Betsy Freeman Reavley Agree. They have psychological elements throughout the series threads. That’s why I am not sure how a complete, psychological thriller only series could work. It would have to be a mixed genre. (In my opinion)
IMO thrillers work best as stand-alones, however, it might be possible to squeeze out a second/ sequel featuring backstories or covering ground not addressed to complete satisfaction in the first.
I think it would be very hard to pull off. If there are other books, it diminishes the level of threat on the main protag. You know by the end of the book they’re going to be okay, because there’s book 2 and 3.
I think it would be very tricky to write a psych thriller series. If you didn’t reveal who the bad guy was/where the missing child was/the mystery readers would cry foul! I always feel like my characters go through so much in one book that for them to have to go through MORE in a different book might stretch the bounds of credibility!
Interesting. How would you write a psychological series? Not sure how that would work.
Scratch that – I guess in some ways Thomas Harris did it with The Silence of The Lambs etc and Dexter …
That’s my question @Noelle – could it work as a series? Isn’t the fourth monkey a psych thriller and he has book two coming out.
Betsy Freeman Reavley Agree. They have psychological elements throughout the series threads. That’s why I am not sure how a complete, psychological thriller only series could work. It would have to be a mixed genre. (In my opinion)
@Alexina Not really. I would class it as a crime thriller/serial killer thriller with psych elements – great question though!
Betsy Freeman Reavley As a series. Pure psych thrillers? Interesting…might have to check them out.
Will check them out! Thanks x
I’m just wondering if it could be done, but agree it would have to be cross genre-
I do think two books was the maximum. Wouldn’t have stretched them to a third. Hope you enjoy them Noelle. X
IMO thrillers work best as stand-alones, however, it might be possible to squeeze out a second/ sequel featuring backstories or covering ground not addressed to complete satisfaction in the first.
I would prefer standalones. A trilogy maybe but not a long series
I agree with Susan 3 is about the limit
Prefer stand alones
*Casually writes third book in series* ??
In a straight psychological thriller series? Or is it a mixed genre?
It’s mixed. Largely CF/ Police procedural, especially in book two.
Yeah, I think that works well and can be a long series when it’s mixed up.
I think it would be very hard to pull off. If there are other books, it diminishes the level of threat on the main protag. You know by the end of the book they’re going to be okay, because there’s book 2 and 3.
It’d be a very talented author that could do it and still keep you hooked x
Depends on the writer..
Stand alones for us busy-minded hard working class. Even if it is a series, each part should act as a stand alone.
I think it would be very tricky to write a psych thriller series. If you didn’t reveal who the bad guy was/where the missing child was/the mystery readers would cry foul! I always feel like my characters go through so much in one book that for them to have to go through MORE in a different book might stretch the bounds of credibility!
I used to love Nicci French’s early books. Much better than the Freda Klein ones.
I tend to think so
?
Yes.
I don’t think psychological thrillers could work as a series