Querying on a Series

[RcGrant]

Everywhere I look, the advice, if your novel is part of a series, is "make sure it is marketed as a standalone but with series potential". Now this makes sense to me, but where is the line?

To take some popular books: Twilight, for example, can easily standalone as a novel, but then take Harry Potter, or even the Hunger Games, and to me even though there is a conflict resolved within the first novel of each (discovery of the Philosopher's Stone, finishing in the arena, respectively), it's pretty obvious the main conflict (Voldemort, the Capitol) isn't resolved. As a reader, I would never have been happy reading just the first book of either.

So, is the rule about "standalone with series potential" (like Twilight, in the above examples) strictly true? My novel is very clearly part of a series (though it resolves a particular conflict addressed within the book) so I wonder if others have found themselves in the same situation. Any advice?

It won't stop me, of course, but it's something that has been on my mind.

 

[Glitch]

I think it comes from the commercial side. If a first book does well then the second book already has a leg up with an established reader base.

 

[Vertigo]

I can only speak from a reader's perspective but I can understand the advice.

Many people are reluctant to start reading a series until they know all the books are out. I am inclined that way myself, not exculsively, but I prefer to start a series knowing it is already complete. I will start an incomplete series but generally only if I know the author is well established. I don't want to invest my time in something that may never be complete or may complete badly. Either is possible (likely even?) with a new author, but is much less likely with an established one.

Now an established author can probably weather some sales being postponed until the end of the series. But most new authors will be desperate for every sale they can get. Not just to provide income (as I understand it few author make much of anything from their first few books) but if there aren't enough sales the publisher won't want to publish a sequel.

Now it seems to me that any publisher is faced with exactly the same risk as the reader with regard to series, except they cannot delay the outlay to the end. So I can easily see them being reluctant to take on a debut author with a series to sell.

I suspect the publishers were taking a considerable risk with the Harry Potter books. Obviously it has paid off but it could very easily have gone bad. It is almost impossible to spot whether something is going to capture the public's interest in the way the Potter books did.

That kind of cult following is a very unpredictable, fickle thing.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I figure a novel really ought to have some form of beginning and ending in the first place. But as you rightly point out, a series will inevitably have a deeper undercurrent conflict that needs longer to develop and resolve.

Let's face it, as readers we feel cheated if there's no sense of climax and resolution at the end of a novel, and don't want the idea of a longer conflict suddenly appearing by surprise at the end.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I would disagree about Harry Potter being a risk. The first novel is a complete story with a beginning, middle, and end. The story elements introduced are all dealt with. There are lingering questions certainly, but Harry does confront and defeat Voldemort in the book, so that main villain arc isn't left dangling to taunt the reader.

I think it's the novel written as part of a series that breaks badly that burns the readers. If Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone ended without confronting Voldemort, that would be a bad break, essentially putting the gun in the first act without it going off in the third. If you make a story element a big part of a novel it should be resolved in that novel. But B stories or plots can certainly weave in and out of series. Introduce it as a minor thing in book one but balloon into the main arc in book two.

 

[Jake Reynolds]

Agreed. The structure of any novel should be based on answering questions posed in the first quarter. Take New Hope, in Star Wars. At the beginning we are posed with a number fo questions- will Leia be rescued? Will the rebellion win? Can Luke be a Jedi like his father? Will C3PO grow a pair?

All of the questions are answered by the end of the movie (even the C3PO one, the answer being no). Though the rebellion hasn't 'won' entirely, we can reasonably assume that by taking out the empire's greatest weapon, they are now in a position to. If no subsequent movies came out the result is still a favourable one. It isn't about telling the whole story in a single go, it is about answering the questions asked. Though they may not be wholly answered, we know that Leia has been rescued (end of the second act, when the questions should start being answered), Luke has discovered the Force, and the rebellion has 'won', for now at least. On its own, New Hope can be seen as a standalone movie.

On the other hand, take the Killing, a murder mystery TV show. If we look at a season as being a 'first novel' the question 'Who killed Rosie Larson?' wasn't answered. Now, in the second season, it's being drawn out, relying too heavily on inconsequential sub-plots to string out the story. The original Danish show finished in one season, and it worked. Now it's just getting laborious.

Or the grandaddy of unanswered questions, Lost. Talk about stringing things out. Ratings took a nosedive halfway through the show because the writers were still asking more questions than they were answering. The last two fifths of a story should be spent answering the questions raised at the start. If your novel doesn't answer any questions and saves its reveals until part 2, then readers will generally be dissatisfied and lose interest.

But wait, Jake, I hear you ask. Star Wars a pretty big reveal in Empire. How does that work? Well, the question (spoilers) 'Who is Luke's father?' was never asked. He was never searching for his father, so it wasn't a question that the reader asked.

Harry Potter always overcomes the danger that he is facing in that novel. That there is an overarching story is pretty standard, especially in fantasy, but each novel needs to ask questions at the start and answer them at the end. That doesn't mean all of them need to be answered, but enough to give a reader satisfaction and, hopefully, leave him or her wanting more.

 

[Montero]

There are two sorts of series.

An overarching story divided into segments that come to a reasonable conclusion for each book. (examples given by other contributors)

Further episodes in the life of (e.g. a lot of military sf and urban fantasy)

The latter seems lower risk to me.

 

[RcGrant]

Harry Potter always overcomes the danger that he is facing in that novel. That there is an overarching story is pretty standard, especially in fantasy, but each novel needs to ask questions at the start and answer them at the end. That doesn't mean all of them need to be answered, but enough to give a reader satisfaction and, hopefully, leave him or her wanting more.

Thanks. I think this made it clearer in my mind. My character does overcome many of things I threw at her at the start, and does indeed confront "the big baddy" but I also felt there was the impression it would span much more. I will have to look at what my beta readers think but hopefully the arc (of which there is a definite one) will be sufficiently completed so it can stand alone.

 

[RcGrant]

I would disagree about Harry Potter being a risk. The first novel is a complete story with a beginning, middle, and end. The story elements introduced are all dealt with. There are lingering questions certainly, but Harry does confront and defeat Voldemort in the book, so that main villain arc isn't left dangling to taunt the reader.

I think it's the novel written as part of a series that breaks badly that burns the readers. If Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone ended without confronting Voldemort, that would be a bad break, essentially putting the gun in the first act without it going off in the third. If you make a story element a big part of a novel it should be resolved in that novel. But B stories or plots can certainly weave in and out of series. Introduce it as a minor thing in book one but balloon into the main arc in book two.

I found this comment interesting, mostly because as a reader, I felt it was pretty obvious Voldemort wasn't gone for good. I would never have been happy just reading The Philosopher's Stone. But as you say, at the same time, he is defeated in a sense, through Professor Quirrell.

You've given me food for thought, thank you

 

[Lilmizflashythang]

I have one series in mind, but each novel will be a stand-alone.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I found this comment interesting, mostly because as a reader, I felt it was pretty obvious Voldemort wasn't gone for good. I would never have been happy just reading The Philosopher's Stone. But as you say, at the same time, he is defeated in a sense, through Professor Quirrell.

You've given me food for thought, thank you

Certainly he was coming back. And I agree that if Voldemort was utterly, completely defeated in book one that would be disappointing. It's the difference between immediate and long-term, I think. The immediate threat of Voldemort was handled, but he's still a long-term threat. So too with Star Wars and the Rebellion beating Vader and the Dearh Star. That one was destroyed, but they can always build another.

Good luck with the book(s).

 

[Cynric]

Everywhere I look, the advice, if your novel is part of a series, is "make sure it is marketed as a standalone but with series potential". Now this makes sense to me, but where is the line?

I've heard the opposite advice, in the particular case of fantasy (I think from John Jarrold, who posted here once upon a time, amongst others). The notion that fantasy comes in series is so ingrained now, that I think publishers (and readers) seem to favour them. I daresay that it wouldn't stop a publisher from pulling the plug if the first book was a flop, but I think most contracts for new fantasy writers are multibook deals nowadays.

 

[Phoenixthewriter]

This topic is interesting to me as well. I think everyone believes they have a strikingly original series on their hands, and so before the first book is even started, have already come up with how the 2nd 3rd and even 4th books would turn out. Even going so far as to leave a purposefully open ended situation for this very purpose.

In a book I wrote just for fun while in high school, I had a character stolen away near the beginning of the novel. It's not until the end of the 2nd book that they finally reach her captive whereabouts.

Should plot holes likes this even exist if you are unable to handle the loose ends? I imagine the LOTR trilogy could not have existed without all three parts, as the story was simply too large.

 

[RcGrant]

This topic is interesting to me as well. I think everyone believes they have a strikingly original series on their hands, and so before the first book is even started, have already come up with how the 2nd 3rd and even 4th books would turn out. Even going so far as to leave a purposefully open ended situation for this very purpose.

In a book I wrote just for fun while in high school, I had a character stolen away near the beginning of the novel. It's not until the end of the 2nd book that they finally reach her captive whereabouts.

Should plot holes likes this even exist if you are unable to handle the loose ends? I imagine the LOTR trilogy could not have existed without all three parts, as the story was simply too large.

I'm not sure if it's so much everyone thinks they have something so original it demands a series, but it's more a response to the market which seems to publish with a series in mind. I certainly never planned on my story spanning more than one book (and in many ways it would have been so much easier for me if it hadn't) but the story was simply too large to contain within one book. Another WIP of mine is very much a standalone book, and the only way it would be a series would be if subsequent books were set later on in the person's life, or with different characters in the same 'verse.

Personally, I much prefer to read standalone books too, but I always seem to get sucked into a series.

 

[Brian G Turner]

The notion that fantasy comes in series is so ingrained now, that I think publishers (and readers) seem to favour them.

Indeed, and quite right, but I think the point is for the first novel at least to be able to stand up in itself.

Jake Reynolds makes a key point:

The structure of any novel should be based on answering questions posed in the first quarter.

If I remember my writing theory correctly, both the individual novel, and the series as a whole, both have a conflict to be resolved in each - each as different, but can be related.

In other words, a novel sets up a theme of conflict early on, to be resolved by the end - but as part of a series, can set up a wider-ranging conflict that can be explored through the series.

If you look at many first books in a series, they tend to work as stand alone novels in themselves, in terms of telling an overall story with a beginning, middle, and end, while leaving enough answered questions for completion in a series.

 

[Cynric]

There are two sorts of series.

An overarching story divided into segments that come to a reasonable conclusion for each book. (examples given by other contributors)

Further episodes in the life of (e.g. a lot of military sf and urban fantasy)

The latter seems lower risk to me.

Song of Ice and Fire versus Conan.

Fight!

 

[Glitch]

I imagine the LOTR trilogy could not have existed without all three parts, as the story was simply too large.

Wasn't LOTR written as one story; specifically a sequel to The Hobbit. The publishers forced Tolkien to break it up into publishable sizes.

I certainly never planned on my story spanning more than one book.

A series can be many things. Different characters in the same world. Perhaps even children from the first story's main characters. It can be nice for an underlying plot to span several stories; but I don't think that's strictly necessary.

 

[Brev]

Indeed, and quite right, but I think the point is for the first novel at least to be able to stand up in itself.

If I remember my writing theory correctly, both the individual novel, and the series as a whole, both have a conflict to be resolved in each - each as different, but can be related.

In other words, a novel sets up a theme of conflict early on, to be resolved by the end - but as part of a series, can set up a wider-ranging conflict that can be explored through the series.

If you look at many first books in a series, they tend to work as stand alone novels in themselves, in terms of telling an overall story with a beginning, middle, and end, while leaving enough answered questions for completion in a series.

I'm 100% not sure about that...

As long as a the reader is aware of the fact that the novel is the first in a series, then surely it's important to leave enough of the conflict/plot lines unresolved to keep the reader interested.

For example; when I finished reading both 'The Blade Itself' and 'The Name of the Wind', I wanted to know what happened next. It was the 'hook' of unresolved story lines which made me buy the subsequent books. Neither of those have neatly resolved endings, but it didn't stop them being successful.

 

[Ursa major]

I have to admit that I tend to see The First Law trilogy as one enormous book, one that's been divided into three manageable chunks. It has been a while since I read the three volumes, but I don't recall that much being resolved by the end of The Blade Itself; or by the end of Before They Are Hanged, for that matter.

I didn't mind in the least: I wanted to read more about that world and those characters, and to get to the real conclusion. And I wasn't disappointed.

 

[Venusian Broon]

On the other hand I bought Peter F. Hamilton's The Reality Dysfunction not aware that it was part of a trilogy and it soon became clear that it was pretty much a big story cut into three books. I eventually got round to the other two for completeness, but partly because of this (feeling a little cheated!)* I haven't read anything of his since.

*and feeling a little stupid that I didn't thoroughly check the book for 'part 1' or suchlike, but it did not mention anything that said it was a series on the outside cover, back or front.