[mlprine]

Okay been a while since I last posted but I have been doing some research on getting published and everything that is entailed with doing so. In the process of doing so I read that most publishing companies will not even consider trilogy and that you should make sure that your first book could stand on its own without the other two or three. Now here is my problem the story I have planned out in no way can be summed up into 1 book. Perhaps if it was close to a 1000 page book but even then I feel as if the story would be rushed. Any advice or additional knowledge on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[kmtolan]

You are going to have to make your first book stand on its own enough for the reader to find a satisfying closure that will hold them until the next novel comes out.

Been down this path myself.

Kerry

[Laer Carroll]

A story is about someone striving for something. Sometimes the something is specific and clear. Other times it may be unclear. It can be positive. Or negative, as when you are trying to get rid of something (like a One Ring!) or a husband, or escape a threat.

A complicated or difficult goal usually can only be reached by achieving subgoals. Make a plan, get resources such as money or weapons or training or allies, cross the mountains, sail a sea, besiege a castle, etc.

So long books typically have a long-term goal, and a long story arc to achieve it. Or maybe several parallel arcs if there is a large cast of characters.

Individual books take one of the important subgoals and deals with that. Achieving that subgoal can provide a satisfying sense of completion to your readers, if you do it right, yet leave open the possibility for further adventures.

So look for your overall goal, and consider your subgoals. And maybe sub-subgoals. One book may have several smaller story arcs which together add up to the mid-length story arc.

[KatG]

In the process of doing so I read that most publishing companies will not even consider trilogy and that you should make sure that your first book could stand on its own without the other two or three.

This is incorrect. However, it is correct that even if you have a broken up story over the course of a trilogy and the publisher wants to publish it, they may still license only the first book of the trilogy and see how it does before buying Books 2 and 3, even if you've written Books 2 & 3. It depends on how much of an investment they wish to make in you. Patrick Rothfuss had his trilogy all ready to go and he did have problems with making any sort of closure ending for the first book. It's the story of a legend told over three very large books. DAW licensed all three, or at least the first two, followed by the third. The first one hit the NYTimes list and the second one, after much rewriting, is out now. Joe Abercrombie's First Law Trilogy? Same. And so on and so forth.

So having at least some storylines come to some sort of dramatic event to work as an open ending for each volume is probably something to look at. And being prepared to get only a one book deal, if you get a deal, or a two, three book deal is something you should do. But fantasy is often about big stories told over several books. Or a serial series where there are some overarcs but a separate main plot for each book, like a lot of the contemporary fantasy stories. There are several ways to do it and publishers put them all out.

[DougFarren]

I agree with kmtolan - even though your main storyline will take 3 books, each book should be a story in itself. I read a trilogy titled 'The Weapons of Chaos'. It took me a long time to find all three and I was forced to read them in the correct order because each book did not stand on its own. They were thin paperbacks and really should have been put together into a single volume. I don't like trilogies that MUST be read in order. Even E. E. 'Doc' Smith's two epic series (Lensman and Skylark) can be read individually (although you would miss out on the overall story). My Galactic Alliance series can be read in any order but they do build on one another. A reader in the UK sent me an email telling me he accidentally started at book 3 but was pleased to find that he could read the other books without any problems. If you can - make your books stand alone or at least make them available all at once.

Just my opinion of course.

[RedMage]

I agree with KatG. Yes, it is nice to have completely self contained books. A reader of trilogies and shorter series myself (aka, not the dozen volume WoT and such) I have also read individual, self contained books. I want to read more of them and have great respect for those authors who are able to contain and tell their stories in single volumes. However, I am also a firm believer in the absolute monarchy of the muse. You don't tell the story what to do, the story tells you what it is doing. You can help, but between the two of you it is the one that's in charge. That said, it is also a necessity to find a place where you can stop the tale and say, "Ok, that's Book 1 (or 2 or whatever)." Like KatG said, an open-ended ending. A few things wrapped up, a lot of things left open for later development, especially in the first few books of the series. There's a reason a lot of books in series end with huge, dramatic cliffhangers: it's because it works.

So no, don't worry about the fact that you have a series. Worry about the story and the writing being good enough to not only catch an audiences' attention but also a publishers.