Types of Series
by brandonsanderson on Jun.18, 2009, under Brandon Sanderson
Because of the excellent discussion we had here about the whole series vs. standalones idea, I thought it would be interesting to delve into the types of series out there and talk a little about how I envision each one. This is kind of off the cuff; I’ve never really looked at this before. But perhaps it will be interesting. If not, at the very least the post might make some fertile grounds for mockery.
Now, I’m not talking genres here—I’m talking about the actual format of the series. As I see it, there are several different types, and each have their advantages and disadvantages. And, because I’m like that, I figure I’ll try to name each one (mostly just for the purpose of discussion here).
Type One: The Saga
I’m borrowing this title from Lee Modesitt, who talks about his main series (the Saga of Recluse) in these terms. A saga by this definition is a series where the books are connected only in that they deal with the same world. A saga jumps around in time quite a bit, and rarely follows the same viewpoint characters for more than a few books. The author is really telling the story of the world and its history, rather than talking about a specific set of characters. The most famous example in sf/f would probably be the Pern books. You rarely have the same main protagonist from one book to another, and the books were not released in chronological order. Recluse, mentioned above, is another excellent example of this kind of series. Discworld would fit here too, though those do have a larger number of consistent viewpoint characters than some of the others.
I tend to like sagas because of the way they mix a standalone with a series. You can pick up any Pern or Discworld book anywhere in the series, and generally you’ll be all right if you’ve skipped a few. Continuity between books is less important than the story of the contained novel. If you do read them straight through, you gain a little bit more understanding, and can enjoy the ’series’ aspect of it that way. Of course, you always have the trouble of deciding whether to read the books chronologically as written, or as they happen in-world. (Personally, I vote for as written. Dragonflight isn’t the same if you’ve read the books about the arrival of mankind on the planet. Though, thinking of Pratchett, perhaps it would be interesting to start with the first one chronologically. What would that be? Small Gods?)
Type Two: Serialized Epic
These are the series where the next book in the series picks up right where the previous one left off. In essence, the author is writing one enormous book, releasing it in installments. Obviously, The Wheel of Time would fit here. Lord of the Rings is another great example. I’d probably cheat and slip Mistborn in here, though there are year gaps between the books. One essential feature of this type of book would be distinct, continuing characters and a continuing story that arcs over the course of several books.
The Serialized Epic is great because of the way it lets us invest in a series and characters over the long haul. The biggest problems are probably learning curve (you can’t just pick up the middle book in a series without being terribly confused) and cliffhangers. It’s extremely difficult to walk the line between giving each story its own arc and giving the entire series a larger arc, which leads to a lot of frustration as the books take time to wind down. However, despite its flaws, when this is done right it’s my favorite kind of series.
Type Three: The Continuing Adventures
This is the series where you get one central protagonist who has a complete story in each book. Then, when another book comes out, that character can go on another adventure. It differs from the saga in the fact that it goes chronologically and focuses on a single, central viewpoint character. The Dresden Files and the Miles Vorkosigan books are great examples of this type of series. Any given book could be the end, if it had to be, but we keep coming back to read more about the central character. Sometimes, there are longer arcs across books—but those are always secondary to the mystery or objective in each given volume.
These kinds of series can be very successful. (In fact, outside SF/F, I’d say this was the standard way of doing a series.) You gain even more flexibility for drawing in new readers with each book, as it doesn’t really matter where you start in the series. Sagas can get confusing because of their odd chronology, but the Continuing Adventures books are much more streamlined. However, they do usually trade some measure of scope and urgency to gain this format. I’ve found that I’m not as quick to run out and buy the next book in a Continuing Adventures book because the question of “What happens next” isn’t as strong as in the Serialized Epic. At the same time, I don’t get as frustrated with these series for not getting a volume out on time. They aren’t as confusing as the Saga, but at the same time, you don’t get to see the sheer scope of the world in the same way as you do with a series that jumps around through time and shows a lot of different viewpoints.
Well, I think that’s gone long enough. There are other types of series we could define. The Sequel Series (where an author follows one series with another) could be one. What kinds did I miss? Are there series that don’t fit any of these? What do you think of the categories? Did this even need to be defined? (Probably not, but I like thinking about and writing about these kinds of things.) What are your favorite types of series, and why? I’ll be eying the comments to see what I missed. Maybe we can come up with a good framework that covers all the series out there.
Related posts:
- The Fantasy Series I’m in the middle of an experiment. My newest book, Warbreaker, is a stand-alone epic fantasy, much as my first book Elantris was. Obviously, I’m not the only one to release stand-alones in this genre. There’s a grand tradition of it, and some of my personal favorite books are stand-alones. ...
- Guns and Words I can still remember the first fantasy novel I read that used gunpowder. It was one of the Robin McKinley books, the Blue Sword or The Hero and the Crown. I’ve mentioned before in one of these posts just how wrong that felt to me. And then, the fact that...
June 18th, 2009 on 5:06 pm
Hmm. I where do you suppose Harry Potter and the HP clones would fall. In someways, they are a serialized epic with one continuing story. Yet each book usually has a distinct story line that wraps up in the end. Also, HP clones almost always limit themselves to a very specific time period. HP, FabelHaven, etc all are based off a single school year. Percey Jackson is based of a single summer.
I wonder if having the time period so specific lowers the border of entry for readers even more than the continuing adventure type.
June 18th, 2009 on 5:07 pm
Looks like a very nice classification. I guess for example Harry Potter would fit in the continuing Adventures, but the later books tend to serialized epic. The same for Terry Goodkind’s books.
I personally prefer the serialized epic.
How about trilogies, there seems to be a lot of these in SF/F. I guess a single trilogy would could as serialized epic, but some writers have multiple of them in the same world. (eg R. E. Feist)
June 18th, 2009 on 5:07 pm
Man. I wish your blog had an edit post button. I always type something but have a million distractions, and when I read back through I always feel like a complete moron. Lol.
June 18th, 2009 on 5:29 pm
I think your classification is good and covers most books. I love the serialized epics myself especially the trilogies. It seems that whenever I buy a book or am given one as a gift, nine out of ten times it turns out to be a trilogy. I find there is just something compelling about trilogies. I quite enjoy the continuing adventures as well especially the Drizzt novels. I think the reason for this is I enjoy books that have well developed characters. I like to grow and feel with the characters (I actually get quite emotionally involved with them at times). I just don’t get this feel with the sagas so tend to stay away with them.
June 18th, 2009 on 5:32 pm
I’m curious how something with long-lived people who outlive their time, like Dune or the Ender series would be classified (Duncan and to a lesser extend Leto II in Dune and Ender and Valentine in Enderverse). These almost seem to be a hybrid of the three. It’s very much a story of the world, though often with the same perspectives. There is also an overarching storyline, though admittedly, that plot can be so broad that it may as well be called the “History of Man.” There are also elements of the Continuing Adventures here, but those are limited. Ender is the central protagonist in the first book, but in the rest, he is a protagonist, but one could argue that he could hardly be said to be the central one, merely one of many. Duncan may be present in the Dune books, but they are most definitely not the story of him. Just my thoughts on it.
June 18th, 2009 on 5:39 pm
Continuity of World.
Continuity of Story.
Continuity of Character(s).
The only thing I might add is that in some series, the same characters appear, but there is seemingly no character development from one book to the next. This is most apparent, I think, in some of the early detective series. I think it’s basically impossible to find any growth or development in Philip Marlow, or Lew Archer, from one book to the next. That was basically the norm in TV series for a long time as well.
Then there are series which then fit into something like a saga. I’m thinking of books like Robin Hobb’s Liveship books, which end up being set in the same world as the Farseer books, and the three series in the end can also be looked at as a kind of “continuing adventures.”
June 18th, 2009 on 5:49 pm
how interesting! I never thought of these “categories” before, but it makes sense.
I giggle, because the “Continuing Adventures” is becoming a rabidly popular trend in paranormal romance (esp. of the vampire variety). In some cases, some para romance series have become as addicting as fantasy series in terms of the storyline (ie. “I hope they tell this character’s story next,” etc.). J.R. Ward is a good example.
June 18th, 2009 on 5:56 pm
I like the serialized epics more than I do sagas. Installments in sagas are too short to get a good feel for the characters. Like Modesitt’s Saga of Recluce; I read one book fully expecting to be more than just one following this character, but when the plot ended at the end of the first book, so did my interest. It’s hard to grow attached to a world when the characters that populate it keep changing. In the epics, however, you’re given a window into both the world and its inhabitants, and, as was said, gives you a much more fulfilling emotional investment. And, to be honest, I kind of like the cliffhangers, even though my groan is proportionally loud as the cliffhanger is.. cliffhangy.
June 18th, 2009 on 6:37 pm
Adam said:
June 18th, 2009 on 5:06 pm
Hmm. I where do you suppose Harry Potter and the HP clones would fall. In someways, they are a serialized epic with one continuing story. Yet each book usually has a distinct story line that wraps up in the end. Also, HP clones almost always limit themselves to a very specific time period. HP, FabelHaven, etc all are based off a single school year. Percey Jackson is based of a single summer. . . .
Um, I think HP is very similar to the WoT series. JKR knew before she began writing where she wanted to take the series, and everything in the books all lead the end. I was pleasantly amazed when I read the EotW again after completing the books through KoD and saw how much Jordan had planned it all. There are so many clues all the way through. The WoT series is almost like HP on steroids. Talk about a million lose ends that must be tied up.
So I think HP is definitely a serialized epic.
Now Warbreaker at first looks like it’s a standalone, but by the end it’s obviously going to be part of a series. I’m guessing Continuing Adventures.
June 18th, 2009 on 6:38 pm
Jo Walton had a similar post about different types of series over at tor.com (http://www.tor.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=blog&id=20889).
Personally, I like your Type Three best - also Jo’s Type Three. Another great example of this one is the Vlad Taltos series by Steven Brust.
June 18th, 2009 on 6:46 pm
Personally I will nearly always choose a serialized epic over saga or continuing adventures. I would also choose a standalone over the latter two, as long as it sounded like an interesting story and wasn’t less than 400 pages long; anything shorter than 400 and it’s finished in a single night and usually not worth the effort. Very strong recommendations by friends who’s opinions I value are enough to overcome my general buying tendencies, which led to the Corean Chronicles by L.E. Modesitt for example. Although, I guess that series is kind of a serialized epic saga?
June 18th, 2009 on 7:24 pm
I like the way you categorized the types of serieses. I, myself, am a big fan of serialized epics, and sequel serieses. Like someone already pointed out, why should you care about the world if you don’t develop a connection with the characters you’re reading about? Tamora Pierce is a good example of why I like sequel serieses. She tends to write a quartet about a single character, with an adventure that ends with each book, while keeping some long term elements. There’s allot of character development, and the final book is always the most climactic one. By the end of the series, you’ve grown attached to the characters. The good thing is, they don’t disappear. When you start the next quartet, you can bet the characters you’ve grown to know and love will be around, probably mentoring or periodically interacting with the new view point character. It’s a little of everything. It tells a history of the world, simply choosing a new character to tell the story from when the most influential time in their lives and in history has passed. That way each new series is building on the foundation of the previous ones, without requiring you to start from the very beginning.
I believe one of the hardest jobs an author has is to make the reader care about the characters. In serialized epics like the Wheel of Time, or Sword of Truth, the job is made a bit easier. Once the reader has developed a repore with the characters, they’re less likely to stop reading.
June 18th, 2009 on 7:39 pm
Another great blog topic! I have read all 3 types but I like the continuing adventures best right now, followed closely by serialized epic. Dresden files, Rachel Morgan, sookie stackhouse, Anita Blake… I can’t wait for the next book in each of these series to come out. But I also wait very impatiently for the next book in the epic style as well.
June 18th, 2009 on 10:40 pm
I like trilogies the best. It’s the perfect middle ground between stand-alone and twenty book epic. That’s why I read Mistborn before Elantris. If you see a book is part one of a trilogy, you know you’ll be rewarding for reading to the end of the book with more books to read.
June 19th, 2009 on 12:24 am
Serialized epics are the most rewarding reads when done right. The authors have time to build a complex world that can enrapture the viewer, and the characters are allowed further growth with the story (and each author’s expertise). The main concern I have with serialized epics is that they must end well, either within each book or as a whole series.
If the series has a weak ending but the books are more compartmentalized, then the more interesting books in the series can be read without necessarily reading the entire collection. The original Ender’s Game series is my best example here, where Ender’s Game and Speaker of the Dead were both, in essence, continuing adventures, and Xenocide and Children of the Mind were a less-read and non-crucial continuation.
If the individual books in a series have weak or cliffhanger-heavy endings, but the series as a whole is solid, then the authors can continue to attract their readers with promise for more content. Crossroads of Twilight was a poor individual book in the WoT series, but Knife of Dreams was immensely better and transformed Crossroads into an exceedingly long prologue.
Keyes’ Kingdom of Thorn and Bone is an example of a series that started incredibly well, but between cliffhanger endings and a poor last novel I will probably never re-read the series. The books are too joined; reading the first two books only would feel like reading half a book. It doesn’t feel right.
June 19th, 2009 on 4:30 am
My favorite would be hard to pin down. What got me hooked in fantasy was definitely the Wheel of Time. Tends to be a problem right now, because when starting with something that grand you always start looking for things similar, and maybe even better. In the case of WoT, there is not much better. So my favorite is clearly the Serialized Epic.
The nine books by Hobb are fantastic, though. Still, in the end of these nine books, can´t one argue that it IS - in some kinds - a serialized epic? Hobb uses different main characters, but the theme - the deft manipulator, the white prophet, the Fool - is continuing throughout the books, and even though the focus is on other characters, it is always on him as well.
The Discworld novels are a fun pastime, and I love reading them.
But the thing I`ll always come back to is the world of the Wheel.
June 19th, 2009 on 12:17 pm
I think my vote is mixed between the serialized epic and the continuing saga. If done well, either is a good read. The continuing sagas, as has already been mentioned, seem to work well in sets of trilogies. Mercedes Lackey’s Valdemar books are set up this way, and there are stand alones woven in to fill in different time periods. Jacqueline Carey’s Kushiel trilogies were also very well done, and I know there’s a new book coming following the thread of another character this summer.
The epic books can be a great read, as long as you are patient. Waiting 20 (or more) years to finish King’s Gunslinger series is asking a lot, but they were so well written, who could stay away? Sometimes, the author falters (Pillars of Creation/Goodkind), but come back with a great ending - the confessor trilogy was brilliant. There are also times when it seems like an epic should have been a series - Katherine Kerr is an example. The Deverry series continued even after the majority of her main characters had died. I would have been so much happier if she had closed off that series, and then continued with a new trilogy (instead of leaving it connected) if she wanted to further pursue her story about Rhodry. Just my opinion, though.
March 13th, 2010 on 2:38 am
Will it be alright to use on sensitive teeth?
August 16th, 2010 on 6:37 pm
gr8 bro resrch …