Series Work and Genre Hopping

Knowing so many writers the way I do (both in person and through your work), I know that some favor series work and like to go back and revisit the same character(s) over and over again or the same genre repeatedly. Others tend to leap all over the place, from one new character/world to another and bouncing between genres with the kind of abandon that can risk whiplash. Let's talk about that, shall we?

Do you have a preference between writing a series or writing unconnected stories, particularly those involving different genres? Which genres have you told stories within?

Scott Roche: I write in multiple genres. I've written sci-fi, lit fiction, horror, fantasy, urban fantasy, gaslamp fantasy, superhero stories, romance.

Lucy Blue: I really hope that the stranglehold of the series is finally coming to an end. 'Cause I hate them. As a writer and as a reader. But publishers, be they mainstream or indie or the algorithm of the 'Zon, just adore them for all the same reasons Hollywood does--once you've sold that can of beans, you know how to sell that can of beans, even if the cook changes the recipe a bit with every shipment. 

Amelia Sides: I prefer writing stand-alones in a similar world or a series of characters then series, but series seem to be what publishers want.

Paul Landri: Everything I've done so far has been a series. Crimson Howl is superhero pulp fiction and lends itself well to the serial format. My Simon and Kirby project is, of course, a serial since it's based on their comic books. I tend to stay with one particular genre until it's finished until I move on to my next project which will likely be horror with a historical bent (Al Capone vs. vampires? Samurai vs. zombies? Oh hell yeah!)

Matthew Barron: I tend to get bored doing things that are too similar, so I might revisit characters and worlds but I like to explore other things in between. I've written urban fantasy, horror, high fantasy, science fiction, short stories, plays, books, and graphic novels.

Sean Taylor: I much prefer to write non-series work, especially series work in the "epic" category. I have less vile for a recurring character in a series, a la James Bond or Ms. Fisher in standalone stories than I do for a multi-part series that needs several volumes to tell its tale. Not everything has to be the freakin' Lord of the Rings, even in fantasy. I do however like to go back and revisit certain characters, but only when I have a new story to tell for them, such as with Rick Ruby or with some of my superhero folks from the iHero/Cyber Age Adventures days. 

Rachel Burda Taylor: I like series, but I go back and forth between a series that follows a single character/couple and a series based in the same world and loosely following a world-problem but with a different Protag/LI and stand-alone plot for each book.

Aaron Rosenberg: I do bounce between genres, but I also write both standalone novels (and short stories) and series. There are times when, even if I love a character, I know their story is done—DuckBob is one of those, I revisit him in short stories occasionally but the novel arc was four books and finished. Other characters and their stories are a one-and-done, not because I don’t like them as much but because the story is told and it’s time to move on. I couldn’t write just one character, series, or even genre ad infinitum but there are plenty of characters and stories that I feel warrant more than one book, and I do revisit my favorite genres a lot.

As far as the genres themselves, I’ve written: urban fantasy, epic fantasy, dark fantasy, near SF, far-flung SF, space opera, superheroes, action-adventure, spy thriller, mystery, Western, romance, cozy, humor, and probably a few I’m forgetting. 

Ef Deal: When I create a cosmos, the characters lead full lives, so once one conflict is resolved, there’s no reason to assume there won’t be another one. When I wrote my first novel, it ended by setting up both political and ecclesiastical conflicts that my MC didn’t think would involve her, but I realized would absolutely have to involve her, so I began writing more stories. They are all standalone, but they are also sequential. I have planned nine novels in that series so far.

My current work is a steampunk series and again it evolved into a series because the characters were all involved with external affairs that created more conflicts. They have histories and futures. I have to tell their stories.

Brian K Morris: As a reader, I've loved series books (Doc Savage, The Shadow, Mack Bolan, Remo Williams, Captain Hawklin, Abraham Snow, Code Name Intrepid, etc.). As a writer, however, I've only recently begun work on a series, simply because certain mechanics of recurring characters (exposition-wise, mostly) intimidated me until recently.

Ron Thomas: Series for novels. One offs (that might be revisited) for short stories. Genres: action/adventure, sword & sorcery, science fiction.

Julie Cochrane: I like series fiction. It's what I like to read and what I like to write.

That said, some jumping around is, for me, necessary because at some point I can't continue to write a series while trying to sell the first book in it. There's just too much risk for me. So that has me, now, reaching out to do something different so I can keep writing while querying agents.

Also, there is the realistic possibility that trad publishing may look at my current work and say, "Meh."

I need a plan B, and that turns out to be something very different.

I've written military SF of the cloak and dagger variety and now I'm really feeling it for urban fantasy.

John French: Over the many years I have been writing I have created several series characters, many if whom have found their way into their own collections, which is another advantage. When I'm behind a vendor's table, I find that people like to buy books about the same character, and if I have more than one book about that character, they sometimes buy more than one or buy another when they come back. 

Bobby Nash: I do both. Series are fun because you get to revisit the characters again and again. Readers also enjoy series so they can keep up with characters they love (or hate). There is something fun about a stand-alone though. Even my series book wrap up the main plot in each book. I play in most genres. It’s fun.

Susan H. Roddey: I love the idea of a series, but it never seems to work out well for me in execution. I tend to get bored a little too easily. Most everything I write starts out standalone, but eventually evolves into something that could have additional books. The problem is, it puts too much stress on my ADHD squirrel brain and I end up falling off with everything. 

Tamara Lowery: I personally prefer writing a series. I love spending prolonged time with characters I've created, getting to know them and making their lives difficult. Of course, I've had immense fun writing the few short stories I have. I do have a couple of stand-alone longer works I wish I had time to get to. There's just not enough time to dedicate to everything.

The two series I do have published and in process are both action/adventure, but one is semi-historical dark fantasy that I intend to take more towards grimdark as it progresses. The other is steampunk episodic fiction. I have an epic fantasy stand-alone awaiting my attention as well as a dystopian slightly political stand-alone in the wings.

What are the advantages (both marketing and as a writer) of doing a series?

Lucy Blue: Every book I've ever published with a NYC press has been part of a trilogy, and most of the indie ones I have, too, but not because I wanted to. Right now I have an ongoing cozy romantic historical mystery series, The Stella Hart Mysteries, and the first book in a new medieval romantasy series, The Dragon's Wife, is coming out on January 15. And I love all of those books and loved the experience of writing all of those books. And the Stella books have been some of my most successful. But my southern gothic horror book, The Devil Makes Three (which has also done pretty well) is very much a standalone, and I loved writing it that way.

Tamara Lowery: The advantages of series from both marketing and as a writer is a chance to more fully develop characters, events, and settings. From a marketing standpoint, it lets readers know that there will be more story, a chance at prolonging their escape to another world.

Ron Thomas: I hope that book 1 makes book 2 more sale-able and so on. (I have a nine-book deal, so I need to keep growing readership.)

Susan H. Roddey: In this market, a series is definitely advantageous if you get it in front of the right audience. Read-through seems to be the biggest draw, especially with Booktok being as insanely useful as it is. The primary DISADVANTAGE of a series is that there are a lot of readers who won't even start it until it's completed, which messes with sales algorithms and frustrates writers. It's part of why I prefer standalones -- both as a reader and a writer.

Rachel Burda Taylor: Advantages of series are that they are easy to get reader follow through from one book to the next, since the readers get hooked. As a writer, I really enjoy exploring my worlds (even the contemporary ones) and it's impossible to thoroughly do that in one book. I also like the feel of a bigger plot that moves from one book to another. World-building, if complex, is also just really time-consuming so a series cuts that down.

John French: I prefer writing about series characters, even when writing short stories. It saves my from having to create new characters and settings, which is one of the advantages of having series characters. 

Matthew Barron: Readers who like a series tend to come back for each new installment, so it might be easier to grow an audience that way.

Bobby Nash: Readers love following series, especially if they love the characters. When asking someone about their favorite series (book, comic, TV, or movie), it’s rarely the plot they talk about, but the characters. “I love the Bosch books” for example. Marketing a series can cover multiple books at once.

Brian K Morris: Marketing a series seems to be easier because it's mostly preaching to the choir. You would have a built-in base of readers and from there, you can attempt to grow it. As a writer, I find I don't have to pack EVERYTHING I want to say with a character because there will be other opportunities to make those points down the road.

Aaron Rosenberg: It’s a LOT easier to build a brand if you’re writing in a single genre, and even easier if you’re writing a single series. That way, anyone who finds and likes your work knows exactly what they’re getting when they pick up the next book.

Sean Taylor: The biggest advantage I can see is the marketability. Fans want to follow the next book, because fans really dig series. And as long as fans drive sales, publishers will dig series too. To me, though the whole enterprise leads to weakened storytelling brought on by the increased need to keep going. It's like when you get a surplus or supply issue of a comic book that just isn't as good simply because a new story had to come out because the calendar date changed. 

Paul Landri: I don't have a very big following yet but I know people are looking forward to Crimson Howl 2 and 3 so I guess my particular audience likes serial-type stories. It's definitely easier to market because it's pre-established and known (even in a limited capacity)

Scott Roche: Your fans know what to expect. It's easier to market. People love series.

What are the advantages of hopping from one new, unrelated work/genre to another?

Rachel Burda Taylor: There is something fun about learning something entirely new, especially in terms of genre/world. Creatively, it gets my brain going.

Susan H. Roddey: I'm happy with a one-and-done story. I also despise a cliffhanger, which is how so many contemporary series force read-through.

Ron Thomas: Doing something in between is a mental palate cleanser. I am working on a military aviation short story between action novels. Lets me come back fresher.

Tamara Lowery: The advantage of hopping from one unrelated project to the next is the chance to reach a wider audience and to keep from getting in a writing rut or just getting lazy.

Aaron Rosenberg: For me, it’s the chance to write something different than what I’ve just finished, and also to explore something completely new. I’ve done darker (for me) books and though they were fun, I wouldn’t want to always write dark. But I feel the same way about over-the-top comedy—the DuckBob books were a blast to do, and I do like to do the occasional short story in that idiom, but I couldn’t do that kind of wackiness all the time. Switching things up lets me experiment, which I feel helps me grow as a writer. And sure, people who like my SF comedies might not care for my dark occult thrillers. On the other hand, someone might try a genre that’s new to them because they liked my work in a more familiar genre, and that’s just awesome.

Brian K Morris: For me, genre-hopping helps keep me fresh. I don't enjoy reading two similar books in a row unless it's research. But that's a me issue.

Paul Landri: It allows a break from the genre you are working in. Horror will be refreshing to me since I've been consumed with superheroes.

Bobby Nash: It keeps me from getting bored. As a reader, I read multiple genres because I like multiple genres. As a writer, I write multiple genres because I like multiple genres.

Scott Roche: I'll let you know when I find out. But seriously, for me the benefit is purely personal. I enjoy writing in different genres and I have series in different genres.

Sean Taylor: For me, it's the joy of creating what I want to create. On top of that, I get to pretend I'm a classic writer like Wells, Bradbury, or Vonnegut, who rarely even revisited characters, much less wrote a series. 

Matthew Barron: The pros are that it keeps me interested, and if a reader comes to my table there is a lot of variety. The con is a big one though. Branding and marketing are harder, and a reader who likes one of my books might come back to my table or website and not find anything similar.

For new authors, do you recommend one over the other? Why?

Lucy Blue: As for new authors, my advice on this is the same as my advice on everything else--nobody knows what's going to work in the marketplace ten minutes from now, much less two years from now or longer when you finish your book and get it published. Write the best book you can write right here and now, the one that makes your soul sing, and if it features a character or a setting or a trope that will bear repeating in a series later, awesome, but if it doesn't, that's fine, too. Wait until you have a bestseller and a publisher clamoring for a sequel to worry about it. Writing to the market has never been a good idea for novelists, but right now, it's a TERRIBLE idea.

John French: To the new authors, I would recommend creating characters you can use more than once and, as a genre hopper myself, don't limit yourself to only one genre.

Bobby Nash: Do what works best for you.

Scott Roche: No. You need to write what you enjoy. You do you.

Rachel Burda Taylor: For new authors, I'd recommend writing a stand-alone and making sure they enjoy the process and actually finish the book before worrying about more. They can always turn a stand-alone into a series. When I see new writers talking about their 12-book series, I always wince a bit. Overcommitting is a great way to really sink yourself (for me anyway.)

Susan H. Roddey: As for a recommendation on what to write -- whatever you think you have the stamina to finish. Don't be an ambitious knucklehead like me and fizzle out mid-series, because that never seems to end well.

Sean Taylor: Write what you love. If you love a character and want to tell an epic story, do it. Just know it's not for me. If you want to hop around to different MCs and different genres like a pinball, go for it. I'll probably dig at least half of it. But the important this is to write what you want to write and create the kind of stories you'd like to see more of in the world. 

Ef Deal: As for new writers, I think having a series can be an advantage to be able to offer a future to publishers.

Ron Thomas: When I was new, I wrote whatever I could for whoever would take it (academic, trade journals, non-fiction magazines, pro wrestling mags … which are “creative non-fiction” on pulp paper). However, the book series was always in planning and “under construction” in the background. I felt I needed plenty of clips to be taken seriously to pitch something book-length and beyond.

Paul Landri: I don't recommend any author doing something they don't like or won't enjoy. Writing is done for yourself first an the audience second so wrote how you want and let the chips fall where they may.

Brian K Morris: I have no preference. Write what you want to read, pure and simple. Write to chase a trend and you'll find the trend changed by the time you publish. Write your best book for you, then market to find like-minded readers.

Aaron Rosenberg: I think it really depends upon the author. If you feel in your heart and soul that you are an epic fantasy writer, focus on that to start. You can experiment and try a hard SF short story once you’re established, but first make your bones on the area you already know you love. On the other hand, if you’re not sure which genre appeals to you the most, or you have several you love, then absolutely try them all. Flexibility can be a gift—some of my work has come about when someone asked me to write something and I said, “You know, I’ve never done one of those before. Sure, let’s give it a go.”

Tamara Lowery: I recommend new writers tackle whatever they feel most comfortable with, regardless if it is a series or various stand-alones. I also think they should experiment with both long form and short form. These are very different styles requiring different skill sets. Both can help make for better writing with practice.

eSpec Books Assembles the Steampunk Monsters!

Monstrous Is a Matter of Perspective…

Classic tales throughout time pit humanity against creatures of the night, beyond mortal understanding. But what—or who—makes a monster? Folklore has its tale to tell, but might there be a different view? We present fourteen tales inspired by the masters of the macabre, Bram Stoker and Mary Shelley, paying tribute to their vision of gothic horror.

In conjunction with the Tell-Tale Steampunk Festival, An Assembly of Monsters brings you stories by:

James Chambers * Michelle D. Sonnier * Keith R.A. DeCandido * Jessica Lucci * Aaron Rosenberg * Dana Fraedrich * Doc Coleman * Danielle Ackley-McPhail * Ef Deal * John L. French * Christine Norris * Rachel Brune * David Lee Summers * Hildy Silverman * 

https://especbooks.square.site/product/an-assembly-of-monsters/155

Crime Fiction: Private Dicks, Armchair Detectives, and Cops on the Job

For our next writer roundtable, let's talk about crime fiction and mystery fiction. 

Which "slice" of this genre do you prefer to write, detectives solving mysteries (or cops solving a procedural) or a more general telling of the crime and folks involved? Why?

Danielle Procter Piper: I prefer to tell the story of the investigator. It's tricky, though, because sometimes it's difficult to stay one step ahead of a very intelligent character. You have to keep tossing obstacles at him or her just to keep the story going. It's also fun to pair him or her with a partner who keeps veering things off course, just to add to the struggle and fun. 

Paul Storrie: Hard-boiled detective fiction. As Chandler put it, "Down these mean streets a man must go who is himself not mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid." (Okay, these days I don't object to a bit of tarnish and, of course, the "man" might be a woman or nonbinary. ) Though I have enjoyed some procedurals, I prefer the private investigator. The underdog. Not part of the system, but striving for some kind of justice nonetheless.

Van Allen Plexico: "Get caught"?! Dude--spoilers, but my criminals get away with it! 😅 I mean, things never go the way they expect, but they at least get away with something!

And so far, I've come up with the objective first, after a lot of historical research, and then puzzled out what they're trying to do and how they go about doing it. Then, once I'm telling the tale, I allow it to grow in whatever useful and interesting directions it wants to go.

Aaron Rosenberg: I definitely write "someone solving a mystery", I'm not entirely sure how you'd do a mystery otherwise. 🙂

Sean Taylor: I vastly prefer to write a mystery. For me, I dig a good P.I. tale, and often the more hard-boiled or at least hard-boiled inspired the better. That's my preference when writing AND reading. I don't think I could ever want to write a cozy or an armchair type of detective. I want grit and action and disillusionment. I also enjoy writing something with a more noir approach, where an everyperson ends up in the middle of some mess and must figure their way out of it, and often that mess involves crime and criminals. 

Bobby Nash: I like following characters as they solve a mystery or chase down a bad guy. For me, the characters are where it starts. The mystery, procedural elements, or even the chase all work in service to the characters. Not every character handles a situation the same way. How Snow approaches a problem is different than how Sheriff Myers approaches it. These character traits inform how the story unfolds. My stories tend to involve solving a case or mystery, but I try to spend time with both the protagonists and antagonists. Still, it all starts with the characters.

Snow is much more of an action/thriller. There are mysteries in the Snow stories, but not all Snow stories are mysteries. As with everything I do, I try to make sure it starts with the characters. Everything that happens in a Snow book does so through Snow-covered glasses. How do the things in the story impact Abraham Snow? How does he react to events? From there, the crime builds around Snow.

The same is true of my other characters as well. At least I hope so. As you mentioned, they have vastly different approaches. I could drop Abraham Snow, Tom Myers, Harold Palmer, Catherine Jackson, and John Bartlett, all investigators and law enforcement in their own right, into the same plot and I would come away with five different stories because of how these characters handle the plot would be different and therefore take the story in a different direction. Tom Myers investigates differently than John Bartlett or Catherine Jackson. Their personalities are different. They have different skill sets. Those attributes help define how these characters solve their mysteries/cases.

Jason Bullock: I have to say I'm drawn to writing mysteries that deal with seasoned investigators encountering the improbable only to find it was the most reasonable explanation at the time. I love a cliffhanger!

HC Playa: I have written a grand total of one mystery short story which I totally winged. Was that the best approach? No, not at all. My story for "The Dragon Wore a Badge" (an anthology that is not yet out), falls in the solve the mystery category, although the person who was the crime victim centers more in this story. So perhaps a bit of both mystery/crime telling for that one. Did I wing that one as well? Why yes, yes I did. 😂

Now, technically book two for Of the Other series that I am working on features a kidnapping that our MCs have to solve....so I guess I write "person(s) solving a mystery."

Ian Totten: I do crime fiction. There’s something about writing grittiness, and an honest portrayal of this that appeals to my mind. It depends on the story, but I rarely give the reader an idea of who the antagonist is.

When writing a mystery, whether procedural, cozy, PI, etc., how do you craft your tale and plot? Just jump in and wing it as you go? Or do you start with the crime and work backward to figure out where the criminal went wrong and what caused them to get caught? Or have a main character just putter along until that final clue or witness falls into place? 

John French: My first ever published story was a detective story for which I had a great closing line and then wrote the story to get there. Generally, I start with a situation or what I want to happen then choose the detective best suited for it. How it goes from there varies, sometimes I know what's going to happen, and sometimes the story or characters take over. But it's always an investigator - police detective, PI (licensed or not), or someone else who would naturally investigate or punish crime.

Bobby Nash: I start with the inciting incident. With In The Wind, Sheriff Tom Myers’ first standalone novella, the idea of the safe house being hit was what I came up with first. I then built the story from there. The first step was getting to know the guy in protective custody. Who is he? Why is he there? What kind of criminal is he? What will he do when the safe house is attacked? Once I had that in place, I started figuring out the rest. Who’s after him? Why? Where does he go? What parts of Sommersville do we need to visit in this story? We’re worldbuilding as we work the investigation. Then I start layering in the pieces until we get to the end.

In Such A Night, I started with the murder and worked outward from there. In the upcoming Standing on the Shadows, we start with a small-engine plane crash. That uncovers a long-buried secret. Then, I build the crime off of that beginning. In Snow Falls, it was with our main character getting shot and left for dead. Evil Ways started with an action scene designed to introduce the characters and also lay the groundwork for the sequel, Evil Intent. Deadly Games! started with a flashback to introduce the characters and their relationships before time jumping to the present situation.

I usually have an idea of the ending when I start, but there have been instances where the ending changed as a result of the story unfolding organically. I don’t do detailed outlines. I know certain plot points to hit, what clues need to be there, that sort of thing, but I leave the story open enough to make discoveries along the way. Some of my better twists resulted in trusting the characters. In one instance, the villain of the story was not who I, the writer, thought it would be. I was at the end of the story, a short piece, and realized that who I thought was the bad guy was not the actual bad guy at all. The twist was great so I went back to insert the appropriate clues so the readers could have the chance to deduce the bad guy’s identity. I like to play fair and have all of the clues appear in the story. To my surprise, the clues were already there. This is further proof that my characters are way smarter than I am.

Writing clues can be nerve-wracking. To me, because I know it’s a clue, they seem so blatantly obvious that there should be a neon sign pointing at them, flashing the words THIS IS A CLUE!  With Evil Ways, I was pleasantly surprised that some of the clues to the killer’s identity were not caught by readers on the first read-through. When I pointed them out in conversation with readers, I could see the dots start to connect. That made me happy.

Paul Storrie: I've got to map it out ahead of time. That way I know the clues and have a rough idea when it makes sense for them to be found. I also need a solid idea of how the story wraps. (I've never quite bought into the idea that if the writer is surprised, the reader will be too.)

Danielle Procter Piper: I'll get a basic idea in my head: For instance, in Venus In Heat, I knew I wanted to write a story about the concept of "obligate carnivores" or "obligate herbivores" and prove such things don't actually exist. Because of the thriller/mystery element, I went with a real fear—people getting eaten. To amp it up, I decided they'd be small children. So, that was the exciting part, the part that makes the reader squirm and wonder what's going on. Next, I chose my main characters and decided to go with ones I was very familiar with: An almost goody-two-shoes retired veterinarian, and a shady streetwise para-policing agent...so there's the combo I mentioned earlier with the intelligent investigator partnered with a near opposite who keeps throwing the case sideways. After that, I took the beginning of an older idea that never went anywhere and made it the start of an entirely new, wild story. It was author Tim Dorsey who told me he writes by just letting the story and characters drag him along, no plotting or planning, and I find that's the most fun for me, too. I'll see logical plot points manifesting in the future and write toward them, then drift along that stream until another starts to appear. Winging it, most people call it. 

HC Playa: In my hybrid planning/seat of the pants approach I know who did the thing, but they aren't the big bad, and why they did it and where, but it's the laying down the breadcrumb trail to my big bad that's tricky. I come up with the next two or three plot beats and then have to stop as I figure out how to keep the trail going and possibly send them on a goose chase. I haven't written that particular style story before, so it's a bit slower than just going, "Ooh, and now there's an explosion" 😁

Jason Bullock: I have to admit that I start my task by exploring an event, a crime, or a problem that could be currently being experienced by my protagonist. I then settle that character into the thick if things. Skipping to a major theme plot element catches readers right out of the gate holds them by the frontal lobe till I'm ready to go back to the beginning of the scene where it began before the main character was involved in the time stream.

Aaron Rosenberg: Oh, I have to know the details of the mystery--who, how, when, where, and why--before I ever start writing. Then I can see what clues got left behind, what hints there are, what trails--and what red herrings, as well. Trying to wing it would result in a ridiculous amount of backfill as you finally figure everything out.

Sean Taylor: I generally have an outline when I work. Yes, I'm not typically a pantser. I'm a notorious plotter. Because of that, I know the ins and outs of the crime, but I still like that surprise when something I didn't even think was important becomes a major clue like the watch in Rick Ruby's "A Tree Falls in a Forest." That started as a throwaway clue, then became more and more important as the story progressed. Rick is an odd blend of capable detective and putterer, working all the angles until he gets the right bite on the line. Then he's smart enough to know that's his new direction to focus on. 

Is it more important that the reader be in the dark along with the MC or should the reader have access to stuff the "detective" doesn't? Which ratchets up the tension best for you?

Aaron Rosenberg: I do mysteries from either first-person or limited third-person POVs, meaning they see what the main characters see, nothing more. I don't believe in hiding details from my reader, having the main characters figure something out or see something and not share it in order to dazzle the reader at the end, but I also don't believe in giving the reader more information than the main character. It's a shared journey, everyone has the same information at the same time.

Jason Bullock: I often times do the reveal of what's important when the MC is encountering the event. Disguising that key clue amidst a bevy of red herrings which are laid out for them to take a whiff at is a great way a murder, robbery, kidnapping, etc. The hidden clue in plain sight is what makes the reveal even better by the main character. "Tweak a strand on the web and the Spider will show itself."- Douglas Aldridge, (protagonist from my novella ENOCH Initiative ©2023)

Paul Storrie: I tend to go with the traditional hard-boiled, private eye, first-person narrative, so the reader gets the clues when the detective does. Haven't yet written a mystery where the reader has more info than the detective.

Danielle Procter Piper: I like to follow the hero precisely, allowing the reader to try and guess what's happening. Showing them how the character thinks and why, explaining how motivations and past experience play into his or her worldview but will take a side trip to write stuff the hero doesn't know if it's necessary to add clarity for the reader. If the reader knows just about everything already and is simply following the hero's path to resolution then I feel the story is not about solving anything or encouraging new ways of thinking and seeing things, but about caring for the characters instead. Either can work. I prefer to write stories of discovery instead of stories about emotions.

Bobby Nash: I prefer to play fair with my readers. All of the clues the detective uses to solve the case need to be in the book. I hate it when detectives use a piece of information or clue to solve a case that the audience did not see. That’s not fair to the readers. I like for readers to be able to try and solve things along with the characters in the book. Plus, if they didn’t figure it out, after the reveal, they can go back and see the clues. That said, I do spend time with the antagonists. In those instances, the protagonists will not have that information. It’s a bit of the best of both worlds, though can be tricky. In my novels, Evil Ways and Suicide Bomb, we follow the killer in each, seeing events through his eyes, hearing his thoughts, but I still keep the identity secret until the hero characters discover it. That can be tough. You have to be careful with how you write those scenes.

Sean Taylor: One of the reasons why I specified crime fiction not just mystery fiction for this roundtable is they are different animals but the same genus, so to speak. In a mystery, someone is trying to find clues and solve the crime. In thriller crime fiction (like Die Hard for a movie example) the villain is already known to the MC, and the only mystery is how the hero is gonna save the day. In a thriller, the reader is usually more knowledgeable than the MC since the POV will bounce from head to head as needed to keep a more "cinematic" pacing and plotting. In mysteries, as most have said before, clues come a little at a time, drizzle by drizzle, and often are packaged with red herrings or rabbit trails. Personally, with Rick Ruby, I like to see him do his due diligence as a capable detective, but sort of stumble into the final piece based on something he did intentionally earlier in the act of investigation, something that he doesn't know he knows yet, but the bad guys may think he knows so they make their move. 

Creating Effective Story Bibles

This week, we're going to pull out the red letters for bibles... No, not that kind -- Story Bibles! Some writers love them, some find themselves stifled by them. Some don't like having to use them but find them necessary regardless. This week, we talk about series bibles (or story bibles, as I've also heard them called). 

What goes into an effective and efficient story bible?

John L. Taylor: I use one even for single short stories, here goes mine. What goes in needs to be three things 

A. Character Bios that define their behavior and background to be consistent. 

B. the guide to overall tone of each piece and what tropes/themes are hard no's and which are auto includes. 

C. The overall arc of the series (if a planned number of stories) and what plot points resolve where and what milestones each character's arc reaches.

Aaron Rosenberg: Premise, setting, characters, theme, tone--anything that needs to be consistent throughout the stories. The more closely tied together they are, the more detail the bible requires. Often, for a series, this includes a timeline of existing events, and that and the character bios are updated as things get added and changed.

Andy Fix: Character basics (personality, physical description, any special abilities/gear character uses regularly, list of supporting characters and relationships to main character, anything that might make the setting stand out.

Gordon Dymowski: A good bible has character descriptions (including relationships and possible backstory), setting, and some examples of what to avoid in writing that particular character.

Bobby Nash: You need to get to know the characters in the bible. This will show the definitive version(s) of the character(s). Changes to that can happen, but this lets all involved start at the same place. Locations, terminology, special skills, equipment, etc. are also shared here. Where they live, work, eat, relationships, etc.

Sean Taylor: Something that a lot of folks don't think about that I really appreciate as a writer is a sort of web that connects the characters' relationships. Who is in love with who? Who doesn't get along and why. That helps me with the deeper, character-driven parts of the story I'm writing.

What shouldn't, but you often see in one anyway?

John L. Taylor: A detailed "beat sheet" of exactly what happens when in each piece. If you read the Encyclopedia Brown books as a kid, you get why this is a bad thing, as each book was basically a copy and paste of the first with altered clues. 

Aaron Rosenberg: I don't know that there's anything you SHOULDN'T include, it's just that you run the risk of bogging people down with too much detail they don't necessarily need.

Andy Fix: Detailed history of past exploits (unless there is an overarching story arc.)

Gordon Dymowski: A detailed history of the character. (I don't mind links/information about reprints/publications/etc, but it's the writer's job to do the research).

Bobby Nash: No one particular thing leaps out, but sometimes story bibles have too much information, not all of it necessary to write the character(s).

Sean Taylor: The dry, encyclopedia tone. I much prefer it when a story bible can give me a flavor or taste of the writing and the characters' voice, even when presenting the cold, hard facts of the bio and beats. 

Is a story bible something you look for before contributing to an anthology or series?

Bobby Nash: If it’s a character I am unfamiliar with, the story bible can prove quite useful. I’ve also found it useful in doing media tie-in work, even if I do know the character. Often, licenses come with a large list of dos and don’ts from the owners of the IP. It’s their toy so they get to tell you how to play with it.

In writing the story bible for The Ruby Files, you and I focused on the characters and their relationships first, then the settings, then types of stories we were looking for. I thought that worked rather well.

Gordon Dymowski: Definitely - a bible demonstrates that a publisher has done due diligence in researching a character to ensure its viability. Especially in developing a series surrounding a character, since having some continuity and cohesion between writers.

Andy Fix: Absolutely! It makes the editor’s job easier and prevents rewrites.

Sean Taylor: Every damn time. 

Aaron Rosenberg: For a series, yes. For an anthology, only if the stories are actually tied together. If it's just a thematic link, like "all the stories should be about bards," no, I don't need a bible.

John L. Taylor: Only for series. An anthology can vary in tone each entry. Series fiction like The Executioner or Longarm books that are published under a house name need better consistency. 

What's your experience with story bibles? How have they been helpful to you? Or have they?

Andy Fix: I’ve found them extremely helpful in wrapping my brain around a character, which, in turn, helps with figuring out a satisfying story. Fans of an established character are going to want to see certain tropes show up in any given story, and a good bible helps establish what those tropes are.

Gordon Dymowski: I find bibles very helpful when writing - I love having some background as a launching point for further research. It also helps me maintain a consistent tone and avoid a publisher's criticisms. Bibles can be a good guide for writing a character who may be relatively obscure.

John Morgan 'Bat' Neal: My late dear friend Cliff Roberts was the world's biggest Aym Geronimo fan. And he loved background stuff. All of his RPG characters had extensive backgrounds. And he wanted that info for other characters as well. And he wanted that with Aym. But often when he would ask me a question about her, I'd answer "I don't know."

Bobby Nash: They are helpful in terms of knowing what the publisher and/or license holder expects. I know that I am working on an IP I do not own therefore I can’t just do whatever the hell I want. Knowing what is expected helps me craft my story. It’s good to know what they are not looking for as well as what they are. As you once told me, and I quote this often, “Don’t blow up Cleveland. We may need it later.” I believe we put something like that in The Ruby Files bible because we were looking for stories of a certain type and they weren’t world-shattering stories like that.

Yes, it's a TV model, but the info is still fantastic.

Nik Stanosheck: I don't have one for my anthology, just plot points that need to be hit in each story. For The Vhaidra Saga, I have a story bible in Word and a timeline in Excel.

John Pence: I have only ever written such a thing for TV/movie people, and wrote them specifically for a cocaine attention span. I don’t use them in real life. yet." That drove him crazy.cure as well.

Aaron Rosenberg: When I wrote for Star Trek SCE, the bible was fantastic, and all the authors received regular updates. The bibles for WarCraft and StarCraft were both excellent and very thorough. I've worked on some projects where the bibles were extremely thin and vague, and more confusing than helpful.

Sean Taylor: I've found them very helpful both as a writer and as an editor. It's usually really easy to tell who really used them and who just gave them a cursory glance before writing for you. 

John L. Taylor:  I've not had to use one professionally until quite recently and found it quite helpful.

Publishers, do you require story bibles for anthologies? Do you find writers tend to request them?

Aaron Rosenberg: For ReDeus, OCLT, and Scattered Earth, we do have bibles. We update those every so often to make sure they're current, and refer to them ourselves when we do books in those series, to make sure we, too, are staying consistent.

Bobby Nash: I always ask if there is a story bible. If so, I read it and follow those instructions.

Sean Taylor: Any time I'm creating and editing  an anthology, I always create a precursor story bible to help the publisher get the vibe and tone, and then further develop it for the writers. 

eSpecs Books Focus #11: Aaron Rosenberg

I've got a special treat for you this month and next month. I'm going to devote Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays to writers from eSpecs Books. They're a great bunch of folks whom you need to get to know. 

Next up, Aaron Rosenberg!

Tell us a bit about your latest work.   

Gone to Ground is the second book in the Systema Paradoxa series. It’s a period mystery, set in the Roaring Twenties, with a bit of a cryptid twist. Trevor Kincaid throws the best parties, and only the most fashionable and elegant get to attend. But when a lady is found dead in the midst of one, all signs seem to point to Trevor himself as the killer. He claims he didn’t do it, and that someone can confirm his innocence—but his supposed witness cannot be found. Can an earnest police detective—and a quiet young woman—discover the truth? 

What happened in your life that prompted you to become a writer?  

I’ve always loved telling stories, even as a kid. Then, when I was in third grade, I won my school’s Writing Award. The school was K-4, so I actually beat out the fourth-graders for it. Going up and getting that award was the first time I realized that my writing could impact more people than just myself and my family and friends. I was hooked. I still have the plaque, mounted on the wall next to my desk. 

What inspires you to write?  

For me, it’s all about entertaining my readers. Maybe I’m trying to make them laugh, maybe I’m trying to make them think, maybe I’m trying to keep them on the edge of their seats or have them scratching their heads, but I always want to engage them in the story and to have them feel, at the end, that they enjoyed it and that their time was well-spent. 

What are the themes and subjects you tend to revisit in your work?  

I’m a big fan of turning things on their head, taking a standard trope and twisting it around to see what it looks like that way. I also love mythology, so a lot of my stories have to do with gods and monsters but also with the difference between perception and reality, story and truth, legend and existence.  

What would be your dream project?  

That’s tough because I’ve been pretty lucky so far, both with tie-in work and with my original fiction. There are still some properties I’d love to write for, like Doctor Who or Marvel, but I’ve gotten to write for things like Star Trek and World of WarCraft and The X-Files and Sinbad the Sailor, and I’ve been able to write mystery, thriller, action-adventure, comedy, science fiction, epic fantasy, urban fantasy, dark fantasy/horror, western, and superhero. 

What writers have influenced your style and technique?  

On the literary side, Jane Austen and Mark Twain have always been my inspirations—humor, character, and story, plus both perfectly capture their time and place. For genre fiction, I started with Madeleine L’Engle, Ursula K. Le Guin, and Andre Norton, all amazing. Then I expanded to people like Ron Goulart and Douglas Adams and Julian May and R.A. MacAvoy and Piers Anthony and finally Roger Zelazny and Tim Powers and David and Leigh Eddings.

If you have any former project to do over to make it better, which one would it be, and what would you do?  

My first OCLT novel—that’s a series of occult thrillers I created with David Niall Wilson—is a novel called Incursion, about a pair of FBI agents who go to investigate murder on a reservation in the Pacific Northwest and find themselves dealing with a killer who is not quite human. I’m still very happy with the book but I’ve done two more OCLT novels since then and so I know the characters a lot better now. That’s just something that happens as you continue a series, though, where people you created who started out a little rough and a little hazy are now in much sharper focus. 

Where would you rank writing on the "Is it an art or it is a science continuum?" Why?  

Depends upon the kind of writing. Fiction and poetry are heavily on the “art” side. More technical forms of writing are on the “science” side. But I’d say it was more accurate to distinguish between “art” and “craft”—at the one end you have writers who care nothing for standard grammar, punctuation, etc., and are all about the feel of the writing and the emotions and images, while at the other end you have writing that is technically proficient but lacks any of that passion, and of the spontaneity. Fortunately, most writers call somewhere between the two extremes. 

What is the most difficult part of your artistic process?  

Starting the story. That first page is a killer! It’s always tough to get going, because you’re doing it from a standing start. And if it’s a new project, you don’t know the characters yet, you don’t have the feel for the story, you don’t have the pacing down, the rhythm. It’s a lot easier when it’s a book in a series because then at least you’re picking up where you left off, with characters you already know and a rhythm you just have to relearn. 

How do your writer friends help you become a better writer? Or do they not?  

Oh, of course they do. All the time. One way is simply being around other writers, talking about writing—like so many other topics, you sharpen yourself and your ideas and opinions by running them by others, getting feedback, and adjusting to take that into account. It’s also great to be able to bounce specific story ideas off friends, asking, “how does this sound to you?” and knowing they can respond as a fellow writer. And then there’s hearing about their writing, and reading it, and getting to see how they approach certain aspects of storytelling—some of it may be completely different from how I go about things, but it’s still instructive to see, and at times you go, “Oh, that makes so much more sense than what I was doing before! I’ll try that method!” 

What does literary success look like to you?  

I’ve already achieved some of what I consider literary success—I’ve written for major properties, I’ve had books released by major publishers, I’ve been translated in multiple languages, I’ve been an author guest at various conventions, I’ve won awards, and I’ve hit bestseller lists. I haven’t hit The New York Times list yet, so that would be a big one for me, and I’ve never had a work optioned for, let alone developed into, a movie or television series. But honestly, my proudest moment as a writer, what I’d say was my greatest success, was at a con a few years back. Someone stopped by my table in the author library, and after I told him about one of my books—No Small Bills, the first book in my SF comedy series The Adventures of DuckBob Spinowitz—he got all excited and said, “that sounds awesome, I need to bring my friend over here.” Then he left. But the next day he turned back up, dragging a friend with him. They came straight to my table and he pointed at my book and said, “There, that’s the one I was talking about, it sounds awesome.” And his friend said, “Yeah, I bought it last year, I loved it—wait, there are two more?” And bought the next two in the series right then and there. It really doesn’t get any better than that. 

Any other upcoming projects you would like to plug?  

My next book out should be Bones at Rest, which is the fourth book in my Anime-esque epic fantasy series The Relicant Chronicles. Think Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon meets Game of Thrones, in a kingdom where the only remaining magic is literally consuming the bones of your ancestors to access their skills and knowledge. In this book, the characters have to contend with a nationwide event that throws everything into turmoil and inadvertently creates opportunities for chaos and strife. After that is Focal Point, my next OCLT novel, where several members of the team are asked to travel to a small Eastern European country to help protect a scientific installation that’s being threatened—but when they arrive they discover that all is not as they were told, the site itself is wrapped in ancient and powerful mysteries, and things are far stranger and far darker than they seemed. Then I have Crossroads, the fourth and final book in my Time of the Phoenix series, about the immortal Phoenix and his attempts to move through the ages of Man and help foster humanity’s creativity and passion while fending off those who would doom us to colorless uniformity in the name of safety. 

For more information, visit: 

You can find me at gryphonrose.com and also at Crazy8Press.com, an author collective I helped found. I have an author page on Amazon, and one on Facebook, and my Twitter handle is @gryphonrose.