How many books? or something of that nature at least...

[The Old Fart]

Well Imelda has her handy help with the titles thing, and I figure I could get some advice from all of you regarding my blog novel. Now, anyone who reads my blog knows that The World in the Satin Bag is simply the first book. I originally wrote it thinking I could finish the story in one, but it sort of took off and now it would be impossible without having a 2,000 page novel, which is tempting ^^

So here are my proposed two solutions to the issue.

1. Do it in two novels. This would work find because I could finish the story in 2 novels, but that would be sacrificing certain subplots that I personally enjoy (such as a subplot involving a romance between the main character and another character). So I would lose all of those other plotlines and would have to stick entirely to just the single plotline--bringing peace back to the land of Traea somehow and finding a way to get back to the world that James is from.

2. Do it in three novels. A trilogy. This could also be done, but again, I would lose some of the subplots. Not as many of them, but I would still lose some, and it would mean speeding up some ideas I have about the other continent I want to bring into the picture.

3. Do it in five novels. This seems to me the most logical solution because it does allow for more character development, finishing up subplots in a timely manner, etc. It also means a harder sell for people, but more in-depth characters, and more time to develop.

For titles, these are somewhat in the working stage, but this is what I have thus far.

If I just have the two:
I. The World in the Satin Bag
II. The Spellweaver of Dern

Three:
I. The World in the Satin Bag
II. The Spellweaver of Dern
III. The World on the Sea, the World on the Sand.
(I don't know if I like that last title, but maybe someone can come up with something else that sounds like the same sentiment).

Five:
I. The World in the Satin Bag
II. The Spellweaver of Dern
III. The Fearl Mythos (Fearl is a rather important magical item in the story)
IV. The Twisted Parchment
V. The World on the Sea, the World on the Sand.

So that's what I have, and I'm sort of stuck. With the end of The World in the Satin Bag coming at the end of this month--or thereabouts--I have to figure out what the next step is. So, what are you thoughts everyone? If you need more information I can give it. Such as general plots for the different novels in question, etc.

[Tie Dye Tuxedo]

I like the three best.

[The Old Fart]

Care to elaborate? I might be able to cram it all into three. I dunno. Trilogies are great, but at the same time they are frighteningly common and scary :glare:

So, why three? What makes you like three? It's a good number, I admit...

[Imelda]

Three is just cool, but for some reason five is calling to me here. I guess it all depends on whether you can make the divisions fall in the right place, and avoid padding it too much. While it's nice to have subplots, I guess you have to think whether they're really important, or enjoyable. Taking HP as an example :rolleyes: the romance subplots throughout the books were important in showing them grow up. The Neville subplot was important in leading to his deeds in DH. The Fred and George being jokers and getting a shop could have been cut, but it provided much-needed relief through the darker books and they wouldn't be as good without. She cut Dean Thomas' storyline, though, because it didn't improve it, and did any of us miss it? If the romance had been missed out, some of us would have been wondering what was with these weirdly un-hormonal teens.

Blah blah blah. Waffle. I must stop analysing HP now. *Sob*

Anyway, if I were you, I'd run through the sub plots and see whether you need them. They might seem cool, but are the necessary?

[Pseudonym]

Dude. 4 novels. Break out of the odd number cliches

[The Old Fart]

About half of the subplots I can do in three books. The romance plot I could still do in three, but that would mean really influencing how time moves in the novel. In HP, everything goes a year at a time, well with my main character being 11, for the romance subplot to have any effect at all that would mean getting him to at least 16 or 17 by the third book. That means he has to turn 13 and then 14 in book two, and turn 15, 16, and 17 in the third. Doable, sure, but I don't know how effective that would be.
I could drop the romance plot, but I don't know, part of one of the things that happens in this fantasy world is that he has to grow up to be able to fight. He can't do that if he's young. He's fighting now, but I don't think he could handle a war. And war is brewing all over the main continent, in fact it's like an annihilation. And I can't just have the main character leave without trying to fix things. I could, but I don't think it's right.

So, I could manage three and drop any romantic subplots that might occur.
Or I could keep the romantic subplot and go for five. Or keep it and just have a very long series of three. That might be doable. Goodness, hey I could do three...oh, I'm a genius...
I should put up a poll on this...

Four could work also, a quartet. Shoving books 3 and 4 into one book instead...hmm.

[aj.e]

I like five most. Makes it Harry Potter-ish. If you can divide it into five parts perfectly, with each book having its own story, then count me in!

[moth]

I like 4. 5 just seems too fiddly...

[Isis]

I'd go with the quartet. That's plenty of time for him to grow up and room to spare for subplots [I don't know if you've ever read anything by Tamora Pierce, since those books are geared towards girls, but that's what I'm thinking of right now]. And, HP aside, you might find its very inconvienent for books to pass a year at a time. I'm not sure what you have in mind, but I'm sure that there are boring, time-consuming, 'legwork' portions of saving the world and in that case you might want months to go by in a few paragraphs.

[The Old Fart]

Oh, no doubt. I'm skipping 4 months of time between the first novel and the second already, and there's a good 6 months that will be semi-skimmed in the beginning. So, right there the character will almost have had a birthday. And by the end of the second book he will have. I'm leaning very much towards 3 or 4 right now. 3 might be a crunch, but it could be done, and 4 means no stretching things...hrmm.

Someone should make this a poll with 2, 3, 4, and 5 novels as options :glare:

[The Old Fart]

Everybody vote. Since it's a poll now. And leave your opinions as to why you voted if you haven't already. I'm taking everything into consideration right now.

[Pseudonym]

4. It's a near-perfect compromise. Plus, it has the attractive trait of being a little-used number. Which is good.

[Sick]

Five. Why I say this is because it gives you time to unleash the story at your own pace, doing what you want with it.

But, lets not give it a number at the moment and limit it. Write until it all comes out. Write until the complete story is told. Although, I must agree with Imelda when she says to look through your subplots and eliminate what isn't vital to the development of the story.

So, even though I say five, use as many novels as it takes to get this story out. The way I look at it, you aren't limited to anything except the rules of grammar. And if your imagination has something of a limit, which I hope it doesn't. It isn't something you want to loose. Write until it's finished.

[The Old Fart]

Thanks all for your advice. I'm going to go with the school of thought where I don't plan on writing more than two books and just see where the story goes. That's probably the best course of action right now I think. I will put major consideration into the various book lengths though, so thanks again! And keep voting, I'm totally curious how this will turn out after a while.

[Shadow]

I think five. But put major cliff-hangers at the ends of each, not minor ones. :D I'm very weird, because I like cliff-hangers.

[Sick]

Liking cliffhangers doesn't make you weird, Shadow. It's torture for readers at times, but it's loads of fun if you're the author.

[The Old Fart]

I think it depends on the cliffhanger. I mean, after book 6 of Harry Potter there was a cliffhanger. That's sort of what I'm shooting for with WISB, that sort of end to a book where the ultimate goal of that book is complete, but there is another coming right after. Not cliffhangers like in Matrix 2, with that Duh Duh Duh moment at the end.

[Sick]

The sort of cliffhanger you described for your book I think gives a sense that there is much more to the story even though the main goal of the book is completed.

[The Old Fart]

Exactly. I'm starting to think of just having two books though. The second book could tie up all the loose ends and yet still leave the world open for further adventures if need be. I dunno, a lot of plotting and brainstorming has to go into the second book :glare:

[Imelda]

Welcome to the hardest part of plotting, Fart. :) Say goodbye to your sanity.

[The Old Fart]

It was gone before I started this book. I only write to please the voices in my head...seriously...if I don't...well it's not pretty. Remember the Dark Ages? Yeah, caused by someone like me who wouldn't write...and then everything was dark, there was plague...you get the picture...

[Imelda]

THE DARK AGES IS A MISNOMER! :mad: Sheesh. I thought you were well-informed. :glare:

[The Old Fart]

Ironically enough they called it the Dark Ages due to a lack of literature in England and not because of crazy things that were happening. A culture and society without 'modern' literature is, well, rather dark :p. Don't worry, the U.S. had the dark ages. It was called the Civil War. But then, that has nothing to do with literature, just idiotic narrow-minded rejects of British society arguing over crap that didn't really matter...

[Imelda]

There wasn't a lack! People were writing, it was just mostly boring monks. :p The normal people had better things to do with their time. It just drives me mad that they call it the 'Dark Ages' as thouhg they were all ignorant animals that stumbled around walking into trees because they were so stupid!

Sorry, I'm hijacking your thread. :p

[The Old Fart]

There wasn't a lack! People were writing, it was just mostly boring monks. :p The normal people had better things to do with their time. It just drives me mad that they call it the 'Dark Ages' as thouhg they were all ignorant animals that stumbled around walking into trees because they were so stupid!

Sorry, I'm hijacking your thread. :p

Well from a cultural perspective it was the dark ages and it wasn't isolated to England. It happened in other parts of the world too and in some places it lasted until Europeans or Brits showed up and attempted to 'civilize' other cultures. Much of western civilization is recognized for the advancement of literature, so any period of time when literature seems to have failed to progress in a particular part of the world that should be progressing, it is seen as something very negative, and for good reason. Philosophy, theology, etc. All that was lost to a lot of places in the world. Sure, there was a religion and the Bible, and Priests and the like, but without that wide acceptance of the written word it is somewhat of a 'dark age', from a cultural perspective.

But certainly it isn't meant to imply some crazed de-evolution of mankind in one isolated part of the world that led to widespread starvation and plague infestation and the complete retardation of England. No, it was just a lot of uneducated, 'uncivilized' people wandering about trying to figure out how to manage a country. Sort of like watching early America really. Sort of that random argument about "we want slaves", "but it's wrong", "so?", "well why don't we be nice", "never, this means war, arg!". Yeah...

Anywho, no problem hijacking my thread, it was relevant, sort of.

Anyone else have anything to add?