?

Log in

[process] Writing the second (or third) book - Lakeshore
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2011-12-16 08:08
Subject: [process] Writing the second (or third) book
Security: Public
Tags:books, green, kalimpura, pinion, process, sunspin, writing
Greg van Eekhout (who has one of the coolest names, ever) is launching into writing the sequel to his novel The Osteomancer's Son. He made an observation that:
I’ve never written a sequel or a continuation of a series, so this is new territory for me.

My response to this was:
I have been quite surprised by the change in my technique and internal thought processes brought about by writing second and third books in series (or at least in continuity). You will be too, I am confident.

This has got me thinking about those second and third books. Last year while I was drafting Kalimpura, the third book in the Green cycle, I made a passing observation on this topic [ jlake.com | LiveJournal ]:
This is the second time I’ve written a third book in series. (Pinion being the other, of course.) As I believe I observed while writing Pinion, it’s a rather different experience that writing a standalone or initial book. So much of the worldbuilding, characterization and discovery is in place. I have to touch on bits of it so a reader who’s starting with this book won’t be lost, but I have it internalized. That means that writing this book is a different experience for me. I am far more focused on plot and inter-character dynamics because that other stuff is already in place and not crying for attention. And much as I had this experience with Pinion, I think it’s likely to make a somewhat different kind of book.

Now if I could only figure out how to deliberately leverage this phenomenon in future projects.

Well, since then I've outlined all three volumes of Sunspin in one go, deliberately designing them to work as a three-book project. Which is, or should be, me attempting to deliberately leverage this phenomenon in a future project.

In a nutshell, I think it does come down to what I said before. After a first book has been written, much of the worldbuilding, characterization and discovery are in place. Unless the plot of the second book is "our heroes sail over the horizon to discover new, alien worlds", it's probably operating from much the same geography, culture and politics as the first book did. That means one's focus as a writer actually narrows rather than broadens. We don't have to do everything in the punch list for book 2 (or 3, or 23). There's still a bit of obligatory effort to bring new readers up to speed, but mostly we can assume that anyone reading book 2 knows what the Castle of Inordinate Doom is, and what happened to the Lord of Bright Shadows in book 1. That means we don't have to set all that stuff up again.

Fine. So far, so obvious. But what does this do the writing process, to address Greg's not-quite-a-question?

I think first of all we have to make different kinds of promises to the reader. Book 1, any book 1, is in part saying, "Hey, look at me!" They usually begin with something sharp and memorable, a clash of cymbals to grab the readers' attention and say, "Hey, I'm worth the next few hours or days of your free time." Book 2 is saying, "Welcome back, old friend." Reader trust already exists, at least in principle, and while it needs to be sustained, it doesn't need to be re-established from scratch. That allows a lot more room to maneuver in building the opening scenes, which can serve different purposes in a book 2 than in a book 1.

Likewise how the characters are introduced and what is done with them. Subtlety and depth come to the forefront, in favor of the broad strokes often used to establish a brand-new protagonist. A book 2 character has a shared history with the reader, an account balance of well-established words and deeds and emotions that can be drawn on. They enter the stage differently.

Finally, as alluded to above, the need not to explain so much is powerful. The tapestry is already woven from book 1. We can assume so much more, and only introduced those things which are changing, as well as those things to either elucidate or camouflage the changes. It shifts the art and craft of world building significantly, allow tighter focus on selected elements, given what can be assumed the reader has brought forward from book 1.

Emphasis and focus can make book 2 as different from book 1 as book 1 was from some discovery short story that originally introduced the character and setting. It's a softer, subtler art. The character and plot loom larger in the writer's mind, written as they are across the established setting and tone.

Greg, does this make it any easier?

Post A Comment | 8 Comments | Share | Link






Greg van Eekhout
User: gregvaneekhout
Date: 2011-12-16 16:53 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Yeah, this is good, Jay. It's stuff that only seems like common sense once someone's articulated it.

Another thing I'm running into is deciding which storylines to continue and which are okay to leave where I left them in Book 1. Even with my stand-alones, I can always see the characters continuing after the book ends, and now, for the first time, I have the ability, if not the obligation, to actually continue those stories. So, figuring out which ones are actual obligations is proving a bit of a challenge.
Reply | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2011-12-16 17:04 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Those story lines do branch out, don't they? Like a river delta...
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



mlerules
User: mlerules
Date: 2011-12-16 19:37 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
This may be why I quite like series, as I quite like character development and getting to see how someone thinks 'n' reacts in various situations, as well as all the manifold r-ships develop amongst characters w/in a world. This can happen so much more in an on-going series than in a single novel.
Reply | Thread | Link



Twilight: Imperious
User: twilight2000
Date: 2011-12-16 20:39 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:Imperious
I dunno about Greg, but it sure illuminates why I've had some of the deadends and development problems I've had with my book 2 - I've been writing it as if it were book 1 all over again.

I do believe I have an assignment for January involving what may be a complete re-write of book 2...

:>
Reply | Thread | Link



kellymccullough
User: kellymccullough
Date: 2011-12-17 17:50 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Huh, "That means one's focus as a writer actually narrows rather than broadens" is actually the reverse of how I think of it. Book one for me is about the characters and their internal conflicts and establishing the people in depth. Book two is where you get to broaden focus to the wider world and bigger problems.
Reply | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2011-12-17 18:03 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Chances are we're both right... Also, it depends on what you're writing and why.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



kellymccullough
User: kellymccullough
Date: 2011-12-17 18:21 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
*grin* As is so often the case in writing.

I'm sure some of it has to do with what does best as well. For me, worldbuilding is the shiny fun stuff and character where I have to work the hardest, so I have to really focus down on establishing character in book one, and then in later books I get to pull out the shiny bits in greater depth and breadth.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2011-12-17 18:12 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
A better way to put is that the focus shifts. I personally don't think of the process I described as a narrowing.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



browse
my journal
links
January 2014
2012 appearances