What I hate is when it's not obvious whether a book I want to buy is part of a series or not.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Yes, that's another gambit with first volumes- don't announce the fact that if it does well, there'll be a sequel and it may end on a cliffhanger rather than with a satisfactory conclusion.
@SolarLabyrinth9 ай бұрын
I long for the days of more singletons and short stories. It baffles me that in our modern, fast-paced world, the long book series remains so popular while most other media is shrinking down to more bite-sized, consumable lengths. I do wonder how the inability of George RR Martin and Patrick Rothfuss to finish their popular series could affect this going forward, though. I know many readers now refuse to even begin a series before it is finished, so they won't be left on the hook for many years with no resolution. That can't be good for book sales if it does become a larger trend. Perhaps it leads to more authors doing the Moorcock model of producing more standalone books and smaller trilogies that are thematically linked rather than being direct sequels so each can be read on its own. I also think of an author like Steven Erikson, who hit it big with the Malazan books but has made comments insinuating that he's stifled creatively by having to continue to pump the books out when he would prefer to write something else. He also had to delay the completion of a prequel trilogy to his popular Malazan Book of the Fallen because the second volume did not sell well enough and instead his publisher wanted him to start a new sequel trilogy instead. So he now has two ongoing, incomplete trilogies instead of one, yet in both cases readers really need to read 10 whole giant books BEFORE they read the prequel and sequel trilogies. How is that good for book sales when it's a prerequisite to read 10,000 pages of a long series before you can read the prequel or sequel series?
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
This always fascinates me - people have shorter and shorter attention spans, yet want to be spoonfed hundreds of pages of the same old thing. Martin really should have wound 'Song' up in a trilogy as he originally planned, then we got 'Feast For Crows', hundreds of pages of pawns moving around to no affect- and a decade long block. Shame, as he was a great entertainer up until that point. I don't think Rothfuss wants to write another sequel- his favourite book is Beagle's 'The Last Unicorn', an altogether more artful thing and I reckon he'd like to go down that route. But he doesn't need the money, as his books still sell so well. Erikson is an interesting case, as Malazan is a cut way above most of its kind and again, I think you're right- he did a book called 'Revolvo' for PS some years back, an SF novella that was more like the work of William S Burroughs or David Cronenberg than anything else. It was arch, strange and very good indeed.
@SolarLabyrinth9 ай бұрын
Erikson is a somewhat disappointing case because I do think he is a very good writer. I have read several of his essays on writing and he seems to know what he's doing despite having his critics. I enjoy the Malazan books and agree they are a cut above most else out there. Part of their originality is likely because Erikson was inspired by Robert E Howard (and Donaldson and Cook) more so than Tolkien. Some may think me mad given how long and expansive his series is, but I think what he has done with Malazan is to take traditional sword and sorcery and stretch it out to the epic proportions more often found in high, Tolkien-esque fantasy. You mostly see it whenever he pairs together characters for long stretches or shifts the focus to Karsa Orlong (his primary Conan stand-in). It's sword and sorcery, but smuggled into a more epic fantasy setting. Not to mention the fact that Erikson learned to write by writing short stories, so he writes with the similar dense prose necessary in a short work, but again he stretches it out over 1000 pages, which is one reason why many find his writing style challenging. Again, I like Malazan but do not need 16 novels of it (not to mention almost as many from Cam Esslemont). The more they answer questions and attempt to expand the world, the more they actually work to shrink it. I wish Erikson could have been allowed to explore more outside of the few side SF books he's done.@@outlawbookselleroriginal
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
@@SolarLabyrinth Of course Martin too was originally inspired by trad S&S before Tolkien- GOT owes a big debt to Zelazny's 'Nine Princes In Amber'- I talked to him about this when we met. Now, even the traditional guys have to write these massive things, it's clearly publisher expectation, which is a shame.
@DanielRumbacher9 ай бұрын
these big series are a big part why i dont read fantasy anymore. i havent even read song of ice and fire yet. and i will not read brian sandersons books.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
@@DanielRumbacher You mean Brandon, but hey. who gives a ****, right? What incensed me about Sanderson is that he sells millions of tons of books, yet he kickstarted/crowdfunded one recently?!?! ..and people were silly enough to give him money to publish it...and then Gollancz issued it. Absurd!
@aniketsanyal55869 ай бұрын
This is a great, informative video, and you articulated your points on the SF/F trilogy situation very well! Obvious to see plenty of experience and knowledge backing up what you're explaining here. I was previously aware of 1977 being a pivotal year for books published under the "epic fantasy" subgenre tag with Terry Brooks of course, and Donaldson's Thomas Covenant seeing success, not to mention Christopher Tolkien's posthumous publication of The Silmarillion (could one consider The Silmarillion a 'fix-up' of sorts? I wonder!) But watching this I did forget about 1977 being the year of Star Wars, and I didn't know about Lester Del Rey's impact in publishing, along with other big genre books of past eras (Heinlein with 'Stranger' and Herbert's Dune of course). I appreciate this upload quite a bit, looking forward to more!
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Glad you liked it and great to hear from you as always. I have covered all these things before, so do look at the videos that pop up at the end of this one. Tolkien? Fascinating to see his project being published in full, but a bit tedious at times to say the least and as I say, ultimately it has ruined the short form that S&S used to be....
@SciFiScavenger9 ай бұрын
Very interesting, good stuff Professor Andrews! For what it's worth i wouldnt call Banks's SF work a series. They each stand on their own feet as singletons, although of course they share a foundational, er, culture. And two or three of his SF books are in fact singletons, not in the culture milieu. Anyway, your point is well made. I do like to wallow in a fat series/trilogy from time to time, but equally have lost my way in several, in particular fantasy, series. DNFd Sanderson Stormlight and Jordon's Wheel of Time. 👍
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Yes, I agree re Banks, I select him purely as he was undoubtedly the man who rebooted the Space Opera- and he did it right by going with a shared universe that allowed for flexibility - and as you say, there are the singletons too, like 'The Algebraist'. A for Jordan and Sanderson, cardinal examples of 'if they want pigswill, keep filling the trough'!
@mike-williams9 ай бұрын
I get peeved by the 'disguised' trilogy or series which is a singleton that ends in an unresolved fashion with a final page saying "read more in forthcoming". None of that is disclosed on the cover. Classic example was the big fat "The Reality Dysfunction" which became Hamilton's "Night's Dawn Trilogy". I really didn't want to buy the first in an unfinished series as I had been burned by long delays in series by Julian May, David Eddings and others. As you say,. I'd rather that authors started with some good stand alone works, or wrote self-contained works within their fictional world (e.g. Mieville's Bas-Lag novels). I've recently been going back to watch old TV shows from the 70s and early 80s which were so much more economical in their story-telling but didn't lose anything in character development. If they were made now they'd be three times as long and half as entertaining.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
100% right, Mike. Good to hear from you here, been a while! Hope you are well.
@jackdoud9 ай бұрын
As an organizer of a monthly SF/F bookclub it's really hard to find short to mid-length singletons every month. So much is either part of a series or 500+ pages anymore. Often the first books in series are just establishing the settings and the real meat of the story doesn't start until book 2, 3, 5, so as a discussion topic it's unfulfilling. I also can't force my members to commit to making it through a massive tome in 4 weeks as we are a lite social group and all have lives to live.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Your only recourse is to retreat into the past and pick singletons from 1940-1990, or look at writers such as Adam Roberts, Christopher Priest, Nina Allan, Chris Beckett and others who still produce singletons. All of these authors are covered on this channel and most interviewed here.
@EricKay_Scifi7 ай бұрын
This is what I'm writing. Hard SF at ~200 pages and each ends with few or any open threads.
@klipkultur36809 ай бұрын
I love listening to you Stephen. Take care!
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
I love hearing from you too, thanks !
@leakybootpress96999 ай бұрын
I'm with you on this, Steve, as you may have guessed. I've seen too many good writers sell themselves out to series writing. It must be frustrating for them to write essentially the same story over and over again with minor variations, although i can understand that sometimes there is a financial imperative to do so. Terry Pratchett, not a very good writer, became rich doing it; so to, i believe, did Douglas Adams, another not very good writer, who plagiarised other, better SF writers mercilessly. There are of course "trilogies" which need the three volumes. Alsiss' wonderful Helliconia, for example, conceived as a whole, but with a structure which dictated a three volume approach. People still ask me why Brian never published Helliconia Autumn, which tells us how little they understood, and also says something about the mentality of those who love series... Let's call it lazy writing for lazy readers, although not everyone wants books which demand thought from them.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Agreed, James. I mentioned Adams in a reply to another commenter here and must do a video about the writers and books he drew on - Asimov, Kuttner, Henlein, Sheckley- I'm sure we can think of more between us.
@rickkearn71009 ай бұрын
By far, this is the best explanation of the trilogy phenom and its roots that I have seen to date. Well done, OB! As always, great content, quality, production and especially presentation. Cheers!
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
You're a stalwart, Rick. We need more like you! Have a great weekend.
@richardtoogood98175 ай бұрын
An interesting and thought provoking essay, Steve. One with which I find myself in general agreement. One only need consider the sad case of Paul Kearney to find evidence to support what you suggest. A marvellous fantasy writer whose career was effectively terminated by Bantam when they dropped him after the second volume in the Sea Beggars series. And then maliciously retained the rights to the third volume to stop anyone else from issuing it. What purpose was served by such? With its episodic origins in magazines, it is perhaps only natural that sword & sorcery should graduate so easily into multi volume book series. The same holds true for crime fiction. However, I would argue that there was a lot more one off fantasies published during the 80s and 90s than you suggest. The best selling David Gemmell alone produced a lot of it. Trilogies can be great when they're properly planned as such, and each volume demonstrates discernible plot and character development. I would point to Angus Wells' Book of the Kingdoms and Bernard King's Starkadder series as evidence of this. King's trilogy especially is in sore need of a reissue with the final volume DEATH-BLINDER being so hard to find. Sorry its been so long since I've posted here. Such are the vicissitudes of real life. Really hoping I can catch up with you at the London fair in a fortnight.
@outlawbookselleroriginal5 ай бұрын
Would be great to see you too, Richard- I agree there were still some singletons then, but now....thanks for your thoughtful post.
@daveac9 ай бұрын
Generally agree with all your points. There is his pressure in today's world that (in a number of fields) you have 'one shot' at success. As you said with early SF often a book would be a reworking of a published short story or series in a Monthly Magazine (Nightfall, Space Family Jones & Hothouse come to mind) so the publish hardback would have been revised and re-visited all contributing to a well crafted finish article. And often writers (it would seem to me) to have had full-time jobs and honed their craft on a number of books before their 'launch into the public gaze' You pointed in a way to the fact that publishing is driven so much by marketing an launches which have inherent risks & cost (to the publishers) that, as you say 3 strikes and you are out. Although the same rules may not apply similar concerns are raised by Film buffs worry - in that some movies come out where the 'first' movies spends so much of the time 'world-building' for a 7 movie franchise that they misjudge the need for the first 'installment' to deliver a cracking adventure! NOTE My favourite long running SF series is still 'Dumarest' by E. C. Tubb - and he knew a trick about publishing as in each of the different genures he wrote under a different name!
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
All points I agree with. Yes, Tubb was an old craftsman and knew how to play it- it is harder now, I think, with most of the magazine markets gone, but I do blame publishers for having such a monolithic approach. I've pretty much always been against self-publishing (see my video on this posted around a month ago), but I am thinking now for truly radical or even mildly mould breaking work, this may be a way forward.
@andrewkrelle77819 ай бұрын
Good Video Stephen, I have some sympathy with your hypothesis. I don't think is it a coincidence that the arrival of the word processor coincided with the takeoff of the trilogy in genre fiction and the takeoff in the size of the comprising books. I think that publishers (rightly) driven by profits collude with the book buying public to put these monsters on the shelves. "If a little is good, then more must be better". And what looks better on that shelf, three fat, shiny books or a couple of slender volumes. I think this happens more in Fantasy where there is I believe the propensity for readers to want to wallow in the worlds they are indulging in. You spoke of the New British Space Opera lead by Banks producing this long series of books, but call it a shared universe or whatever, the books are not direct sequels and one does not have to read a second or third volume in order to finish the story. The same is more or less true of Alastair Reynolds, both have lots of books that are not direct sequels. On the other hand you have writers like Peter F. Hamilton who does produce multi-volume stories or Stephen Baxter with a foot in each camp. But is the Shared Universe model that different from what Burroughs was producing with his Mars books or Brackett with her Stark stories or any one of the planetary romance authors? Even Moorcock's Multiverse and his eternal champion. The only thing nowadays, is to my first argument in that the books are often quite weighty tomes whether singletons or not. Do I wish we could have another Ballard or Vonnegut or Dick who can produce a book of 150-200 pages that knocks your socks of? Of course, time is getting shorter, the hours left to read books and ponder new ideas is getting less. We could read five older books in the time it takes to read a single newer one. This doesn't mean that the time invested in newer books is a waste but that I must read judiciously. For what Its worth, Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword is also my favourite Fantasy novel. On all the KZfaq channels I've watched that list their favourite or top 10 etc Fantasy books, this is the first I have seen mention it. Good Video Stephen.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Well yes, Al Reynolds and many others do the 'shared universe' thing and it's not new- but the writers starting with a tight trilogy (take for example Andrew Bannister) often end up out in the cold if the books don't catch on in the manner I described. I think one thing about say Burroughs et al, is that many of the books were self-contained in themselves to a strong degree, which is a safe bet. Also, as you say, size is a massive factor. Today, publishers foist 'familiarity' on readers, not the knocking off of the socks- and the latter is what all truly great SF writers aim for at the closings of their stories and novels: such effects are diminished by pointless sequels. I sell 'The Broken Sword' all the time and have done for years: it's so seminal, I can't take any S&S reader seriously until they've given it a crack. Good to hear from you, thanks for your comment.
@leemason68979 ай бұрын
I seem to recall that George Gissing made some interesting observations on the pressure to write trilogies and the artistic compromises that entails as far back as 1891's "New Grub Street". Great and very insightful video as always, as someone who's been in bookselling a while myself (28 years last month) I always find myself nodding in recognition at pretty much everything you say. Keep up the good work.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Thanks for that, great to hear from another Life Sentence Bookseller- you have my respect!
@andreabknight9 ай бұрын
I think some of this has come about because of binge watching in terms of modern tv streaming/box sets etc. Modern times have encouraged this binge mentality and it has transferred to books. Many people want to keep hearing more about the same characters etc and don't want to start with new ones, a new world etc. The reason for a lack of standalone books is similar to why modern movies are now more series focussed than ever- single films are less popular. The problem is I think it can go too far and people get burned out on these series and as you say, the quality often drops off. Some series are so large, with new books/films coming out so often that people feel overwhelmed and if they miss a book may feel they can't catch up, which then means they stop reading/watching that series. This can then be the death of a formerly popular series- it grows too large and people can't keep up and/or the novelty wore off or people decide not to continue as it becomes stale.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
You make a good point, but of course the phenomenon of the 'trilogy that becomes a never ending saga' -as I describe in the video - really started big time in 1977 and has become dominant in SFF books because of what happened then, so it predates contemporary streaming TV/boxset bingewatching. The best series -tv or books- will have a strong arc, character development and resolution- and if the latter is not carefully thought out and hinted at/developed through the series -and it has to be an explicable part of the storytelling- then all we're dealing with is the Soap Opera situation.
@luiznogueira15799 ай бұрын
Very interesting, if rather grim, take on how the publishing market works. Felt really bad for the guy who was wrecked by a bad paperback cover(as a graphic designer such things resonate with me). Having given up on reading SF/Fantasy in the mid 90's, I wasn't aware until recently how much the genres have been taken over by serialized publication. A recent video about 'current releases' left me with a VERY poor impression on what's been coming out these days... Never thought much about trilogies back in the day, except when Arthur C Clarke DARED to write a sequel to '2001'(don't get me started...)I suppose the only thing I required was that the author had enough 'fuel' to keep it going, and most of the ones I read didn't disappoint(Jack Vance and Roger Zelazny come to mind) I feel sorry for the readers who are abandoned by their revered authors, like that lazy old GRRM, with is inability to finish the darned Ice&fire series. Fortunately, back in the 70's I'd read some of his standalones and found them pretty dreadful, so I never fell into the GoT black hole...
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
It is a grim take, I agree, but it is a factual one. As you say, we didn't think much about the dreaded sequels back in the day- the bliss of the mid 80s and beforehand in SF, right? As for GRRM, I think 'Fevre Dream' and 'The Armageddon Rag' are good entertainments (though the latter has some cringey moments when it tries too hard to convey what rock and roll is really like, something few writers can do) and even now I meet people who claim to be fanas who have not read these. But I know what you mean- Martin's retreat into prequels may of course actually be a canny money-making thing, as you do wonder how a conclusion to 'A Song of Ice & Fire' would actually go down given that it was overtaken by the TV series. As the books grew beyond their initial planned trilogy form, I think Martin didn't know how the series would end......
@luiznogueira15799 ай бұрын
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I think It was A Song for Lya that struck me as terribly written. His prose style was like wading through a swamp made of some sugary gloop. For decades I'd cite GRRM as an example of "awful writing"! Who knew... I must confess that the first Season of GoT had me hooked, especially the ending. But It was all downhill from there. It soon became clear that the two showrunners were in over their heads. I doubt GRRM will ever finish It now(don't care, either...)
@gabrielsyme55709 ай бұрын
Trilogies have definitely become a red flag for me when picking out books. I'll pick up a longer series (usually out of order), but trilogies automatically go to the bottom of my reading list. One-offs or loose series (such as books that share a setting but are otherwise standalone) have been by favorites for a while now, and I think that was true even of books that stuck in my mind as a kid. I do apply a curve for book length, though. Much more accepting of a series like Zelazny's Amber novels, where most of the books are under 200 pages. I do enjoy Tolkien, but I can't stand his imitators.
@danieldelvalle50049 ай бұрын
As far as series go in SF, you could argue that this trend is a throwback to the planetary romances of Edgar Rice Burroughs. The Mars series alone goes up to 11 books. Then there are his other series from Tarzan to Westerns. Many were serials in the old pulp magazines. They weren't actually books until later. Star Wars, the throw back to the 30s Space Operas, Dune, the throw back to the series type planetary romances, only more ponderous and pompous. ERB was pure pulp and fun at least. It played its part.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Yes, of course, whenever I have a go at the 'series mentality' I think of these things and also going back even further, the almost endless 'Varney The Vampire' and Dicken's habit of padding books out to huge lengths when they were serials that were going down well with readers. It's the ponderousness and pomp, as you say- we feel similar pain on this, I know!
@danieldelvalle50049 ай бұрын
@@outlawbookselleroriginal A couple of years ago I decided to read all six books of the Dune series. I don't know what got in to me to do this, maybe a hidden masochistic streak in my character. Anyway, I completed the series and was immensely underwhelmed. I think the second book, Dune Messiah, held up a little bit, but as I mentioned before, it was all ponderous and overblown. The prose was clunky. Give me a Silverberg, Dick or Ballard singleton anytime.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
@@danieldelvalle5004 I could not agree more- the themes of the series are covered much better by PKD and Silverberg anyway.
@unstopitable9 ай бұрын
Some really fascinating insights. I've never heard anyone make the connection between hippie culture and its explosive effect on the sales of Tolkien's work, yet it is there--shrooms, weed, hand-carved pipes, sandalwood incense, the earthiness, the whole thing about Mother Earth, The Whole Earth Catalog, etc. It makes sense that such a 'Geist would love hobbits, elves, etc. Very perceptive of you. And I agree: SF=innovation, fantasy=fossilization. It's one of the reasons why I haven't read much Sword & Sorcery. Aside from Tolkien, Howard, Leiber, why bother? (And I do like Martin). Die-hard fantasy fans remind me of romance readers: they know what kind of drug they want, and that's that. Without a doubt, everything you say about not publishing, first, a trilogy before you write a singleton, I agree with--in terms of traditional publishing. But I think it could be a little different when it comes to indie publishing, if only because (at least up until now) the strategy is to have a series ready to go, and basically make the first book free--which, I know, sounds even more insane, but considering the Sea of Dross that self-publishing is, and how Amazon's abusive corporate tactics work, the indie writer is pushed into writing this way. Personally, I love when SF novels were a lot shorter (usually a little less than 80k words, maybe as low as 50k). Also: Just as Star Wars is partially to blame for the disease of series-itis, I also think Netflix, nowadays, is even more to blame, not just in terms of writing structure but in pricing schemes (the dreaded subscription model). Thanks, Outlaw, for another insightful video.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Thank you for your comment. In my video on self-publishing, I make the point that for more radical work that the market won't accept now, it may be a permissible way forward, though there is always this issue of 'vanity publishing' in self-publishing instances, so I still ultimately favour pro publishing only- but things are changing....and yes, Fantasy is a totally different beast to SF in my view and the historical reasons they were lumped together are melting away more and more as time goes on- except in the minds of publishers, who will have one budget for both genres: a serious problem for SF, which is- most of the time- always more demanding of the reader, as you imply.
@unstopitable9 ай бұрын
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Thanks, Outlaw, for the reply. Much appreciated.
@timcoombs27809 ай бұрын
Another point to consider is the transfer of the story to film and TV. A series of books, ripe for adaptation, can make a studio a LOT of money where a one-shot will only have a more limited return. For example, how much money do you reckon Stephanie Meyer made from the Twilight films compared to CP with ‘The Prestige’?
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Exactly, Doctor! And I'm sure I told you the story of the unwritten sequel to 'The Prestige', which Simon & Schuster and Chris' agent didn't want- now, of course, they'd lap it up! Be in touch tomorrow re comics.
@JulianBills9 ай бұрын
I read the "Three Body problem" trilogy by Cixin Liu. First two books okay, third one "Death's End" was terrible, way too long (700 pages) with a protagonist that did stupid things. Liu should have concluded with the second book.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
This is exactly my point: the 'trilogy' is more often than not contrived, pointless and written for money's sake, not for art's sake. Another example was Richard Morgan's 'Altered Carbon' - the sequels are well written, but needless- thankfully Richard turned to singletons then. For decades I've done the 'read volume one and then get out thing,' and it usually works for me.
@user-mb9ll9wy6g9 ай бұрын
Hi Stephen I hope you are well.. Your mini histories & overviews are as invaluable as they are useful. Thanks
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
I'm ticking along slowly, thanks. Glad you're enjoying the channel.
@KCreading-Writing9 ай бұрын
I intentionally avoid artificially constructed trilogies. As a result, the contemporary SF novel is rarely found in my reading queue. If I pick up a book and, even if the description intrigues me, I will probably put it down if I see it is part of a planned trilogy, as I have little patience in the ponderous. That means I read a lot of singletons before the '80s and '90s, with many books coming from the '50s, '60s, and '70s precisely because they are fresh or possess a single, powerful novum. Another magnificent overview, Stephen.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Yeah, the Singleton isn't just King, it's Emperor, right? Thanks again!
@ExpatRiot799 ай бұрын
I didn't mean to write a trilogy, I just did. Finished the rough draft for the first book and realized it was the last book, so started the first book and at 800 pages thought it might be a good idea to cut it in half. In fantasy, at least, these days people want to "spend time" in universes and with familiar characters. At least that's what the big fantasy booktubers are all about. At any rate. Good video.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Some people may want this - and I agree that's the majority- but does it make for REAL Fantasy, which should surely be imaginative and stimulating? As for the 'big fantasy booktubers', I find most of them have no real idea of how the genre evolved and have read nothing prior to the 1977 boom with the possible exception of Tolkien. But as you say, these readers clearly want to the same old thing, not to be awakened with something innovative- which underlines the fundamental difference between SF and Fantasy: one is about the future and change, the other is about the static past....
@salty-walt9 ай бұрын
EXCELLENT VIDEO. I would second your opinions based upon my experience in publishing, and as a bookseller myself. So many truisms included within the text and even the subtext of this video! If I enumerate them all I will look like the crazy person. But the author, until a proven success, is seen as a disposable commodity. If you'll excuse me now, Duty demands I must walk to Chinatown to buy a bushel of sweet potatoes.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
That's the duty of genius as Wittgenstein might have said!
@kufujitsu9 ай бұрын
Even at my advanced age, I still haven't read The Lord of the Rings trilogy. LOL - I don't mind series & trilogies (especially SF series) though - as long as they're good - I've read Octavia Butler's Xenogenesis trilogy, Silverberg's Majipoor Chronicles, the amazing (especially the first 2 volumes) Gormenghast trilogy by Mervyn Peake, The Dying Earth series by Jack Vance (& others by this talented author)...... & John Varley's constantly surprising Gaean Trilogy. I suppose the closest thing to the "high fantasy trilogy" genre that I read was the Thomas Covenant six volume series by Stephen Donaldson, which was good, but it left me with little inclination to explore that genre much further - I tried to enjoy the 1st volume of The Game of Thrones by George R.R Martin, but it just wasn't my cup of tea - even though still I understood & appreciated it's quality. I found that there is a lot of good SF stuff out there that blows many of these overrated & padded fantasy series right out of the water....
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Don't feel you have to read LOTR. It is, despite its influence, hugely overrated - Peake is way, way more imaginative and groundbreaking. SIlverberg and Vance? Well, YES!
@lissavanhouten66289 ай бұрын
I thought Sword of Shannara was poorly written even when I read it years ago. I read a few of the sequels though, and the writing got better.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Well, he's been very successful, but as I described, it was deliberately commissioned by Lester Del Rey to fill the Tolkien hole. A disaster for genre fiction that has snowballed- in a few years, no-one will be able to sell a singleton to a mainstream publisher the way things as going.
@themojocorpse12909 ай бұрын
Very valid points you make regarding the tired old trilogy format . The exceptions to the rule are few and far between . The last decent one I’ve read was Adrian Tchaikovskys children of time but even then by the end of the second I’d had enough . The stand alone is a far more interesting because new ideas concepts and characters are generally more challenging than being spoon fed same old same old . Don’t get me wrong being immersed in a universe is fine but unfortunately there is just too much of it nowadays. Thank you for putting this out there I share your opinion . Ps Really like the M M corum books
@thehound96389 ай бұрын
I loved the first one and very much enjoyed the second. I don't think the third one was of the same standard though. If there's a forth book in this series I might give it a miss. I've recently discovered Blake Crouch and although I haven't read the "Wayward Pines" trilogy yet, I've already gone through many of his stand alone novels and I haven't read a bad one yet!
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
I think Adrian can write really well, but he produces WAY too much. I keep telling my customers that 'Dogs of War' is his best books but most of them have never heard of it. I liked 'The Expert Systems Brother' as well, but while I could see why people liked 'The Children of Time', it was an overblown 'Seedling Stars' (see my James Blish video from a few weeks back) to my mind. By overproducing, he's also churned out some books that are nowhere near as well written as his best. He should slow down, as he's making loads of money anyway.
@SamManso9 ай бұрын
I liked Asimov's original Foundation trilogy and because he connected all the robot stories with the Foundation, I had to read the rest. But there was only a few tidbits of new ideas and concepts in the rest of the Foundation Series that perhaps amounted to 20 pages (I'm being generous) in total. The other series I read was Larry Niven's Ringworld. The first book was great but the rest could've been written as a couple of short stories or maybe a novella- I got tired of them. After that, I avoided series and that's why I never read Banks, Baxter, May, and avoided Simmons' Hyperion cantos (I don't care how much people love those books) and anything written after 1990. I would like SF books to raise ideas and concepts and to challenge notions and to give interesting characters, human, alien or whatever. But do it in one book and move on to some other idea. The capitalist market demands sacrifice and money is the mistress that must be obeyed. Resistance is .....hmm! Well, I, and a few others, are resisting. And thankfully, you too, Mr. Outlaw. Stay healthy and am looking forward to your next video - at your own pace.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Asimov got a lot of criticism in the 1980s when he revealed how the Robot series precedes Galactic Empire and Foundation- people felt this was a cheat, but I think it was a master stroke of conceptual breakthrough, so I always recommend people read the Robot Novels before the rest (also by the time he wrote 'Caves of Steel' he could actually write pretty well, while the earlier stuff is a bit laborious in terms of prose style). I found his 1980s books, despite their huge size, his most enjoyable- they are stately rather than ponderous and fit the strange obsessions with toilets and so on in the Robot era. 'Hyperion' - I like a bit of Simmons, but never felt I missed out after the first book, which is good. It was enough though. Banks, Baxter, May and Hamilton I find tedious in the extreme, I must say. As you say, SF works best though the singleton- it was good enough for Dick, Silverberg (until Majipoor), Vonnegut and many others...and thanks for your kind comment re my health. I'll get there.
@jeroenadmiraal87149 ай бұрын
Excellent video Steven, very informative!
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Cheers!
@niriop9 ай бұрын
Solid video, agree completely. I don’t think I’d even contemplate buying a novel with “Book One” or worse a “#1” in the title.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
You said it....!
@paulallison64189 ай бұрын
Very interesting essay Stephen, I really can see where you are coming from here. Of course I have been reading Science Fiction since the 70's so its easy for me to understand where you are coming from. One thing I have noticed with a trilogy is that everybody knows the first book but the 2nd and 3rd often become lost to time. I have enjoyed two trilogies recently The Spatterjay series by Neil Asher book 1 of the series The Skinner is a great novel and I think does stand alone but the 2nd The Voyage of the Sable Keech and the 3rd Orbus I thought were ok. Another trilogy however by Adrian Tchaikovsky kicked off by Children of Time I thought was excellent where all three books are superb and in fact I preferred the 3rd book in the series Children of Memory!
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Interesting to hear someone enjoying volume 3 more- which probably says something about AT rather than the 'diminishing returns' phenomenon itself. It's these exceptions that make the rule, right? Great to hear from another veteran.
@TheMikekscott9 ай бұрын
Thanks for the analysis. I’d be interested to know how these pressures apply to publishing more generally. Are authors once picked up by a publisher just asked to produce a certain number of books which is an easier thing to do than being asked to produce a trilogy. Do all SF publishers go down the trilogy route.
@thehound96389 ай бұрын
I think the publisher to an extent tells them what to write and doesn't promote those who won't do as they're told. It's similar to music, the modern music scene is just boring. The same dull and slow songs again and again because the people who promote the bands know that the kids will buy it. They won't take a risk on anything new or promote anyone who wants to do their own thing. That's why you don't hear rock music anymore. And don't get me started on movies! The whole entertainment industry is controlled by merchants who care only about profits, oppress mavericks and know nothing about art!
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
It varies. Publishers' genre houses are VERY eager for series because of the financial rewards should they take off. This year, they have been far fewer singleton SF novels published than I can ever recall. Authors generally do not get multi-book advances until they are successful, except in trilogy cases. Al Reynolds got a £1 million advance for ten books a decade or so back, to keep him straying elsewhere, but this was long after he's made an impact- and he does produce singletons sometimes. In general fiction it will generally be different, but it varies.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Sadly I can only agree with what you say: everything is so packaged now it's staggering. As I explained in my examples, publishers will drop anyone who can't deliver sales within three books like hot bricks, as the slush pile is always waiting....
@allanlloyd36769 ай бұрын
I would agree with everything you said about trilogies and padded out series of 500 page books. Where I would disagree is when you bring Iain Banks in as an example. I don't think Banksy wrote any series novels. The Culture books shared a background but Iain used this to write very different books using the Culture as a base. There were very few characters who appeared in more than one book. He also wrote all those non-SF singletons befween the Culture books and all the books using the Culture background can be read as singletons. I do think his later books became bloated and could have done with some serious editing, but this supports my long-held theory that the more successful a writer becomes, the more he is able to resist having any of his words cut. Stephen King proves my case. I think you should rethink your anti-Banksy prejudice. You can't blame him for all the space operas that followed him.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Others have made the shared world point here re Banks/Culture already, Allan- you'll note I was fundamentally referring to him as the sparker of the Space Opera renaissance. Plus, my prejudice is based on my dislike of his prose - sweary, long-winded...I could go on. Yes, successful authors get very little editing, King being the pace setter on that. I'm not blaming Banks for what followed, just indicating him as the guy who pulled the keystone out and allowed the avalanche: readers voted with their wallets. I'd still prefer they'd gone with Tom Disch, myself....unlikely, I know, but someone on YT has to critique this sacred cow.
@NerdishlyActive9 ай бұрын
This was absolutely fantastic! This is the video I needed because I’m a complete novice with science fiction and fantasy but I want to start reading these genres. However, I’ve been immensely overwhelmed by all the vast different series to choose from. So many damn series. Are there any great beginner standalones you’d recommend in these two genres to try?
@JeansiByxan9 ай бұрын
I started off with the Time Machine by Wells. It’s short, lucid and has big ideas. Outlaw agrees in his videos. His ”best SF novels” is a great list. Dune is more like fantasy but feels very contemporary. I agree with Andrews that The Broken Sword is indispensable in fantasy. I’d also add The Worm Ouroboros if you want to start at the early years of the genre.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
I'd say this: watch my backlist videos- look at my top tens, elements of sf series and so on, there is lots here to watch. To recommend books, a seller needs to know the taste of the reader and that varies enormously. If you select 'Most Popular Videos', that should start you off with ideas.
@JeansiByxan9 ай бұрын
*It might be titled ”greatest SF novels” or something like that.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
@@JeansiByxan 'The 25 Best Science Fiction Novels I've Ever Read' in two parts, but not essentially a list for s tarter- 'The Books That Made Me' might be a better bet. also 'Top 10 Classic Fantasy Novels (Sword & Sorcery')'.
@NerdishlyActive9 ай бұрын
@@JeansiByxan Thank you!
@chucklitka25039 ай бұрын
I think you're spot on about the dangers of writing trilogies. And the price they pay when they fail, as many, if not most do. However, as a regular listener to the Publishing Rodeo podcast, it is clear to me that would-be authors will do just about anything to improve their chances of getting published, so if they think publishers in their chosen genre want trilogies, that's what they'll write. And who can blame them?
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Well yes, of course, you have to 'sell' yourself to a degree to get published as everyone seems to think there's a book inside them (except of course in most cases it should stay there because it's terrible), so you can't blame them- but it's not an ideal state of affairs, is it?
@chucklitka25039 ай бұрын
If one decouples making money from writing one can write, and these days, publish whatever one likes, be it terrible or brilliant. However, just about everyone who writes wants to make money by doing so. Trying to make money by writing fiction is, and always has been, a terrible business plan. But that hasn't stopped anyone. Are there really that many trilogies/series in SF? I can't seem to recall anything more than a series of interconnected books, like the Lensmen. But then, I'm not really paying attention to SF anymore. In fantasy, they seems to be the norm, and I think readers there welcome long series. In any event, as you pointed out, a writer is usually obliged to spend several years writing books few will read, if the first one doesn't click. And most don't. Hopefully they enjoy writing their stories.@@outlawbookselleroriginal
@Fred-gu6pk9 ай бұрын
@@outlawbookselleroriginalThe line is "And that's the best place for it"
@thehound96389 ай бұрын
What are your thoughts on the "Humanx commonwealth" series by Alan Dean Foster? Each book could work without prior knowledge of the series and they're fast paced and exciting stories. I read "Midworld" God knows how many years ago and I just loved it and had to search for more!
@themojocorpse12909 ай бұрын
I have not read humanx I’ve read 3 Alan dean foster mid world being one but many moons ago enjoyed what I’ve read by him though. Tchaikovsky is a good writer very entertaining but as said it can be a mistake to keep going on a story . It can detract from the original I think 👍🏻
@thehound96389 ай бұрын
@@themojocorpse1290 "Midworld" is the first, but I'd say that "Sentenced to prism" is the best of them. As for Adrian Tchaikovsky I've only read the three "Children of Time" books but I will be looking into his other works when I can. So many books to read, so little time. You ought to see my to be read pile! LOL. I'm on a book buying ban at the moment.
@themojocorpse12909 ай бұрын
@@thehound9638 I blame the outlaw bookseller Lol😂
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
It's years since I read Foster, but he was a pro who knows how to tell stories swiftly and economically, Matt at 'Bookpilled' is a big Midworld fan, but never read it myself. I'd agree with the hound (below) that 'Sentenced To Prism' is good- he had me at the title- but I find Foster to be like a light Piers Anthony, who I only have so much patience with: I'd rather read Farmer, who came before these guys and could blow them out of the water.
@thehound96389 ай бұрын
@@outlawbookselleroriginal I haven't read anything by Farmer myself. That's something else for me to look into. I'm 37 and didn't start reading seriously until I was into my twenties. When I did start reading I was at first drawn towards fantasy because of my love of both history and mythology. Now I mainly read SF because as I've told you before, fantasy books and series were just getting far too big and the stories weren't being finished. In other words, I haven't been reading SF for long enough to have gotten around to all of the classics, this is a good thing because there's a lot of great stuff out there which I'll get to read for the first time! I've already learnt an awful lot from you as well, this isn't the first time you've mentioned an author I'm unfamiliar with.
@jbrichardson88919 ай бұрын
can I say I DNF'd Lord of the Rings my problem with trilogies and series is the massive bloated tomes each book in a series has become and the subsequent temporal commitment reading them requires, I have a finite number of years of reading left and would rather spend them reading the good things from the past I've neglected to read. Also for the record The Hobbit was perfect and I consider it Tolkiens best book.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Yes. It's a huge investment if the work isn't compelling and that, for me, is the major failing of these things: they are composed for commercial not artistic reasons and it's often only relatively inexperienced readers who fall for them and get stuck in that loop. Shame.
@andreabknight9 ай бұрын
Unfortunately when standalone (singleton) books do well, they then tend to become book 1 of a series- so the successful ones are no longer standalones....(they can still be read that way, but readers may not be aware of that and assume they need to read all the series)...
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Yes, publishers 'test' the water by not implying in jacket copy that what appears to be a singleton will become a series if the book sells. The point is again missed by publishers and readers- it's quality that counts, not length.
@StrayGator9 ай бұрын
I think what concerns me more than anything is the trend you are talking about is now almost a 50 year drift with little or no development in the genre. This trilogy, endless series bloat, where does it all end!
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Yes, this is the trouble it's very, very long established. It is, as you hint, one of the reasons why the genres stopped evolving- though this is down to Postmodernism as much as anything else, as all the arts have stopped growing (I've made videos about this). To me, SF died in the 1990s and ever since the groundbreaking works have been few and far between. Check out my hauntology and psychogeography videos, where I talk about Simon Reynolds and Mark Fisher's thoughts on this problem.
@CMZPICTURES9 ай бұрын
I always assumed "Grim Dark" was a Games Workshop thing. "In the grim dark future there is only war" was the tagline for Warhammer 40k for years. So idk if it spread out from there or if they borrowed from somewhere else. These days in 40K world grim dark usually just refers to a painting style for the toy soliders that's dirty and low key rather than bright clean colours. I finally made myself read Dune, but I stumbled on some interesting stuff. Like he heavily borrowed from a book called The Sabres of Paradise which is a historical novel set in the Caucuses, but also recently I found (by reading an Aleister Crowley short story of all things) that Butler was a real author. He wrote a book called Erewhon. I still think dune is cr*p though :-0
@CMZPICTURES9 ай бұрын
But yeah, I'm with you, I like my stories short and dangerous. But a lot of people are looking for the cozy and the familiar and that's totally fine too.
@SamManso9 ай бұрын
Totally agree. Dune is just a collection of antiquated nonsense.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
You're probably right- I find 'Grimdark' hilarious, silly term no old school S&S reader would have used, though I can see where it's useful - but we used to make the distinction by using High Fantasy for the Tolkienesque stuff (but then as the Encyclopedia of Fantasy states, HF is pretty much indistinguishable from S&S). Yeah, I've read 'Erewhon' - it was a very famous book in its time, has never been out of print and is essential SF reading.....and I still think 'Dune' is crap too....
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Yeah, I'm fine with people wanting to cosy up, but like you, I like it economical and deadly!
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
It is SF, but like I said, masquerades as Fantasy- the Butlerian Jihad gets AI and computers out of the way and allows everyone to focus on the quasi-religious stuff...yawn.
@kufujitsu9 ай бұрын
I not sure....but didn't Peter Watts put his first novel online to make it available to the SF reading public for free? & I think the complete text is still available on some website... It seems to have worked, as now Peter Watts is one of the bigger names in contemporary SF. Maybe other writers can follow his lead - as getting your work out there into a public forum seems to be the most important thing when it comes to kick-starting your writing career IMO...
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
He may well have done that, but you have to realise this will only work in a handful of cases- it's easy now to put your work 'out there in a public forum' but there's massive competition: twenty years ago it was claimed this was how the music industry would work going forward and a huge wash of material went online, but it didn't mean any but a tiny percentage of those musicians got anywhere. Plenty of writers are putting their work online, but that doesn't mean it will get anywhere. Watts' advantage is that he's actually worth reading, he's a pro. The public forum is still largely print media, though websites like tor.com and online magazines like interzone have some impact, being long established. Watts isn't as popular as you'd think, especially in the UK, where his publishing has been a mess. The majority of people who visit books shops and buy hard sf and space opera by the yard - in my regular experience- generally haven't heard of him.
@DanielRumbacher9 ай бұрын
as a banks fan i am not really sure if his culture series is a series at all. his culture books can be read in any order. they each play in different parts of his universe. so his books are not really like the trilogy books where you have to read the books in order. thats why he had such success i think. i was the big universe he created with the nearly unlimited amount of stories he could tell in this universe.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
None of this is news, my friend. The background universe is a clever gambit SF writers have used for many, many decades- although it allows flexibility, it still ultimately relies on familiarity, which is deathly for truly groundbreaking SF- look at the greats of the past (before 1986): loads of them NEVER wrote sequels. But I met Iain once and he was a good guy, to be fair.
@chrisnewman60479 ай бұрын
Think of all the great books that were originally stand alone novels and after the awards and the dealings all of a sudden a trilogy appears out of the mist then the dreaded prequel rears it’s head and ruins the magic of the first tome. Tsk. Tsk.
@outlawbookselleroriginal8 ай бұрын
Yeah, it almost never works and tends to erode the standing of the original singleton. It's almost always done for financial and not artistic reasons and that's a fail per se.
@chrisnewman60478 ай бұрын
BTW thank you for this show. I really look forward to it. I was at a bookshop in Cookeville, TN recently and ran into another SF buff that loves your show as well. You are bringing us great SF knowledge to the Upper Cumberland Plateau. How cool is that?!?
@outlawbookselleroriginal8 ай бұрын
@@chrisnewman6047 That's edifying to hear, thank you both!
@chrisnewman60478 ай бұрын
@@outlawbookselleroriginal You Welcome!
@dotslug9 ай бұрын
what about Earths ? Women get the short straw with a lot of these old guys.
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
I think you need to articulate your point more clearly. What do you mean 'What about Earths?' Who are the 'old guys' you refer to? You're not really making a very incisive comment here...
@dotslug9 ай бұрын
Earthsea by Ursala Le Quinn @@outlawbookselleroriginal
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
@@dotslug Right, now we know what book series you mean. Love them myself, have done for decades. Now, when you say 'Women get the short straw with a lot of these old guys' are you referring to story content? Are you making a point about the relationship between the original tranche of male sword and sorcery writers and female ones? If you can't articulate your point, we can't answer it? While we await a fuller response, I'll ask you this: are you familiar with C L Moore and Andre Norton?
@cliveomahoney40969 ай бұрын
The sainted Douglas Adams got this (w)rite(whoops!), before he was squashed, when he presaged his masterwork with its description: a trilogy in 5 parts.........best to get on the bandwagon before you declare it, IMO. Sci-Fi and Fantasy writers are rarely geniuses. I hate these new soap style TV series that only end when viewing figures become embarrassingly low. There is 0 wrong with a beginning - mi(u)ddle and end in books.; In fact, to reflect our sordid, wee, existences, it's essential
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
Well, I'd say Adams took it too far- the first two books worked well as parodies of classic Genre SF, referencing Heinlein, Asimov, Sheckley and so on, but they sagged terribly after that- and the recorded versions remain preferred by many (myself included). I'd say some SF writers were geniuses, mind you. ..and as you say, a beginning middle and end is a good thing (or in SF, a novum, a paradigm shift, cognitive estrangement then a conceptual breakthrough- and you get out, never to return to the same world/characters.
@cliveomahoney40969 ай бұрын
For world building, and characterisation too, less is always more, for books. Gene Wolfe was a genius for this. Adams wasn't parodying anything; he was just having fun. Love your vlogs and hope you are hale and healthy.@@outlawbookselleroriginal
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
@@cliveomahoney4096 Yes, less is more in these areas as you say. But as for Adams, he was parodying other stuff- Beeblebrox is a tribute to Joe-Jim from Heinlein's 'Orphans of the Sky': the Encyclopedia Galactica mentions and Deep Thought generations long experiment is a reference to 'Foundation': Marvin is an homage to the robot in Henry Kuttner's 'Proud Robot' series and the useless robot in Sheckley's 'Options'. It's just that most younger readers coming to him in their teens in the late 70s didn't know this material.
@cliveomahoney40969 ай бұрын
I agree so, respectful, and fun filled homage, is more of an accurate description than parody. He also did create something new. Be that written or radio. Marvin was far greater than the sum of his antecedent robot archetypes. @@outlawbookselleroriginal
@outlawbookselleroriginal9 ай бұрын
@@cliveomahoney4096 Well, I always think it's easier to build on the protean work of originators, but "Life, loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it," is one of the great lines!