Sequelitis

I've looked at Daria fandom for about seven years now, and one thing that I've definitely noticed is a surge in popularity of a particular form of storytelling, namely, the series. When looking at new Daria tales, it seems that every single one of them is a series of some sort. By "series" I mean a tale whose end point is deliberately left in doubt. Series can come to an end, but the reader doesn't know when the wrap-up point will come and to a degree, the reader can always depend on more.

I read an interesting article called Why Scifi Book Series Outstay Their Welcomes. Aside from fandom, the place where series have taken hold is the realm of science fiction and fantasy. Part of the reason is because the market is so competitive and the goal is to sell books, and it's much easier for an author to sell a Part II than it is a Part I.

The author of the article gives seven reason why science fiction series reach their failure point. I read the list and tried to compare what I read to Daria fandom.

1. The rules change. This is when the actual premise or plot structure changes, or the balance of suspension of disbelief changes. The example given was Philip Jose Farmer in Riverworld, as Farmer supposedly changed the plot mechanics of how Riverworld worked book by book so that he would have less difficulty contriving new stories. One could claim that Glenn Eichler did this sometime between the end of Season Two and Season Four, where the series changed from Daria Triumphant to Daria-Unsure-Of-Herself.

2. Cash flow. A series continues entirely for monetary reasons -- it brings in truckloads of money, and one has to bring out the installments to keep the money flowing. I suppose in Daria fandom, the "money" is the ego-boost the author receives. It's very hard to come up with an example here.

3. A trilogy becomes a messy tetralogy. The big example in SF is Douglas Adams and his Hitchhiker's Guide series. I read the first three, but I noticed that as the series progressed the humor had less and less punch. I read the fourth one at the library, and it was almost unbearable. I didn't read the fifth one at all.

An analog in Daria fandom could be when a sequel is demanded of a story that the author ended. Several Daria fan fiction writers have unfortunately "sequeled" well ended stories; The Angst Guy is very good at giving stories natural ends and holding calls for sequels at arm's-length.

4. Too much meaning. This happens when the author explains "how the world works" over and over again. With more time to write and expound, the series delves into the metaphysical and epistemological and the series becomes a moral treatise on The Way Things Are In The World.

Some Daria fan fiction series do indeed become author soapboxes. I'm reminded of Daniel Suni's "How Deep it Goes", which becomes positively preachy.

5, The random left turn. This happens when the author pretty much loses the thread and the series becomes about Something Else Entirely. This supposedly happens in Isaac Asimov's followup to his Foundation Trilogy.

6. The miraculous save. An example of "The Miraculous Save" is when a character seems to develop "just-in-time" abilities or capabilities that fit in to whatever the author is writing about. Suzette Haden Elgin's Native Tongue is given as an example.

7. The shrinking protagonist. Either a) the rough edges of the protagonist are smoothed for public consumption (Harry Harrison, Stainless Steel Rat), or a new protagonist throws the original protagonist into the shadows. (Orson Scott Card, Ender's Shadow.)

Now I can certainly think of Daria series where this happens, but I don't want to make the claim unless I've read those series thoroughly -- I only have first impressions to go on and I'd rather not be rash. A lot of Daria series suffer the problems listed above.

However, the final four entries on the list really around about the specifics of creating books for a science fiction market. The final four entries are examples of bad writing, which can doom anything, series or standalone.

Take #4. The point is not to expound on moral matters too heavily, but to let the reader draw their own conclusions (and not contrive a phony set of false moral alternatives in which to place the protagonist -- trust me, nothing's cheaper than that).

What about #5? That's just bad plotting. As Mark Twain stated that a conversation in literature should stop when the characters have nothing more to say than the reader would be interested in and should stop at a natural stopping point, so should the narrative of a book.

As for #6 -- Sweet Jesu, the examples I could come up with when a character shows "omnicapability". There are a lot of Mary Sues floating around, "omnicapability" is the worst of their sins.

In #7, there's a big temptation to make bad people "nice guys". I'll admit I sort of did this with Sandi Griffin in the Legion of Lawndale Heroes stories, but face it, I've always liked Sandi Griffin and never thought she was really that bad. A writer must avoid the temptation, however, to turn a character into something that can't be justified with an appeal to the Almighty God Canon. Thomas Mikkelsen would claim, "well, you're just writing a different character, and the only thing your character has in common with the Daria character is the name."

No major points to make. Just some observations.