There are a lot of opinions on how many main plot-lines a good story should have, not counting the numerous and interesting side-plots and excursions.

Some say no more than ONE main story, and by definition, that should always be the case. However, most stories actually have two or more, some have up to five.

My novel FIFTHWIND has two major arcs. The story as a whole would be incomplete without either of them. 1) Ben's story and his rise to greatness, and 2) The story of who is attacking Kishell Springs and why.

Now, when it comes to branches, subplots, excursions ect. I'm a big fan of having LOTS of them. I'm also a big fan of NOT concluding all of them. I like have some little things left unanswered. It's the kind of stuff that keep readers talking about a book long after they've finished reading.

What are your thoughts?

I agree completely. Sequels almost never work if they are not premeditated and that means leaving story arcs open.

I actually have 3 main story arcs, and I think they fit well precisely because they can interact to make life more difficult for the characters. I have a baddie that only lasts to the end of the book, baddies that will *always* be present as long as the setting persists, and one of the characters turning into a baddie. As a result, characters fighting baddie #1 are interupted by an ambush by baddies #2, and then the bad character over-reacts and kills a whole lotta people while baddie #1 makes its escape.

Of course, things like this also happen because my characters are very, very bad strategists.

Mokele