I don't want to create a series of books.

[Ursa major]

So far as I understand it, the publisher's main concern is that an author produce works in their genre on a regular basis

Presumably because they're investing in the author as much as they are in that author's first book. If there isn't a second book (or the author writes one that so different from the first that fans of the first book won't necessarily buy the second), they may haved wasted (a good part of) their investment.

 

[Hex]

I don't know whether they need to be series or whether approximately similar books are enough.

I do know JJ said this to me when he edited Dark Circles: "...I like the way you’ve left the door open for sequels, which is sensible. Put synopses for at least two sequels together before you submit."

I also know that he encourages other people to consider whether their stories could have sequels. I think it's worth considering if you can. On the other hand, this may be putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Colbey Frost]

I've made up my mind to not write sequels. But I may very well use the same word... But my plots are so different almost always needs a new setting (still fantasy) I suppose some fantasy worlds feel small, so maybe I'll have a huge one with some basic rules, just because one nation is advanced doesn't mean one on the other side of the world isn't trading using fingernails does it?

 

[Brian G Turner]

Presumably because they're investing in the author as much as they are in that author's first book.

I remember something oft quoted a few years back that a publisher could expect to make a loss on an author's first book, and only start making money once the author had developed a following through multiple books.

I've made up my mind to not write sequels. But I may very well use the same word...

Set in the same world? Wheel of Time, Malazan: there you go - it's a series.

 

[Colbey Frost]

Set in the same world? Wheel of Time, Malazan: there you go - it's a series.

Ha, well that's different. What I was doing was trying to plan ahead with the same characters, stretching a story. But I just want one off novels. If they happen to be in the same world then great, if not then it doesn't bother me.

 

[prizzley]

There's a place for both.

As a reader, I'm often put off by a series. I'd never have started Wheel of Time if some kind (?) friend haven't given me volume 1.

As a writer, I couldn't start volume 1 with the intention of adding 2,3,4 etc. If they come, fine. If not, it's a stand-alone and that's fine too.

 

[Kissmequick]

There's more than one way to skin a cat. There's more than one way to write a series too.

Pratchett writes in the same world, with some recurring characters and some new.

TC McCarthy wrote three stories from 3 POVs that add up to a greater story.

China Meiville writes about the same city in 3 books, but with wildly differing stories.

Perhaps your second book is in a different city to the first, with a hugely different culture, or magic.

Perhaps your three books interleave three stories into one greater story but told from very different viewpoints.


The only limit is your imagination, really.

 

[DrMclony]

I say go for it. These days, I often avoid trilogies. They so often bore me, because most writers simply aren't up to the task of keeping a setting and characters fresh for that long. Or they have one book they spread with filler, info dumps, and other rubbish to make three - which are released separately and painfully slowly at times. I want to slap them until they get on with it. Basically, most trilogies should not be.

Personally, I use an approach like Niven, or Heinlein or several others have done with many many books. I have a consistent universe, but standalone books. Its a whole damn universe, not like a fantasy world. So I am not bound to one world, or one culture or society. For example, my last book was set on a world that was in fact a long lost colony. It was not a part of the social and political environs of the other novels, but it was still part of the universe. My third novel was an isolated new colony, fighting to survive. It is also standalone. Some of the universe stuff comes into it, but it stands on its own legs. That one is getting a sequel, but in my time, and in no way essential to the first books closure.

This approach has been a lot of fun. I have had the occasional character show up in multiple stories, but they don't have to. This freed me to avoid that horrible 'typecasting' that a series can dump on a writer. It freed me to pursue an ambition of writing several completely different books, to prove that I can, and yet have them able to tie into each other in a consistent way.

A standalone book is satisfying to read in ways no trilogy can provide. Further, the one universe standalone books approach is great for creating what Niven calls "playgrounds for the mind" - where a reader can remain in the universe for a time, thinking about all those what ifs.

Wanting to write stand alone books? Do it! Tell all the marketing majors to get lost, your a writer, they aren't. Just because the marketing boffins see dollar signs, doesn't mean it is the write way to do your thing.

 

[Boneman]

Wanting to write stand alone books? Do it! Tell all the marketing majors to get lost, your a writer, they aren't. Just because the marketing boffins see dollar signs, doesn't mean it is the write way to do your thing.

Unless you want to get published, rather than self-published... If they see thay can't make a profit from your writing, they're not going to go ahead, are they?

 

[Grinnel]

I would think SciFi and comedic books would be the most difficult types of genres to make a series out of. In Fantasy, people are more and more expecting an epic tale that will span several books (thanks to Lord of the Rings). An action series just has to find reasons to blow more stuff up. A twist ending in a mystery book is to actually have an ending where the butler really did it. I don't think I need to say anything about romances.

As far as comedic, the comedy is usually in the unusual way a particular character(s) interacts with/understands the world. After 80K words or so of the author throwing his best jokes and curves in the work, I can see it getting tough to keep things fresh without at least a few years to recharge.

In SciFi, one of the reasons people read it is to see the cool gizmos, devices and politics. After you've shown them a novel's worth in one universe, you loose that hook and the author actually has to keep people interested with good storytelling; something many writers are not capable of and many SciFi readers are not interested in.

Now before everyone bites my head off: I know it is hard work to write anything salable in any genre. I know that everyone can bring up a series or author or six that will prove anything I said above was wrong. I am not dealing in absolutes here, I am simply saying that some genres are much harder than others to write a series in.

(Okay wait; I suppose a romance series with the same character might tend to put people off a bit...)

Christian; if you don't want to write a series, then obviously don't. You are unlikely to entertain a reader if you yourself are not interested. However, stealing a stolen concept from Ursa, perhaps if a publisher requests a full manuscript you could add a couple of brief synopsies (synopsises?) noting they are 'also on the same world'. This would assure the publisher that more could be forthcoming if required while still allowing you to use the different characters/plotlines/styles (be careful of the last) that you were interested in.

 

[billhafan]

In all honesty, I started writing my first published book as nothing more than a pleasurable thing for me - with no thought or intention of even trying to get it published, let alone making it part one of a trilogy; which it is now.

The original plot I had could certainly have been condensed into one story and left there, but as time went on the ideas flowed and outgrew the concept of a single book. It certainly wasn't a marketing ploy by me - being self-published - to produce a trilogy, it just evolved and seemed natural in order to cover the full story I imagined and had outlined.

The hardest part writing the first book was to hopefully make it work as a standalone read, rather than stopping abruptly at the end of book I without a conclusion to the story I had told, and then continuing the story on page one of book II - giving the effect that I had guillotined the full story indiscriminately, or cynically, without caring about the reader. I hope I have succeeded, but obviously only my readers can say for sure.

 

[Glen]

How patient are you? I found my characters calling out for a bit more to say after book one. And now after book two they reckon they still have something to say.

If I had been more patient it could just have been the one book, but longer.

 

[DrMclony]

If they see thay can't make a profit from your writing, they're not going to go ahead, are they?

True, but if your book can't possibly extend to a trilogy, or if it shouldn't due to it's limitations, they are not going to get as much benefit from it in that form. They will see this and you will get rejected. If your book needs to be a stand alone to avoid the traps of trilogies made for the sake of making a trilogy, then your stand alone book is more likely to get picked up ( ETA: than a trilogy of the same story).

Some stories are perfect for series treatment, many are not. If you can show a library of related stories that are not a series, at least you have the ability to be marketed as an ongoing author and not just a one off. I get that they want an ongoing novelist, so they can market to the readers already invested in your work, but so many of the stories out there today can not survive a trilogy with the story quality intact.

If I understand your point, it appears you feel they can not make a profit from standalone books and so will not take them on. I disagree with this, though I can understand and respect where you are coming from.

 

[prizzley]

True, but if your book can't possibly extend to a trilogy, or if it shouldn't due to it's limitations, they are not going to get as much benefit from it in that form.

I couldn't agree more.

And surely, for most fiction, stand alone's are the norm. Why should fantasy be different?

 

[Kissmequick]

I couldn't agree more.

And surely, for most fiction, stand alone's are the norm. Why should fantasy be different?

Because fantasy readers like, often expect, series, and the publishers, if they have sense, give them what they want.

Also, I've seen several writers who say, well they've spent all this time building a world, makes sense to make the most of it!

Personally I prefer writing stand alones, but that's more because I have trouble with backstory in the sequels...plus I have the attention span of a small and flighty beetle.

 

[Colbey Frost]

plus I have the attention span of a small and flighty beetle.

I think that's my middle name too

 

[Warren_Paul]

I think it really depends on the story. When I first started writing my book I had this idea of where it was going to end - a whole outline planned out. One third the way through that outline I hit 120k words and realised there was no way I was fitting the story in one book.

I chopped it in four, and the first part still ended up at 157k once I'd fleshed it out. I was eventually forced to split that in two and ended up with a six-part story.


Sure I could rip a huge chunk of the story out to make it only one book, but that would ruin it imo - leave it a hollow shell of what it could have been.

I think fantasy is typically a series because that's the only way to do them justice, unless you're writing 300k word epics like some of the big name authors do - which is essentially three books in one anyway. Good luck getting a book that size published as a debut author.

 

[SciFrac]

I understand stand-alones are becoming more desired now actually. I've heard several people actually request more of them. I like both.

My wife and I are writing a book together, and we love the world so much that we're talking about two trilogies. Don't know if we will actually finish, but I'd love to live in that other world if I could.