the overall series.
Do those actually seem to be worth using or is it better to focus on structure for individual stories that explore different parts of a shared theme that extends throughout the series?
Adam
Hey Adam, great to hear from you again!
When plotting a series, I have the same basic advice as I do for plotting a single story: figure out what your story needs first. Once you know that, it’ll be easier to figure out how many books the series will have.
Let’s say the throughline of your series is overthrowing an evil king. What needs to happen for that story to be credible and tense?
Maybe your hero first needs to defeat the local duke. That’s book one. It’s a victory, but it’s drawn the attention of the king, who is a much more powerful enemy. Your hero is closer to their goal, but the fight is also more difficult. That’s a good ending for book one. Your next book could then be about the hero using their newly acquired resources to take on the king, and you’ve got a great duology.
Alternatively, you might start the series by defeating the duke for book one. Then, the confident rebels attack the capital, but it’s a trap by the crafty king! The rebels barely escape total destruction, and now the royal army is moving to take back the territory they’ve already liberated. That’s book two. Book three is a desperate defense as the king advances mercilessly, culminating in a final battle where his majesty is finally defeated.
You can expand from there depending on how much meat your plot has. The key is that each book should feel like it’s moving closer to resolving the throughline, either for the heroes or against them. Defeating the duke brings the heroes closer to defeating the king and resolving the throughline, but getting beaten by the king also brings the story closer to a conclusion, just a negative one.
The problem with picking a structure first is that you end up trying to warp the story into a number of books that could be higher or lower than what it needs. This happens with trilogies all the time. I’ve lost track of how many series I’ve read that only had enough story for two books but stretched it out to three because that was the convention. The same can happen with picking five books, four books, or ten books.
In most cases, these so-called structures don’t have much bearing on what’s actually in the story. A trilogy could use the Star Wars format, where the heroes win in book one before losing in book two, but it doesn’t have to. Instead, a trilogy could have the heroes face steadily escalating enemies in each book.
If you’re totally stuck and have no idea what you want in your story, you might get some inspiration by imagining it as different numbers of books. But even then, don’t get too attached to a specific number, or you’ll warp the story to fit an arbitrary requirement.
As to chiastic structure, this is the first I’ve heard of it, and honestly it confuses me. I looked it up, and I have no more understanding than when I started. Supposedly this structure is found in the Iliad, but I’ve read the Iliad and didn’t register anything like what they were talking about. If it’s in there, it isn’t making an impression.
In general, I’m even less enthusiastic about ancient story structures than I am about modern ones. The Iliad is a “classic.” It can get away with being a meandering slog with no characters worth investing in and constant deus ex machina. Modern stories don’t have that luxury. Better to work on the fundamentals than repeat the mistakes of the past.
Hope that helps, and good luck with your story!
Keep the answer engine fueled by becoming a patron today. Want to ask something? Submit your question here.
Really, the Illiad was just watching some dude be dragged by a Deus Ex Machina around the globe, only to be assaulted by a Deus Ex Machina (But bad?), and then saved by a Deus Ex Machina.
Diabolus ex Machina. Greek Playwrights didn’t think the heroes deserved help. Greeks might have been smart but they where also self-centered. Not every theatrical event was nice to the audience. Diabolus didn’t even meen devil at first but just “stumbling rock” until Greek Theater made it into a person.
I’d take the advice to “expand from there depending on how much meat your plot has” without “trying to warp the story into a number of books that could be higher or lower than what it needs” a bit further.
Before writing the first novel, planning a series structure, any structure beyond “if it turns out good I might write a sequel”, is likely to be an ambitious, premature, uninformed and mostly wrong commitment; creating a good plot for only one book should be the first priority.
Without an astounding planning ability, only the detailed creative work of actually writing can determine which characters, setting elements, story threads, etc. should be exhausted to bring the book to a satisfactory conclusion, openly saved for a sequel as prominent open issues and loose ends, left in the background for eventual future use, and so on. Constraining these choices for the sake of a series of sequels compromises the current work.
It’s also a matter of evolving taste and time passing: when the book is finished, will I be interested in a sequel or in writing something else? Maybe the good ideas weren’t too good. How much is left to say? Maybe not enough for a long series, possibly not enough for a single sequel. In what direction do I want to take the series, given what has already been written and what the audience liked or not?
I feel like you and the original post are talking about two completely different types of stories:
It seems like you’re specifically talking about a series of standalone books, based on the ‘if it turns out good I might write a sequel’ line, while the original post is talking about a series with a continuous narrative thread throughout. Think the difference between something like Discworld and The Wheel of Time; individual Discworld books have their own plots that are more-or-less completely closed between books, while individual Wheel of Time books are stepping stones on the larger plot.
It also seems like your advice is from a discovery writing perspective specifically; you say that “Without an astounding planning ability, only the detailed creative work of actually writing can determine which characters, setting elements, story threads, etc. should be exhausted to bring the book to a satisfactory conclusion, openly saved for a sequel as prominent open issues and loose ends, left in the background for eventual future use, and so on.”
This is definitely true for some people, but others (including me) find it easier to plan out a series from the top down; in other words, planning out the content of the story before writing it. (As a slight aside, I’ve tried discovery writing myself before, and it just doesn’t work for me at all. Without a plan for me to follow, I end up writing a completely aimless story with no forward momentum whatsoever.)
Anyway, that’s my two dollars right there. Sorry if this turned out a little mean-sounding or defensive; I have a difficult time controlling my tone in speech, and even more so in text, so I apologize in advance.
I am writing several series (novellas and novels) where the parts are only loosely connected. I keep a bible for every series, which means I write down all important information such as character’s skills and relationships (with all shifts) or other important things which have happened in the story. In this case, I write the next book when I have a story idea for it in mind, which might be immediately or a year later (or not at all).
I do think, though, that this is more about writing a series where you know a story will span more than one book. If you want a story with an arc that runs through several books, then you need to do at least some planning.
As someone who has started out as a discovery writer, but now prefers plotting first and writing later (which I couldn’t have done when I started writing for good), I can tell you that writing a long series of stories with one story arc is next to impossible for a discovery writer, but very manageable for those who plan first. On the other hand, more loosely connected stories (like mine) are absolutely something a discovery writer can do as well, as long as they take note of things that might become important again.