Except in literary fiction where stand-alone works are encouraged, it seems today one is urged to write trilogies at a minimum.

Why is that?

The Good--I’ve always understood why fantasy authors write at least three books. They create a whole new world. Not just the geography, but the flora and fauna, the political and religious structures, and the cultural norms of the civilization, are all imagined for book one. The effort to create an entirely new setting is enormous and, of course, utilizing that same setting repeatedly makes the drudgery worthwhile. Setting is not so important to me and I’m happy to base my works in the present Earth world without pages of descriptive narrative about the surroundings, but I appreciate those more ambitious world-creators.

Fantasy writers typically have one long story arc for the complete series and each book focuses on a step along the way, some obstacle to overcome to bring one closer to achieving the goal. When obtained, the series is over. The writer begins a new one which allows them to escape the restrictions of their old world and create another.

Mysteries work well as a series, regardless of sub-genre, as there’s interest in the heist or the murder, but the lead character is explored in greater depth with each outing. There is a distinct advantage of one main character over a series of stories. Your protagonist is engaging but familiar and you can delve into their flaws and idiosyncrasies a little at a time. On the surface that is less work for the writer—known character, predictable reactions, and interactions, hopefully some growth in the character with each outing. I believe the main character should change incrementally over time. Seeing growth makes them real and that’s crucial for a good series in my opinion, though the success of some best-sellers belies that.

Some crime writers focus almost entirely on the plot. Each crime is different and puzzling, even if the place and the characters are unchanged. That is standard for police procedurals and thrillers which can continue for many books if new crimes can be fashioned and is a popular genre for many.

Cozies with amateur female sleuths in the guise of bakers, anthropologists, librarians, and interior decorators abound. This is the appeal. The reader sees herself in the character and cozies are mostly read by women. There is no violence, except the unwitnessed murder, and the whole atmosphere is very civilized. The real problem with cozies, besides needing to suspend your skepticism that the main character would get access to crime scenes and ferret out information that the police don’t, is that murder doesn’t happen that commonly in small communities. Eventually, the author will run out of reasonable scenarios. Even the Scandinavian authors who write bleak serial killer novels acknowledge that their small populations would be decimated by their fictional villains if their stories were anything but imaginary.

My character, Dee Michaels, will travel the world to visit whisky distilleries and attend festivals, so the corpses are distributed in places other than her home. This is my way of making the mysteries not quite cozies and saving Harbourside from becoming a ghost town. (Hey, there’s a thought. A town filled with ghosts and each one has a story. That could be a series with interesting character sketches.)

The Bad--The very familiarity so attractive to both writer and reader can be conversely its greatest challenge. The sameness of character and setting can quickly become boring. We’ve all experienced reading a series when one or more books have been too conventional, too predictable, too formulaic. The risk is that readership will drop away. One can forgive an occasional book in a series not satisfying but two or three in a row makes even the most ardent fan wonder if their leisure time should be spent with this set of characters when there are so many more out there in your to-be-read pile. How to keep the story fresh and engaging when so much is static is problem for series writers. I believe the protagonist’s flaws slowly revealed and circumvented help keep a series interesting.

The Ugly--You must remember details, which amazingly despite innumerable revisions, or maybe because of multiple versions, are easy to forget.

When relying on memory alone, I had to search earlier books to learn if I’d given someone a first name or only a surname or determine where in the life story of the main character did a secondary character enter so I knew of any shared experiences that I could reference later. This was a colossal waste of time easily avoided with some judicious notetaking. Notes are also necessary since some events went to the graveyard of overwritten and unnecessary scenes and didn’t make it to the final work, though those half-remembered gems linger in my brain.

Now I write things down.

·        Character names and descriptions when I use them.

·        Relationships

·        Circumstances of meeting the protagonist.

·        Important motivators.

·        Intersecting plot points.

I do this for main, secondary or even minor characters who may recur. It makes my life easier.

I do this because readers are quick to pick up discrepancies, where editors may not. Readers may discover your books and read them in order one after another with only days between, not months or years and multiple iterations, so notice mistakes. And readers are unforgiving. I know I am and have stopped reading some authors who got sloppy, and I caught the errors.

I happily write series in crime and urban fantasy. I like to play with old friends I know well and invite new ones into the sandbox with each novel. My characters in conventional fiction? Best to stay with a one-off. They’re not nearly so fun.