Forum: Author Hangout

The initial chapter of a series

rustyken 🚫

When writing a series of stories, is it necessary to have an initial chapter in each one that summarizes the events in the previous parts?
---
From my perspective, I seldom read them.
---
When trying to write one, I also find it very difficult to create a summary of the events in the previous stories of a series. Many times, it is a question of how much detail then clearly expressing it without being choppy.
---
My current inclination is to not include one. One alternative is to use something like the 'long description' on Bookapy.

Thoughts?

Replies: tendertouch Dominions Son sunseeker Switch Blayde awnlee jawking Switch Blayde maracorby Grey Wolf

tendertouch 🚫

@rustyken

I'm currently writing a sequel and all I plan to do is add a note to a Forward that says this is a sequel to these two stories — if you haven't read them it won't mean much. After all, the preceding stories are freely available so why spend the time trying to summarize them?

Replies: REP

REP 🚫

@tendertouch

From my perspective, I seldom read them.

In a multi-part series, I would never add a summary of the prior Parts to Chapter 1, the first Chapter, of a sequel. I would include it in an Introduction. In addition to the summary of the prior Parts, the Introduction could also contain information useful to my readers.

My Opening Earth series is a perfect example. I am working on Part 4 of the series. In reviewing the prior 3 Parts, I have found that they do not support the new scenes that I want to include in Part 4. Therefore, I have added scenes to the prior Parts to support the new scenes. I also updated the other mistakes that I made, mainly grammatical issues.

In the Introduction, I indicate the period of time that each Part covers in the life of Doug Smith, my MC, and I tell my readers that rereading the Parts is not required, but advisable. Advisable due to my starting to post Part 1 in October of 2014, so my readers have probably forgotten many of the details of the prior Parts.

So, if you make it a habit of not reading the information the author provides about the prior Parts of a series, you may be missing information that would be useful to your understanding of the content of a new Part to the series.

Replies: tendertouch

tendertouch 🚫

@REP

Ah, that wasn't me who said that. I read them frequently, though not always. The most likely thing I'll do when there are large gaps between books, is to go back and reread the earlier books. I know some people don't reread stories, but I do all the time so for me it's just natural to fully reconnect with the characters and setting of the story.

Replies: REP

REP 🚫

@tendertouch

Sorry about that. I must have been on the wrong post when I clicked the reply to post icon. It should have been to rustyken's original post.

Dominions Son 🚫

@rustyken

A lot depends on the nature of the series.

For a real world/near real world story that probably isn't necessary.

Though you might want to consider it if there are major ploy points in the current book that depend on events from a prior book. This is, in my experience, sometimes done in dead tree books for readers who pick up a series in the middle. And yeah readers that have followed the series from the beginning are probably expected to skip over the recap.

For a science fiction, high fantasy, or urban fantasy story that is heavy on world building, again for readers that pick up a series in the middle, world building elements from prior stories need to be reestablished. A recap can help with that.

sunseeker 🚫

@rustyken

I think every series I have read has had some type of blurb at the start to read the previous stories or risk not knowing the characters and their histories, or things that may happen in this story.

Not those words obviously but something like them to get the authors meaning across

SunSeeker

Switch Blayde 🚫

@rustyken

In my Lincoln Steele series, each novel is standalone. I do have the Book # in the title to let someone know it's Book 3 of the series. But I don't summarize anything in the beginning of each book.

I do use characters from previous books and I might even mention events that happened in previous books, but that would be part of the novel the reader is reading. If the reader had read the earlier novel, he'd understand. If he hadn't, it should give him needed information.

Now a series on SOL might be one that you have to read in order. They are numbered accordingly. But I wouldn't summarize the previous story. I would expect the reader to have read it. That's why it's an ordered series.

I've even seen the beginning of a chapter repeating the end of the previous chapter in SOL stories. I think that's from posting a chapter at a time with a break between them, but the author never goes back to remove the duplicate wording. I hate when that's done.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@rustyken

When writing a series of stories, is it necessary to have an initial chapter in each one that summarizes the events in the previous parts?

Like all expositional content, it's better to drip feed bit by bit as it becomes relevant.

AJ

Switch Blayde 🚫
Updated:

@rustyken

When writing a series of stories, is it necessary to have an initial chapter in each one that summarizes the events in the previous parts?

I've been thinking about this. If it's a series of stories where one is a continuation of the other, then it would be nice to have a summary of the previous story (or even stories). I was watching a series on TV and the episode began with "previously on…" That helped orient me and refresh my memory. I wouldn't make the summary detailed. Just the important things that will be continued in the new story.

I wouldn't call it a chapter, though. Name it something that identifies it as not part of this current story. If the reader doesn't want to read it, that's his choice. As a reader, I would find it helpful if there was time between the new story and the previous one. The time could be you writing them or me reading them.

maracorby 🚫

@rustyken

To my thinking, it shouldn't be necessary if the works are actually complete stories on their own. A reader shouldn't automatically need to know everything that happened before to follow *this* arc. There may be some relevant plot or world-building points that need to be mentioned along the way, but that's usually a natural part of exposing this story's conflict.

Of course, sometimes it's legitimate to split one story out into multiple books. Star Wars movies famously began with scroll text explaining how we got there - even the first one. And I'd argue Empire Strikes Back - often cited as the best of the originals - isn't actually much of a story on its own.

Most of the time, though, when I see "Here's what you need to know to understand this story," I consider it an excuse for lazy story-telling.

Replies: Switch Blayde

Switch Blayde 🚫

@maracorby

it shouldn't be necessary if the works are actually complete stories on their own.

That was my point when I used my Lincoln Steele series of novels as an example. A better known one is James Bond. There are characters that span different books (M, Q, Moneypenny, etc.), but each novel is a complete story on their own and wouldn't need a "previously on…" to refresh the reader's memory.

But what about "Lord of the Rings?" Book 2 is a continuation of Book 1. The reader would need to have read Book 1 before reading Book 2. And what if there was a multi-year wait between Book 1 and Book 2? That could happen on SOL.

And then there's the Jason Borne series. Each story is sort of standalone, but there's a lot that ties the stories together.

Replies: maracorby solitude

maracorby 🚫

@Switch Blayde

But what about "Lord of the Rings?" Book 2 is a continuation of Book 1. The reader would need to have read Book 1 before reading Book 2. And what if there was a multi-year wait between Book 1 and Book 2? That could happen on SOL.

There's certainly many types, and there are definitely times when a "last time on..." block is necessary. But as awnlee jawking said:

Like all expositional content, it's better to drip feed bit by bit as it becomes relevant.

There are literary devices to help with that. Adding a newbie to the team who needs things explained, or a reporter would work for some stories. Probably not for LOTR.

solitude 🚫

@Switch Blayde

But what about "Lord of the Rings?" Book 2 is a continuation of Book 1. The reader would need to have read Book 1 before reading Book 2.

According to Wikipedia, LoTR was written to be published as a single book, so recaps between the parts would have been superfluous; as it happens the gap between the actual publication of the 3 parts
- 29 July 1954 (The Fellowship of the Ring)
11 November 1954 (The Two Towers)
20 October 1955 (The Return of the King) - is not long by SOL standards!

Replies: Switch Blayde

Switch Blayde 🚫

@solitude

According to Wikipedia, LoTR was written to be published as a single book, so recaps between the parts would have been superfluous

I was thinking of SOL postings. I thought that was the question. People on SOL write continuing stories that are broken up. And sometimes there's quite some time between them.

My original position was not to have a summary in the beginning of Book 2. But then I thought about it and was influenced by a series I was watching on TV that began with a summary.

I don't think I would ever write a summary. I would expect readers to read (or re-read) the previous story.

Replies: LupusDei solitude richardshagrin

LupusDei 🚫

@Switch Blayde

I thought about it and was influenced by a series I was watching on TV

I have wathed comparatively few TV series, but of those I have, I loved how Stargate SG1 handled this. It was a mix of effectively standalone episodes, continued multipart events and overarching plot arcs, and when some of these would become relevant for current episodes comprehension there would be a quick "previously..." block, but only if, and only the relevant parts.

I have read a long, chaotically meandering... writeup... here on SOL that did similar recap like about every 20 chapters or so. For me that was already far much too redundant, but somehow managed to be less jarring than it might sound like, and I could see how it could have been useful for people with shorter attention spans, weaker memory or reading comprehension difficulties.

But I would agree that if such seems necessary, it probably would be better handled with a literally device within the story. Such as, characters discussing or even plainly reminiscence past events, hopefully in new words, with new insights or changing attitudes revealed. Some of that may eventually happen very organically, and if that happens soon enough the recap block redundancy would become jarring.

Might depend on overall narrative style. Like, for a fist person narrator that's already established as very introspective it would perhaps be more forgivable to randomly launch in such a sequence of expository repetition.

solitude 🚫
Updated:

@Switch Blayde

I was thinking of SOL postings. I thought that was the question.

Yes, but there were a few posts mentioning LoTR as though it were relevant to the conversation. I was merely pointing out that it isn't!

As a reader, I think it is enough to point out (in the intro or story description of the new story in a series) whether readers are expected to have read the previous book in the series, or whether the stories can be considered essentially stand alone. Personally, I don't see the need for recaps. If, however, a previous story has had a significant update since it came out originally, a heads-up about any important changes would be useful- in the foreword of the new book, say.

(Edited for clarity)

Replies: Switch Blayde

Switch Blayde 🚫

@solitude

I don't see the need for recaps.

I recently began a story I had in my library. As soon as I started reading it, it seemed like I should have known more than what I knew. The guy's mother, sister, and sister's friend were his slaves and he was experimenting with spells. And I don't believe it was the first time he did that. My guess is that's how he enslaved the others in another story.

I assume I once found the story (which was a series of 3) and added them to my library. At some time after that, I read the first story. If I hadn't liked it I would have deleted the other two from my library. So since they were there, I must have liked it enough to try the second one. But I don't remember reading the first one, nor the name of the first one. So I gave up on the second story and deleted it and the third one from my library. If it had a summary of the first story at the front of the second one it might have jarred my memory of the first one and I wouldn't have been so lost.

And even if I remembered the name of the first story, I would not re-read it. If I had liked it enough to re-read it, I would have read the second one right after finishing the first.

richardshagrin 🚫

@Switch Blayde

summary.

if you have a character named Mary there is some mary.

Grey Wolf 🚫

@rustyken

I'm generally opposed, and probably fall too far on the 'no recaps' side. Admittedly, there are some recaps, but they're places where someone would naturally think about or tell someone about a piece of history, and I often elide them.

Some stories have far too much, which effectively creates 'padding' and makes some chapters (or long parts of chapters) superfluous for anyone who can remember the story, while not being close enough together to help readers who 'dropped out' unless they dropped out at the exact right point.

My Forewords all encourage people to read in order. For book-at-a-time readers (who don't follow it as a serial), that can create a many-month pause.

If I was going to add a recap, it would be as another foreword or a side story. However, I'm not thrilled with the idea, and I haven't gotten complaints asking for one, so 'so far, so good.'

Reply to topic

Forum: Author Hangout

The initial chapter of a series

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...