Sequel or Standalone?

[Philip Overby]

I was writing my current WIP under the full intention of making it a standalone novel. However, I'm seeing the potential to make a sequel out of it. I kind of like that this decision has come organically instead of me deciding I was going to write a sequel from the get go. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I just hoped this one would be standalone. I can do a lot with a sequel if I go that route as I'm seeing a lot of that potential. However, my current novel is from one character's POV. If I do a sequel, I feel like I'd like to do more POVs than one. Would that be weird?

Anyway, when do you make the decision to go standalone or a series?

 

[Svrtnsse]

I'm going for a standalone novel. I don't have enough plot to write a sequel and I'm not sure it would really be that interesting. Then again, if it turns out that the story becomes vastly popular and hordes of fans clamor for more (yeah, right, as if), I would probably attempt to write a sequel.

I'm definitely going to write other stories in the same setting though. My current MC probably won't figure in them other than possibly making a cameo somewhere, but no more than that.

I thought a little about what you mention about writing a sequel but adding in more PoVs. I think it might work. If I did I'd probably try and not think of it as a sequel, but as a related story involving the MC from the previous book. I guess it's a really small distinction and it may not even be worth making. It was my spontaneous reaction though.

 

[Chilari]

What I'm writing now is definitely a standalone novel. There is the potential to write a sequel after it, but I doubt I will - at least, not immediately.

 

[TWErvin2]

When I begin planning the novel, and the world, I decide whether there's room enough for a sequel or a series.

With the First Civilization's Legacy series I write, Flank Hawk, the first novel, was written as a standalone (complete story arc) but with the opportunity for the story to continue. The second novel in the series, Blood Sword, I wrote as a standalone, although it was written from the same POV (First Person/same protagonist) as in Flank Hawk. It took me a while to study and figure out how to write Blood Sword so that a reader could pick up either novel and enjoy it, but would also enjoy the other novel if they read it, while not feeling dragged down by repetitive information, etc.

The third novel I am completing, Soul Forge, could be read as the first novel in the series, but it doesn't stand alone as well. The same POV/Protagonist, with many returning characters and in the same world/cities, I didn't feel it was an effective use of my time and effort. Why? I've found that the majority of readers pick up the first novel in the series, even if the second is a standalone. I figured this trend would even be stronger with the first novel vs. the third in the series.

I believe that if you're thinking about a series, and still working on that first novel, pay attention to what goes into it. Once it's in print and readers have read it, it's difficult to change events, settings, characters, actions, etc. What happens or is established in the first novel ripples through those that follow, both with doors (opportunities) that are left opened and those that are closed.

As an author, I feel you're bound by that first novel's contents and must remain true and consistent as best you can with subsequent novels. 'Do overs' would be difficult, I feel, for readers to accept, moving forward.

 

[Svrtnsse]

With the First Civilization's Legacy series I write, Flank Hawk, the first novel, was written as a standalone (complete story arc) but with the opportunity for the story to continue. The second novel in the series, Blood Sword, I wrote as a standalone, although it was written from the same POV (First Person/same protagonist) as in Flank Hawk. It took me a while to study and figure out how to write Blood Sword so that a reader could pick up either novel and enjoy it, but would also enjoy the other novel if they read it, while not feeling dragged down by repetitive information, etc.

This got me thinking...
I might be reading you wrong, but are did you get it working in a way that it doesn't matter in which order you read them? How did you handle that with respect to spoilers etc?

One thing I found when I read the Dresden Files series was that each of the books had an explanation of how the magic in the world worked. Some of the books I read back to back and then it got a bit annoying to have it explained so close again, but with the books I read a while apart it didn't bother me - even though I knew the deal already.

 

[stephenspower]

Here's why I'm writing a sequel:

I was originally going to write 6 books, each set at a different stage in the centuries-long history of human-dragon interactions, with the first being on the first dragon rider; I stole the idea from World War Z, which details each stage in the zombie apocalypse. So I wrote up brief overviews of each book and gave them to a colleague, now likely my agent. He said of the first book, What's in the second book for the reader of the first? So I decided to continue that story until whenever it ends, creating the first outline for book 2 before going back on work on book 1. In fact the preface for book 2 ended up being the epilogue of book 1. With the full ms off to him, I'm now writing the second outline for book 2, which will let me go back and drop a few necessary things in book 1. And when I finish this outline, I'll do the first outline for book 3 before going back and writing book 2. When the series ends, it ends, but thinking of the long-term consequences of stuff in each book does make them richer as I'm writing them. It also forces me to keep characters alive, which is a struggle sometimes, but keeps me from taking the easy way out.

 

[Ruby]

Hi Phil, I thought that you would be expected to write a series of books with lots of sequels these days. I've read that agents and publishers expect this as readers who like your book will want to find out what else you've written. When you get published, aren't you expected to have a follow-up book ready?

Children's books, particularly, are often written as part of a series. Every fantasy book I've read recently seems to be part of a trilogy.

 

[Philip Overby]

Hi Phil, I thought that you would be expected to write a series of books with lots of sequels these days. I've read that agents and publishers expect this as readers who like your book will want to find out what else you've written. When you get published, aren't you expected to have a follow-up book ready?

Children's books, particularly, are often written as part of a series. Every fantasy book I've read recently seems to be part of a trilogy.

This is a good point, but I'm not aware that this is necessarily always expected. I think if you submit a book to a publisher, it's probably good to let them know what other books you plan to write or what you've already written so they can know. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to do a series, but that seems to be the popular path for a lot of fantasy authors.

I believe I'm actually going to do an article for the home page about this topic soon. Kind of the pros and cons of doing a standalone vs. a series. I'm of the opinion that I really like what people like Joe Abercrombie do. After writing his trilogy, he wrote three books that are each standalones in the same world, but follow different characters and storylines. I like this approach simply because it allows him to tell stories from the perspective of other maybe more unfamiliar characters while still staying in the same world.

Perhaps if I do write a series, it may be a series of loosely connected standalones? I like TWErvin2's idea about doing that with his first two books. However, I'm still not sure what I'll do.

 

[AnneL]

FWIW, I am seeing TONS of pleased comments that my book is a standalone. There's definitely a market. People are tired of endless series. Now I may have a different reader demographic, but there it is.

 

[Philip Overby]

I agree that some people may have "series fatigue" as it were. For me, I tend to try the first book, and if I dig it, I'll usually stay with the series for the long haul. However, I find myself intrigued by standalone books since I find that they must be much more challenging for fantasy writers to do.

On one hand, doing a series is a definite way to keep readers who loved your first book. I think most people may be under the impression, "Well, the first book was awesome. Can't wait to see what happens next." On the other hand, one book may be enough for a certain group of characters.

This definitely has to be analyzed on a case by case basis though. Some books scream "sequel" while others tell a complete story and don't need any more follow-up.

 

[Svrtnsse]

An alternative to the sequel is to reuse the same setting for a new story - like Joe Abercrombie did as mentioned earlier. I have only read the first three of his, but I'd be happy to check out the other ones too - just to see what they're like.

The main example of this approach I think would be the Discworld books by Terry Prattchet, but other than that I haven't seen much of it. It could just be I've missed it or forgotten about it. I do hear people talking about the idea in a positive way and as it's an idea I like I find it encouraging. I love my setting and I won't be happy to use it only for just one story set in some backwater forest in the arse end of nowhere. I've got an entire world to explore.
I'm thinking this is something we'll see more of. Both as novel and as short story collections.

 

[TWErvin2]

Hi Phil, I thought that you would be expected to write a series of books with lots of sequels these days. I've read that agents and publishers expect this as readers who like your book will want to find out what else you've written. When you get published, aren't you expected to have a follow-up book ready?

Children's books, particularly, are often written as part of a series. Every fantasy book I've read recently seems to be part of a trilogy.

If you're looking for an agent/publisher, a question often is what are you writing now (what do you have planned next)? They don't want one work authors. It's not worth it to invest their time and effort in a new author. Even self-publishing, often readers are wary of an author with a single novel out...especially if it's been out there for a long time.

This got me thinking...
I might be reading you wrong, but are did you get it working in a way that it doesn't matter in which order you read them? How did you handle that with respect to spoilers etc?

One thing I found when I read the Dresden Files series was that each of the books had an explanation of how the magic in the world worked. Some of the books I read back to back and then it got a bit annoying to have it explained so close again, but with the books I read a while apart it didn't bother me - even though I knew the deal already.

It took me a year of studying how other authors did it--wrote a series but with novels in that series that were standalone. How they included information (relationships/events/world aspects etc.) without being redundant. There are techniques and a balance that must be struck.

I wrote an article that covers some of this: Writing a Sequel

As far as spoilers, each novel, being standalone is a complete story arc. They aren't cliffhanger endings or anything. The reader might guess from the that, for example, the main character survives, and thus it's not a spoiler. Even if the reader may guess the novel's end, that doesn't mean they know how reaching that point occurred--the events that happened along the way.

 

[Penpilot]

I had a similar thing happen. The novel I'm just finishing up was/is intended to be a stand alone, but when I though about possible sequels, I realized I had ideas for two more novels. But for myself, I don't think I'm going to write those novels right now. I would if a publisher came to me and asked for more, but for me to develop as a writer I think it's more beneficial to be writing lots of different stories in different worlds, where I'm constantly practising building from scratch.

Also I'm not putting all my eggs in one basket. Each of my story worlds have the potential to be expanded into a series if I want.

 

[Philip Overby]

I had a similar thing happen. The novel I'm just finishing up was/is intended to be a stand alone, but when I though about possible sequels, I realized I had ideas for two more novels. But for myself, I don't think I'm going to write those novels right now. I would if a publisher came to me and asked for more, but for me to develop as a writer I think it's more beneficial to be writing lots of different stories in different worlds, where I'm constantly practising building from scratch.

Also I'm not putting all my eggs in one basket. Each of my story worlds have the potential to be expanded into a series if I want.

This is probably what I'll do also. Even if I decide to write a sequel, it won't be the next thing I write. I'd like to try something much shorter for my next novel and then come back to this world later.

 

[TWErvin2]

While this is a little off topic, I have a suggestion.

Those who've indicated that they may finish a novel as a standalone, in a world that has room (or opportunities) for sequels. Instead of writing a sequel they intend to go work on something else, for a variety of reasons. (I think the notion has merit).

My suggestion is that if you know basically how the sequel novel will start, write the first chapter or two of the sequel. Do this even if that beginning may change significantly.

I suggest this because at that moment the characters, voice, and everything else will be fresh in your head. Doing so will assist you in getting the ball rolling again, possibly years down the road. I came across the advice years ago, and it's been a useful strategy for me. It's allowed me to thing the ground running when going back to a world.

 

[buyjupiter]

I find that the novel ideas I have are pretty much one story and then I'm done. There is not another story I can tell with those characters, the story I've already told is their one grand adventure.

That may be the flaw to writing about ordinary, non-standard, fantasy characters. Once their great adventure happens, that's it, if you've set up the return home and to normalcy as what the character really truly wants, and 9 times out of 10 that's exactly what I've set up. (I suppose I could do sequels as a "hey, maybe the adventuring life wasn't so bad after all and this comforts of home isn't all it's cracked up to be".)

I could if pressed hard enough about it, come up with a string of novels focused on Mika. I don't know that I'd enjoy doing them, as I look at the prospect of having to write about any one set of characters as a death sentence to creativity (rightly or wrongly, just gives me the blahs)...and I like flitting about story worlds way too much to enjoy sticking in one world for anything longer than a novel.

Granted, all my story worlds are pretty darn similar and could be crammed onto one Earth-sized planet, if I gave the world a very long history.

 

[stephenspower]

You are not alone. I like standalones. Too many fantasy series seem to want a six-month commitment. For instance, however, good the Rothfuss is, I still have to budget 1000 pages per. That's 4 Agatha Christie mysteries. Heck, it's 8 early Jack Vance titles.

 

[Jabrosky]

Whenever I set out to write a novel, I aim for a standalone. I don't regard myself as ready to write a whole series. If anything, series can be discouraging to even read since they require a longer attention span and patience than I possess at the moment.

 

[Philip Overby]

I do think I'm more interested in doing standalones that take place in the same world rather than a complete series. I may change my mind, but for now that's what I'm hoping. When I think of a series, I may even consider the extremely rare "duology." Meaning just two books only. Just bouncing around ideas for now, but I do think there are advantages to both paths (a trilogy or longer series vs. a standalone or standalones that take place in the same world.)

 

[ThinkerX]

Hmmm...

'Labyrinth' was originally intended as a stand alone short story, which grew into a novella and is now at 'short novel' length.

I could just leave it as a stand alone, no problem. But...

...the way it ends, I've got the option for a 'twenty years later' sequel. Most of the MC's in the first book would be bit players the second time around, if present at all.

Then again, the tales in my world sort of interlock - a major character in one story might be a bit player in another, and characters in both tales refer to other mostly 'offstage' figures.