Strategically, in what order should one write a series?

[David VanDyke]

The conventional wisdom is, of course, to write the series in story-chronological order. Write Book 1, which story-wise takes place earliest, then write book 2, which takes place next, and so on. Sometimes an author writes a prequel, or side book, or shoehorns one into the middle.

But it occurred to me that writing them out of order might yield big benefits.

Even if you're a damn fine author, a new series usually develops as it goes on. It often finds its voice and hits its stride in book 2 or 3 or even 4. You can see this principle at work in TV seasons and movie sequels as well--the first one is rarely the best.

But, for most of us genre fiction authors who depend on series, the Book 1 is the reader magnet. It tends to be discounted, either permanently or intermittently. It's the first thing a new reader of that series will read--and because of the principle above, it may well not be the best book in the series. But, it behooves us IMO to have Book 1 be the best book in the series--except for the very last book in the series, perhaps, the climax. Either way, though, for marketing, you want to put your best foot forward. Once readers are invested in characters, they can forgive a book being not quite spectacular, as long as it's good and gives them what they want.

So it seems to me that it might behoove us--okay, me, since I'm between series now--to write the series out of order. Say, deliberately write book 3 first, in order to get comfortable with the new characters and universe, to develop their voices and shake out the kinks. Then, write books 1 and 2 afterward. Then, go back over book 3 before publishing, in light of what I've learned, to smooth out any rough spots or to tweak anything that needs tweaking. This might yield a better, more enticing Book 1.

Thoughts?

[Simon Haynes]

To be honest, I've just written six books across two new series, and when I wrote the FIRST in each series ... I didn't know it was going to be a series.

I know where you're going, though, but perhaps a better idea would be to write a short story or novella featuring the characters (or some of them.)  Then you can use it as a loss leader or a ML giveaway.

[guest215]

I get what you're saying. We want to put our best bit out as the first taste, while series tend to be the best at the end, because everything's so well-developed.


I think it would be really hard to write this way, though. You'd essentially be writing prequels to your books, which locks you down creatively, since you've already established what happens in the future.


It might be better to write the whole series, before launch, then go back and revise book 1 knowing what you know after writing book 3.

[okey dokey]

A series does NOT have to be in chronological order.

A serial does. But not a series.

Think of Lee Child and his "Jack Reacher" series.

Each book has a different plot that is resolved at the end.

Ditto Ed McBain's "87th Precinct" series. One plot per book in the SERIES.

A SERIAL is like Downton Abby on PBS television. The main plot begins in Episode 1 and the plot continues with each new episode.

[David VanDyke]

Sure it doesn't HAVE to be in chronological order--but MSF is not the same as separate criminal cases in crime fiction. Those lend themselves nicely to being that form of series. Most MSF/SO type books have a progressing story arc. Maybe the protagonists are being promoted through the ranks, or they're meeting bigger and bigger challenges, or the enemies of yesterday become the important allies of today when the new enemy shows up, etc.

And I'm not saying this idea would work for every series, serial or saga. I am attracted to the idea, though, as I am toying with the idea of a "sea story in space" for this one--something I haven't really done, where the action stays firmly with the protagonists and their small part in a larger conflict. It wouldn't be too hard to write to story of the protags at the lieutenant level, then go back later and show them as midshippers in the first book. Something like that.

I'm still brainstorming. That's why I'd like to hear everyone's ideas about the pros and cons.

[Dormouse]

The conventional wisdom is, of course, to write the series in story-chronological order. Write Book 1, which story-wise takes place earliest, then write book 2, which takes place next, and so on.

But why write in books at all?
If you know that you are writing a series or a multi-volume epic, you are quite likely to be visualising scenes and actions and bits of dialogue, but not all in the right order. And probably not the boring bits that just join things up (the bits that Mozart delegated to assistants).
So why not write them at the point that your mind is running away with you and record them fresh?

[LD]

But if you're going to go back to Book 3 and fix it up after writing the others, can't you do that with Book 1 too?  I would say write in sequential order, because timelines in the stories may be dependent on each other.  So let's say you wrote Book 3 first, then 1.  Then you wrote something in 1 that would affect 3.  You'd have to do a little more heavy lifting to align it with Book 1. 

Personally, this does not apply to me, as I write out of order and work on all books simultaneously.  So maybe I'm overlooking something.  Take with a grain of salt.

[idontknowyet]

The conventional wisdom is, of course, to write the series in story-chronological order. Write Book 1, which story-wise takes place earliest, then write book 2, which takes place next, and so on.

But why write in books at all?
If you know that you are writing a series or a multi-volume epic, you are quite likely to be visualising scenes and actions and bits of dialogue, but not all in the right order. And probably not the boring bits that just join things up (the bits that Mozart delegated to assistants).
So why not write them at the point that your mind is running away with you and record them fresh?

This is what im doing. It actually seems to be working well and I don't have to worryabout writing myself in a corner.

[Post-Doctorate D]

Why not write them in order, go back and make whatever adjustments are necessary in earlier books and then publish them?

[Lorri Moulton]

I have a series that I've written out of order (book 2 and then book 1) and I'm thinking about jumping to book 5 next.  I'll probably have to release 5 as a stand alone, then tie it back to the series after I finish 3 and 4.

[CoraBuhlert]

Lois McMaster Bujold and Fritz Leiber wrote their most famous series partly out of order and considering how many awards they won, it didn't hurt them at all.

Most of my series, particularly the mystery and thriller ones, are connected loosely enough that they can be read in any order, even if people get promoted, new team members show up, etc... Others like my space opera series have a definite arc that I know in the back of my mind, but the individual stories don't always show up in the correct order. So I just write the stories as they come to me and reshuffle the series order as necessary. The series in my signature has had its series order changed twice and the version in my signature isn't actually the latest one, because two recently published books are missing.

Thankfully, e-publishing has made it very easy to change the series order and make any necessary tweaks to already published stories.

[Mark Gardner]

When I wrote my first superhero novel, I wrote it as a standalone. Books two and three were written as a single story, then split along a logical point. Even writing it the way, book one us the weakest, book two is way better, and book three is just phenomenal (some of my best writing.) So I grok the premise you put forth. I've had similar ideas, and decided to try it out.

My YA series, Victorious Maiden, employed such a strategy. I wrote book three, then wend back a generation for book two, and back two generations for book three. The problem I ran into was that since I knew the ending, discovering the story became a chore, and I lost interest in finishing the series. I have three novels that are 75% complete that I may never finish.

[Max]

I think you should do it. It might be a way to learn some of the nuances of a character's backstory that you might not have come up with if you just started with book one. It could help amplify stakes and character development. Since you're not pulling the trigger on publishing immediately, you will have some play. Who knows? Could end up being your best work.

[VanessaC]

Really interesting thread and some very thought-provoking comments already.

Years ago - before I'd seriously thought about self-publishing, and when the thought of even finishing one book was like a distant dream - I remember reading how Michael J Sullivan had been really glad he'd written all three of his first Ryria books before he published the first one, as it meant he could go back and tinker with the first ones if stuff came up in the later books (of course, it was more eloquently put than that, but you get the idea).

My current series is also my first, so still finding my way and learning lots.  And, despite having re-written book one at least three times in development, I'm still finding new things out about my characters and the world now that I'm writing book four.

I don't think there's anything wrong with writing out of order if that's the way you (general you) work, or the way your mind works, or it suits the series - if they don't need to be read in order, why write them in order?

And I can definitely see an advantage to spending a bit of time in the world before you put your book 1 up - I'll be doing a new series next year and am already planning to spend a bit of time working out things like tone, language quirks and such like, but I know it's probably going to be about 30K words into the first draft before I'll feel as if I've got the voice right.

Writing in order is working well for me as I have overarching plot and character arcs, and the earlier books are foundations for the later ones, so writing out of order would have driven me crazy.

[David VanDyke]

Why not write them in order, go back and make whatever adjustments are necessary in earlier books and then publish them?

That sounds rational, but the creative mind is rarely rational or subject much to orders. And, I've done it that way already, and there's still this "sequel is better" problem. For me at least, once I've written something, I don't have much motivation to go back and tinker--and it's all about motivation and inspiration for me.

My YA series, Victorious Maiden, employed such a strategy. I wrote book three, then wend back a generation for book two, and back two generations for book three. The problem I ran into was that since I knew the ending, discovering the story became a chore, and I lost interest in finishing the series. I have three novels that are 75% complete that I may never finish.

That's an interesting pitfall possibility. I'll have to ponder that.

[DrewMcGunn]

The conventional wisdom is, of course, to write the series in story-chronological order. Write Book 1, which story-wise takes place earliest, then write book 2, which takes place next, and so on. Sometimes an author writes a prequel, or side book, or shoehorns one into the middle.

But it occurred to me that writing them out of order might yield big benefits.

Even if you're a damn fine author, a new series usually develops as it goes on. It often finds its voice and hits its stride in book 2 or 3 or even 4. You can see this principle at work in TV seasons and movie sequels as well--the first one is rarely the best.

But, for most of us genre fiction authors who depend on series, the Book 1 is the reader magnet. It tends to be discounted, either permanently or intermittently. It's the first thing a new reader of that series will read--and because of the principle above, it may well not be the best book in the series. But, it behooves us IMO to have Book 1 be the best book in the series--except for the very last book in the series, perhaps, the climax. Either way, though, for marketing, you want to put your best foot forward. Once readers are invested in characters, they can forgive a book being not quite spectacular, as long as it's good and gives them what they want.

So it seems to me that it might behoove us--okay, me, since I'm between series now--to write the series out of order. Say, deliberately write book 3 first, in order to get comfortable with the new characters and universe, to develop their voices and shake out the kinks. Then, write books 1 and 2 afterward. Then, go back over book 3 before publishing, in light of what I've learned, to smooth out any rough spots or to tweak anything that needs tweaking. This might yield a better, more enticing Book 1.

Thoughts?

Thanks for posting this. My series is chronological in order by design, but as I have continued writing, there are things that I've already established as canon to the series that at times I wish I had done differently. These are things that come about as a result of a growing set of skills and/or just realizing that something written before now cramps the directions.


I know I could go back in and publish new editions to fix little things, but at the moment, I'm content to hone my craft and make notes toward the next book and the next series.


I'll be filing your ideas in my mind for future reference.

[Ace Fletcher]

I think the premise of your story (a sea story in space) lends itself nicely to being able to have book 2 or 3 take place with the lieutenant on the ocean of a planet, then have the first book tell the story of how the protagonist ended up there.


Come to think of it, this is kind of how I plot individual stories anyway. I get an idea for a character in a specific situation or place then I have to build the rest of my plot around how the protagonist got there, etc.


As an experienced writer David, you'd have no trouble creating hooks, raising questions, making the reader curious etc regarding what had happened in the protagonists career prior to the events in book 2 or 3. Plus planning it all out in the way you are describing would set you up to have a couple of the books nearly written to completion so you could take advantage of the rapid release strategy. All pros and no cons as far as I can see.

[Jeff Tanyard]

I just want to say that "Ace Fletcher" is a pretty cool user name.   

[Rob Martin]

....The problem I ran into was that since I knew the ending, discovering the story became a chore, and I lost interest in finishing the series.

This has been a problem for me when it try to write out of chronological order. Some can do it successfully, but I'm not one of them.

[Lorri Moulton]

....The problem I ran into was that since I knew the ending, discovering the story became a chore, and I lost interest in finishing the series.

This has been a problem for me when it try to write out of chronological order. Some can do it successfully, but I'm not one of them.

For me, it works because each book stands alone as an independent story. 

Almost every one is about a different generation and each story revolves around different main characters. 

ETA:  Except one...she gets two books because she's interesting in her early 20s and plays a major part in a WWII story in her late 30s.

[Pandorra]

That's almost funny how this popped up now.. normally I would have asked WTH, but I am currently writing a series where I am writing 4 at once when book one is only half done. As some mentioned above though, they have different plots in the same 'world'. I am hoping to have all four done before I publish them but it depends on how well I can keep to them without getting sidetracked into a new book half way through. (i.e. "Oh damn its halloween, I need to take a break and write a horror/thriller.." lol)

[guest120]

The problem I ran into was that since I knew the ending, discovering the story became a chore, and I lost interest in finishing the series. I have three novels that are 75% complete that I may never finish.

Yes, this scares me quite a bit whenever I'm working on an outline. I lose interest in projects far too easily, yet at the same time I work better when working from an outline. What do you do?

[Lorri Moulton]

The problem I ran into was that since I knew the ending, discovering the story became a chore, and I lost interest in finishing the series. I have three novels that are 75% complete that I may never finish.

Yes, this scares me quite a bit whenever I'm working on an outline. I lose interest in projects far too easily, yet at the same time I work better when working from an outline. What do you do?

Just my two cents...write down the major plot points and pants the rest. 

[idontknowyet]

The problem I ran into was that since I knew the ending, discovering the story became a chore, and I lost interest in finishing the series. I have three novels that are 75% complete that I may never finish.

Yes, this scares me quite a bit whenever I'm working on an outline. I lose interest in projects far too easily, yet at the same time I work better when working from an outline. What do you do?

The interesting thing I find about hopping about in a series is that at different points different characters talk to me. Sometimes they change where they are going and that will change the story a bit. Rather than boredom I find characters keep growing and developing. I've had several go from 1 dimensional friends that add to the plot line to the point I must write an entire book about them. (I plan to give those away for freebies on my website for a short time.)

[Dormouse]

I wrote book three, then wend back a generation for book two, and back two generations for book three. The problem I ran into was that since I knew the ending, discovering the story became a chore, and I lost interest in finishing the series. I have three novels that are 75% complete that I may never finish.

I would never regard anything as final until it is published. Endings can always change.
However much you write out of sequence, the final writing pass always (?) has to be from beginning te end. And usually, if you are writing out of sequence, the joins will be written in sequence and you can follow a completely different path. May even decide to ditch good scenes (to be kept in your archive for potential future use of course).

[munboy]

If you're playing the long game, it's not a bad idea. But most authors want to release as soon as possible...reap the rewards of their efforts from the first book while writing the sequels.

[PermaStudent]

I write from outlines, and I often have 3-4 books in the series outlined before I start writing book 1. It helps to know where things are going.


Lately I write out of order within a book because certain scenes are more fun than others. Even with an outline, it does make extra editing work to smooth inconsistencies.

[Jeff Tanyard]

I'm writing the books sequentially.

However...

I also outlined the whole Wheel of Fire series before starting book 1.  I made an individual outline for each book, too.  So I had tens of thousands of words written--and plenty of notes--before starting the first draft of the first book.

Whether it "works" or not is up to the readers decide.     But I feel the way I did it is the probably the best way that works for me.

[NathanBurrows]

I get the logic, but don’t think it would work for me as I don’t plot that carefully. More of a Point A and Point C, with the narrative arc between them more loosely defined. The rewrites would significant.


The other thing with this is that you can’t release until the series is finished. I know some prefer this strategy, but my thought has always been that a book can’t earn any money sitting on my hard drive.

[missingalaska]

For my latest series, Book 3 was written first followed by Book 4, Book 1 and finally Book 2.  Book 3 was originally intended to be a stand-alone, but there was SO MUCH there, that it kept growing and growing until finally it became a series.

I found this method highly effective and will likely do this again. Why?

1) The ability to foreshadow events. Book 1 foreshadows some serious plot twists in Book 4. By foreshadowing the final book again and again, I was able to pull off what might have been a "jump the shark" moment.  Could you do this through a good outline? Sure -- but I rarely stick to outlines. My characters tend to make certain demands of me out of the blue. They know what they want.

2) Knowing the complete background of characters -- to include secondary characters -- allowed them to hit the ground running. Book 1 and 2 also provided backstory to minor characters that are critical later in the series. The main protagonist's character development greatly benefited from this approach.

3) I was better able to create an overall trajectory for the series. The unanswered questions planted in Book 1 pulled readers through Book 4. This has resulted in great read-through. (Unlike the individual volumes, I haven't advertised the omnibus much. Upon publication, I watched what appeared to be one reader click through 1754 KENP, the exact length of the omnibus, in 2 days.)

4) I was able to do a staggered release over a few months rather than the two years it took to write it.

5) I'm now less hesitant to advertise Volume 1 as a permafree because I've got three more books to sell. This opens up many more advertising possibilities, critical in today's environment of super-high costs-per-click.

The downsides:
1) I went almost 2 years without a new release. The algorithm hated my other books for awhile. As I was switching genres, this was somewhat of a moot point, but is something to consider.

2) If this series flops, that's a lot of time wasted that I might have spent elsewhere.

3) The strongest book is Book 3 -- which might have sold better as a stand-alone. This is problematic if Book 1 is a flop.

[guest120]

I write from outlines, and I often have 3-4 books in the series outlined before I start writing book 1. It helps to know where things are going.


Lately I write out of order within a book because certain scenes are more fun than others. Even with an outline, it does make extra editing work to smooth inconsistencies.

Question: when you outline that extensively, do you find that you lose any interest in the project at all? Do you still feel as energized to write the story, or perhaps you feel more energized having outlined it so thoroughly? Genuinely curious, as I often struggle between plotting and pantsing and when to do either. Thanks for your insights. 

[Thaiphoon]

I get what you're saying. We want to put our best bit out as the first taste, while series tend to be the best at the end, because everything's so well-developed.


I think it would be really hard to write this way, though. You'd essentially be writing prequels to your books, which locks you down creatively, since you've already established what happens in the future.


It might be better to write the whole series, before launch, then go back and revise book 1 knowing what you know after writing book 3.

This will be my strategy. I'm writing book 1. When its at the editor I'll focus on book 2. Once I have all 3 books finished, I'll doublecheck to ensure that the storylines flow across the entire series arc and to ensure I don't have continuity issues.

And then I'll release them

[PermaStudent]

I write from outlines, and I often have 3-4 books in the series outlined before I start writing book 1. It helps to know where things are going.


Lately I write out of order within a book because certain scenes are more fun than others. Even with an outline, it does make extra editing work to smooth inconsistencies.

Question: when you outline that extensively, do you find that you lose any interest in the project at all? Do you still feel as energized to write the story, or perhaps you feel more energized having outlined it so thoroughly? Genuinely curious, as I often struggle between plotting and pantsing and when to do either. Thanks for your insights. 

I don't lose interest. If anything, it helps me keep interest because I'm focused on all the shiny reveals and funny moments I get to write. I get to mull those moments over and mentally distill them before they make it to the page, getting the word choices and pacing just right. I adjust my outlines if an idea comes along that's too good to pass up.

When I first started doing it this way (I pantsed my first handful of novels), my word counts dropped dramatically. I write more efficiently out of excitement to get to that-scene-I-really-wanted-to-write, but it isn't a bad thing. It helps me identify the really good scenes, what can be cut, and where more action is needed. And, of course, I know where I need to hide all of the little clues for The Final Twist.