Do publishers/agents require new works to be a series?

[seaside]

I've read twelve fantasy and science fiction novels this year, and browsed many many more. I can't name one that wasn't part of a series (or going to be.) Are there no stand alone novels in the genre any longer?

I ask because when I began working on my novel last year, I had a clear story in mind but no plans or ideas for future novels. While working on it I've felt pressured to come up with new possibilities for sequels, and it feels like it's weakening my work because I'm writing with sequels in mind. The original resolution is gradually getting pushed aside for a later work. It feels like if my book doesn't open the door for more stories, that it's an instant ticket to rejection.

Now, I do love my characters and I'm not opposed to writing other stories with them, but I don't enjoy feeling like I MUST to get looked at by an agent.

 

[Hex]

There are standalones -- The End of Mr Y is one that leaps to mind, and also Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell. Robin McKinley can never ever write a sequel (her words, not mine -- I wish she would sometimes!) so all her books are standalones (except Pegasus which is a single book that got split in two for publication purposes). Many of Patricia McKillip's stories are also standalones. I appreciate they're established authors and can probably get away with it, but they are examples of authors who write standalone books.

You're absolutely right that most fantasy (especially the most traditional sort with swords and things) is part of a series, but it's not an absolute rule. I like the feeling that I could write sequels, I like the idea that my characters will keep going after I've finished the wip, but if you find it's diluting your writing then obviously it doesn't work for you.

You know what they say -- write the book that needs writing. If it works I think (with no evidence that this is so) that you'll find an agent even if you don't have a heap of follow ons planned. They might ask if you have any ideas for sequels etc. but I don't think you need to have written them (indeed, sort of soul destroying to have done so if the first proves hard to sell).

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Let's just say that having a series, though not essential, is a strong selling point. Publishers are much more likely to take a chance on a new writer if they know there is a series in the offing, but if they absolutely love a book they'll buy it, even if it's a stand-alone.

(Maybe with the idea that they can coax you later into writing a sequel!)

 

[seaside]

You know what they say -- write the book that needs writing. If it works I think (with no evidence that this is so) that you'll find an agent even if you don't have a heap of follow ons planned. They might ask if you have any ideas for sequels etc. but I don't think you need to have written them (indeed, sort of soul destroying to have done so if the first proves hard to sell).

Oh, that'd be terrible to spend all of that time (and give so much love) writing sequels and they never see the light of day.

That's another reason I would rather not feel pressured to have sequels from the original work right now.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

You don't have to have the sequels. You have to have the first book written, and let them know that sequels are planned.

 

[Dozmonic]

An established author will have an easier time releasing standalone books than a new author, because they have a following who know what to expect. A new author benefits from presenting a series because it shows that there's more to come, which can build their fanbase over time. A first novel rarely makes back its advance. But if it's the first in a trilogy, then it might make it back as the demand to read what came first increases over time. Don't forget that a series doesn't necessarily have to be a mass of connected events and a story arc spanning multiple books. People such as Clive Cussler have series of books with the same characters, Dirk Pitt for example, but they aren't following one large arc. The adventures are separate, following people who're known. That's always an option.

 

[Peter Graham]

Now, I do love my characters and I'm not opposed to writing other stories with them, but I don't enjoy feeling like I MUST to get looked at by an agent.

I wouldn't worry about it. It might be an issue, but the real task is to write one book as well as you possibly can. You can enjoy the luxury of talking about sequels and other works once your agent is on board.

There is a massive elephant in the room in all of these threads. Over Christmas, I was reading an article by a well respected agent who came out and said what very, very few agents, writers or publishers are prepared to say - namely, that a stonking 95% of manuscripts on the slush pile are absolute, unmitigated rubbish. If you are one of the 95%, no amount of planned trilogies or sequels will make a jot of difference.

The good news is that if you are one of the 5%, your chance of getting an agent is rather higher than the usual statistics might suggest - it's still tough, but perhaps it isn't completely hopeless.

So, your priority is to produce a well-written, well-rounded piece of imaginative work with a strong story and believable characters which can sell in the current market. You won't spark interest unless you can do that.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Montero]

My general impression (picked up from internet discussions and reading agent/publisher blogs and the like) is that they want to know you are not a one book wonder. So being able to mention this is say your second completed book might help.

Equally, I've seen advice not to write the second book in a series while trying to sell the first book, but to write something different in case what you are trying to sell doesn't run as a concept.

And I've also seen author interviews where as part of a book signing deal they were expected to come up with the outline for the next three books in the series.

So with what Teresa said really, plus you might want to have written down your ideas for sequels (if you have them) or other books in the same world (if you have them).

And as an aside - isn't it interesting that some areas of fiction have series, whether a story split across multiple volumes, or complete in themselves episodes in the life of the same person and others don't.
So sff, crime, thrillers are all mostly series genres. Chick-lit/ historical fiction/romance mostly not.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

The other thing put to me recently and making a lot of sense at the mo is that if you have your second pretty well drafted, if there is anything that needs to go to support that sequel you still have time to add it to the first. That suits me because while I have a general idea where I want it to go, there are a few things appearing that I hadn't expected (I do write pretty much as it comes out as oppposed to oodles of plans) which I can add an easy justification for in the first.

But I suppose it depends why you're writing it; I'd love it to be published, but mostly I just wanted to tell the story. If publication was the be all and end all for me I might have shelved the sequel in case the first wasn't a goer and moved onto something else.

 

[Boneman]

Quite a while back, I read a whole book that was unpublished, and when I got to the end I emailed the writer and said: "Brilliant! What happens now?" because I was so taken with the characterisation, the storytelling, and the sheer class of it all, that if I'd had the money, I'd have bought the rights to it there and then. The author came back and said; "No, that's it, a standalone." I'd already imagined a dozen scenarios where the hero might go next, because quite a few questions were left unanswered (as happens in life), and if I can ever chivvy him into finishing the rewrite, and sending it to Agents/publishers, I know they will ask the same question.

So, either write book one of a series, and let them know it is, or write a book, but be prepared for a demand for more. In the end, the Publisher's business sense may tell him that follow-ups will make more money for both, and that seems a nice position to be in. (Except I'd have to camp out on said Author's doorstep chivvying him to write the sequel...!)

 

[AnyaKimlin]

The other thing put to me recently and making a lot of sense at the mo is that if you have your second pretty well drafted, if there is anything that needs to go to support that sequel you still have time to add it to the first. That suits me because while I have a general idea where I want it to go, there are a few things appearing that I hadn't expected (I do write pretty much as it comes out as oppposed to oodles of plans) which I can add an easy justification for in the first.

.

This I have found useful - writing ahead has given me perspective on the original story and added depth to it. With my current stories I now have four of them, but I keep writing backwards and adding a prequel. Now I have the story I need to start them in and four very messy first drafts of later stories.

 

[Anne Lyle]

I'd already imagined a dozen scenarios where the hero might go next, because quite a few questions were left unanswered (as happens in life), and if I can ever chivvy him into finishing the rewrite, and sending it to Agents/publishers, I know they will ask the same question.

That's exactly what my publisher and agent said. I didn't pitch The Alchemist of Souls as a series (though I did have a sequel rough-drafted), yet the first thing they both asked was "what about book 2?"

On the other hand my stablemate Adam Christopher got picked up on a two-book deal with two completely unrelated standalones. As has been said, what the publisher really wants is a writer who isn't a one-book wonder, who can build a readership with multiple books in a similar vein.

I think fantasy often lends itself to series because, having built a huge, unique world, it's a shame to bin it after only one book! However you do need strong characters to support it, which is where I think some series flag.

 

[TheTomG]

Scary. Have to admit something being a series still puts me off. My time is so limited, I don't want to undertake a reading that will take me 3 books to get to the end.

I also love to be left at the peak of something rather than have it rehashed and become a shadow of what it was - sometimes the later books or movies actually detract from the first one, and imagination and unfinished tales would have been much better.

The only type of series I like is one where the stories are just not really connected. For example, Elric. There are lots of Elric books. You can even come up with a chronology, sort of. But you can also just pick one up and read it. Heck, just about ever chapter or two, some story has had its beginning, middle and end, and a city has fallen, a war won, a dictator killed, the universe saved, or some other dramatic element that normally takes a book to get through

Now I understand liking to know you are not a one book wonder, but whats wrong with a second, unrelated, not-a-series-at-all book? Are we becoming a culture of sequels, remakes and rehashes?

 

[Anne Lyle]

There's nothing wrong with it, I just think that a lot of fantasy writers, having put a huge amount of effort into creating a world, naturally want to go back there and explore it some more - and so do their readers. If there wasn't an audience for series, I doubt the publishers would be so enthusiastic about them.

Also, I don't think you can compare books with movies. Movie sequels are often not even written by the same people who came up with the original hit - the good screenwriters go on to do new and interesting things, whilst the second-rate ones get drafted in to write the endless sequels. That, to my mind, is why you get such a marked drop-off in quality on movie sequels. Book series do sometimes suffer from the author not being able to repeat their original success, but they usually take longer than that to go downhill.