A post at Kill Zone Blog: Should You Write a Series or Stand Alones?
I think my post title is more accurate. This post, by James Scott Bell, makes a really good point:
[W]rite book #1 as a standalone book. Keep any numbering off the title. Don’t include a series name. Just write a good story with a good ending…[I]t’s a lot easier to turn a successful standalone book into a popular series than it is to use a series to make the first book successful. … If you already have a tribe of readers and have learned how to write books they love, and you want to commit to a series, go for it! You’ve earned the trust of your readers to write a series. But don’t tell brand-new authors with no platform to follow your example. It hurts them by committing them to books that may not find an audience. It also hurts you by contributing to battered reader syndrome, which scares readers away from books altogether. New authors haven’t yet gained the trust of their readers. They don’t have the caliber of skills you have. If you encourage a new author to write a series, you may be dooming their careers without realizing it.
Bell is quoting this post by Thomas Umstattd Jr: Stop Writing Series!
There is interesting arithmetic in that post. But there is an inexplicable premise as well. Umstattd says, reasonably, that if 1000 people buy Book #1 in a series, the expected number that will purchase Book #1 is about half that. Yes, fine. But Umstattd then goes on to say that if you write a standalone, you can market it to the 100,000 readers looking for something new in your genre. Which you can. But you also marketed Book #1 to those 100,000 people, presumably, and 1000 people bought it. Therefore if you write a second standalone, it looks to me an awful lot like you can guess that maybe about 1000 people will buy that one too.
I don’t think you’ve dropped your expectations for your second book from 100,000 to 500. I think you’ve dropped it from 1000 to 500 — at worst.
Umstattd is assuming that if Book #1 isn’t a hit, then a series is a bad idea. But he’s also assuming Book #1 is probably pretty bad. Look at this:
When you start your career by writing book #1 in a series, the nature of the series sends all new readers through your freshman effort for the rest of your career. Before readers can enjoy your better, more polished writing, they must first read your oldest, sloppiest writing. When readers tell their friends, “Author Smith’s series gets really good around book 3,” Author Smith is in trouble.
And this is exactly what I’ve been told about two series: Ilona Andrew’s Kate Daniels series and Seanan McGuire’s October Daye series.
For the first, I started at book one, read the series in order, and I agree: the Kate Daniel’s series takes off about Book #3. One reason I think their Hidden Legacy series is better than the Kate Daniel’s series is that it’s great from the first book, not the third. For the second series, the one by McGuire, I started at book one, did not finish it, and that was it for me for that series.
I therefore agree with Umstattd, to an extent. It’s better if your first book in a series, not your third, is already really good. BUT, a lot depends on just how sloppy your first, oldest book is. And the answer should be:
It’s not as great, but it is genuinely good and it is not at all sloppy.
And if that’s not true, then why are you publishing it at all? Because “not stellar” is one thing, but “sloppy,” really? That’s something else, and that’s under the author’s control in a way that no other aspect of quality is. You may not be able to write something like Piranesi as your debut novel — though you might, who knows — but no one should read your first book and think it is sloppy. What an indictment that would be!
Not that I disagree about writing standalones inside a series arc. I think that’s good advice. I think series books should mostly stand alone and I think that is much more true early in the series than late in the series, so there you go, I’m basically agreeing. I also agree that it’s probably better not to put “Book One” on the cover of a standalone first book. “Book One” is on the cover of Tuyo, but that’s not the first cover for that book. Also, there’s nothing sloppy about it (in my opinion) (but I’m right).
The linked post offers advice for new authors and for established authors. I do think it’s worth reading that advice.
Please Feel Free to Share:
I had the same experience with October Daye, although I didn’t know the series is supposed to improve later – maybe I will try skipping ahead. Dresden Files is another series that picks up a couple books in.
Tuyo is the first book of that series but not your first book, or your first series.
I admit I will hesitate on a book by an author new to me that touts itself as Book 1 in the Chronicles of Something or Other. I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s feeling like I won’t get the whole story if I don’t commit to reading books that probably aren’t even written yet. Although that’s better than finding a book interesting and seeing that it’s book 3 of a series. And also better than getting to the end of Book 1 and finding a cliffhanger, or at least that So Much is left unresolved.
There are some books that were good standalones but also good launchpads for a series. Actually, I think Tuyo is one of those. You can see, looking back from the end of Tasmakat, that it was only the beginning of the story. But from the end of Tuyo on first read it feels satisfyingly complete. Another is All Systems Red, the first of the Murderbot books.
Good point, OtterB; I bet it does make a difference if the author has written other books and then starts a new series.
I also hesitate if I see Book One of the Chronicles of Whatever, and I think one reason is that “Chronicles” strongly suggests cliched, derivative, or just not very good. I’m not sure that’s a fair assessment. But that’s what I think if I see “First Book in the Chronicles” on any book.
I also agree about All Systems Red — strongly complete but also a great launching point for a series.
I also didn’t continue with October Daye after reading the first book. The writing was okay, but there were things about the characters I didn’t like so much. I did very much enjoy the first of the Incryptid series and plan to continue with it.
Kate Daniels I did continue, as it was alright and also I knew the authors were reliable and this series had been their flagship and had lots of fans. If I didn’t trust the authors already, I’m not sure if I would have continued, it’s a toss up. I might have, at least one more book to see. I think the positives outweighed the negatives for me there.
As a reader, I definitely prefer and am much more ready to try a new series/author if book 1 can be read as a standalone. If not, I probably won’t try it at all. And certainly not if it ends on a cliffhanger!
Honestly, I always thought I’m a critical reader, but seeing as you mentioned both my favorite series as being recommended but stipulated as questionable, it makes me wonder if these people would find Jim Butcher’s Dresden #1 or Patricia Briggs’ Mercy book 1 to be good enough from the first. I’m betting they’re not. Almost all famous series started when the author was new(ish) tends to have some issues.
Anyway, I don’t remember mentally criticizing Magic Bites. It was fresh and fun, is what I remember (this is after like 15 years or more, so I barely recall). I thought the main character was interesting and spunky enough– but the world and magic were standout then, and are standout now. With time, Kate and the others grew more layers, but compared to other contemporary urban fantasy, even Magic Bites is awesome. There’s a lot of books that try and fail to really achieve liftoff with that kind of ass-kicking mercenary female in post-apocalyptic urban setup, and very few others even come close. I’d say only the Hollows series. Of course, others share many of the same elements, because this is the bread and butter of the genre: were creatures, urban decay, episodic mystery and larger arc magic, hidden powers, mysterious parentage, some romantic alphaholes and of course, plenty of sarcasm. Actually, Kate’s missing sexy vamps, but that’s on purpose. Who needs sexy vamps, anyway. It’s not like it’s wrong to say Magic Bites isn’t as good as book 5 or 10, but considering that most books in the genre suck, I wouldn’t bother adding any caveat.
It depends how much you’d enjoy the genre, I guess? I have read a *lot* of urban fantasy. I’m not one of those people who just read the famous ones later (after they’re famous), so I’ve read many first books ‘blind’. Remember when new fantasy books were found by looking in the new section in the F&SF in Barnes Noble or the library? haha I read Seanan McGuire much later, but that series also stands in the context of the others. Not many decent fae urban fantasy books are written these days, not like the 90s. I think McGuire is at least as good as Emma Bull or Holly Black.
I dunno if I’d necessarily say to give it another chance, but try the audiobook. The narrator really adds something here. Like with Magic Bites, the characters take awhile but the fae lore is very unusual and interesting very soon. I particularly remember liking the memory magic. And I’m also a huge sucker for urban fantasy with a strong sense of place, which is true of probably all my favorite series, McGuire’s included. Setting a fairy book in San Francisco and making it feel just like San Francisco (with Muir woods!!) means a lot to me. There’s also a good amount of characterization complexity. I do think this series takes off more slowly than the cryptid books. You may like McGuire’s Incryptid books more, as it’s closer in feel to the Kate Daniels books. Then, if you love that, maybe you’d be kinder to Toby, hehe.
Reena, I agree that the first Kate Daniels book is better than a lot of other UF, especially first novels in UF series.
I tried the first InCryptid book, but, nope, that one really did not work for me at all. I fear I don’t remember why, but I do remember being truly stunned that Seanan McGuire and Myra Grant were the same person, because the sentence-level writing was so incredibly different from the Newsflesh trilogy.
I think I overdosed on UF and haven’t wanted to pick up anything in that genre for a while, but have you read Jacqueline Carey’s Dark Currents? Because I do have that on my TBR pile.
I didn’t know Jacqueline Carey did urban fantasy! I stuck it on my Amazon to-read pile but I’m with Jacqueline Carey like you are with Seanan McGuire– the wires crossed and it’s… so much for me and this popular author. I can’t get too far into Kushiel’s Dart without noping away. It doesn’t help that it pushes my no-no buttons about S&M and/or polyamory or whatever all that is. It’s funny because S&M elements can often work for me, just not… uh… in the context of Jacqueline Carey, Anne Rice, etc. It’s one thing to include it, another thing to use it as world-building or some major aspect of the characterization outside of sex. It’s too… fake somehow? Pretentious? Something like that. It’s too studied and pompous is my impression. I only like it when it’s raw emotion, like a sort of purging. You actually hit upon it with Winter of Ice and Iron, though obviously that was far from directly addressed. Anyway, that also has the honor of being the literal only story I’m aware of where I’m OK with polyamory type stuff, though I’m semi-okay with it for Ryo. But less ok.
Hmm. I think because Ryo himself is not entirely okay with it and just sort of accepts it as okay. Not that I’d be interested in a character who was actually into that… whole thing. Winter of Ice and Iron threads the needle in an odd way– sort of how you manage to write character death I’m ok with. I think it’s because the MMC wasn’t romantically attached..? Or even necessarily sexually attached. And also because the FMC is so overwhelmingly important/dominant as a force in his life, there’s a weird sort dynamic that reminds me of Kirk/Spock and whatever women Kirk got together with. Not that he was fake with them, particularly, but it’s not as if anything existed that could compare to his attachment to (and relationship with) Spock (and McCoy). It’s this sort of situation where a relationship is larger than life, so a normal stress relief interest or normal friendship ot even casual romance can happen with no impact. Not that I’m necessarily happy about it.
I’ve actually thought a lot about that relationship and how I imagine it may end up, FWIW. I think eventually that guy may end up ending it himself, because I can only imagine even if they started up a sexual relationship again, it’d be much reduced and even less truly intimate (so I hope he does). At least, if he ever finds someone to be with. He probably needs more from his life, even if he’s in denial about it. But anyway, the exception proves the rule. Kushiel’s series is that rule. Even Anne Rice’s Anita Blake books seem more up my alley, though I find love triangles just slightly less tiresome than polyamory. But they’re sadly much harder to escape.
Count me among those who didn’t finish the first October Daye book. I don’t remember why, exactly; what I do recall is it was the book which helped me figure out what I didn’t like about the selkie stories I’d been reading: Too little sea and seals.
I found the first Harry Dresden not objectionable and went on to the next one or two. Stopped fairly soon, though, as I wasn’t that interested. And I hear Butcher’s broken the world-building, something about how the vampires work was ignored to set up an emotional situation with Harry’s brother, and in general things have gone very grim for Harry. . So, I don’t regret my early stop with the series.
i know I also am wary of books marked #1 of Series X, especially if the author is new. While I’m aware some of the unknown names are pseudonyms of experienced people, I’ll still check instead of automatically hit buy. Often, though, it’s the writing that turns me off – or at least doesn’t catch my interest. I can’t count the number of professionally published books by new writers I’ve tried and immediately started nitpicking the prose. People aren’t being taught English and writing at all well these days, and the editors don’t seem to know much either, to be putting out such stuff. If they have other completed books out, and one is a stand alone I’ll try that one.
I know I gave Naomi Novik a chance because the publisher was clear that book 1 was to be followed the next month with book 2. (Which was boring, but anyway, knowing it was already in the print pipeline helped make the sale of #1. Which wasn’t boring.)
I do think making sure a first book stands alone is excellent advice. A sequel can be written, but if you upset the readers by leaving on a cliff hanger or mostly unresolved you WILL be badmouthed by some readers. You can never make everyone happy, but why add to the odds against your success?
I gave up on October Daye. Got through a few by inertia, but — nah, not really.
I’m a fanatic for reading books in published order because otherwise the later books run a real risk of spoilers for the earlier ones.
Elaine, for selkie books, have you read The Brides of Rollrock Island? I remember being impressed by that one
I’ll have to check out the Rollrock Island one, since I don’t think I’ve ever read a selkie novel and it would be neat if pulled off well.
Mary Catelli, I almost never care about spoilers. (Occasionally! But not usually!) So I’m fine with reading most series out of order, though in general of course I do go in publication order, unless I trip over Book 2 at a used book store and pick it up and don’t own Book 1.
Elaine, re: professionally published books by new writers I’ve tried and immediately started nitpicking the prose. People aren’t being taught English and writing at all well these days, and the editors don’t seem to know much either, to be putting out such stuff — I’m pointing at one like that in Friday’s post. Frankly, I’m not looking at a lot of new books by new-to-me authors, but this one is a bestseller, a lot of people are saying the prose is great, and it just isn’t. I don’t know what they’re seeing. The prose is literally bad. And there it is, a bestseller. I don’t understand it.
Reena, I don’t I’ll ever write a follow-up to Winter, but I do know how that relationship works out. Spoiler … kind of a spoiler … but you’re pretty much in the ballpark for how I would handle that.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s very important that Ryo’s marital arrangement isn’t at all easy for him to accept. But, something that I may be aware of that perhaps a lot of readers aren’t, is where and how polyandry has appeared in workable form in historical societies. I was and still am focused on working out something that is realistic given Ryo’s character, Ugaro society, the situation in question, and real-world human instincts. It’s a complicated needle to thread, I realize.
SarahZ, thanks for the recommendation, I hadn’t seen that one. I’ve mostly stopped looking at selkie stories over the last few years but I took a look at the sample for BRIDES and it looked good. Prior to that, the last selkie book I read was Joann Harris’ The Blue Salt Road, which was very good, and I’ll never reread it. Flora was very unpleasant and entitled. I much prefer Harris’ The Honeycomb.
On bestsellers – most official bestselling books that I’ve ever looked had, at best, mediocre prose and a couple I would have labelled bad. (Long enough ago I don’t recall titles, but remember my reaction.) The only title I can recall was Dan Brown’s book… DaVinci Code? … that there such a fuss about twenty years ago. It was painful to read, and he didn’t get my money. The more I heard about it, the less interested I was, too. When my memories from high school art history can contradict whatever it was in that book, there’s a problem with calling it well researched.
There are a few outliers that were actually well written, but most were not, on the sentence level.
I think I accepted it along with Ryo, which was cool. I dunno if their situation is typical for polyandry, but I do think it actually works because of the character dynamics moreso than the cultural dynamics, which just enable it. I think it’s partly thanks to Ryo being different in his experiences and partly because Elaro is the way he is (also different, not truly part of the tribe). Complementary strengths. Ryo probably couldn’t have tolerated another warrior, say. Overall, it’s an interesting demonstration of how we can adjust and even enjoy unnatural (to us) turns in our lives.
Anyway, I’d guess that most real life instances of polyandry and polygamy don’t necessarily involve people who’re all genuinely choosing their circumstances. Hell, it seems most marriages in human history aren’t fully consciously and thoughtfully chosen like Ryo’s was. It probably helps if you view the other person as chosen family rather than your partner’s other romantic interest. This is probably how it works with sister wives (from what I can tell). It’s not sharing a person but creating a family. In that sense, it’s not totally unlike modern family structures post-divorce, haha.
Reena, you’re perfectly correct, of course. Very few choices in any human society have ever been NEARLY as unconstrained as they can be today in modern societies.
I agree that starting with a standalone story is a good idea for new writers. As other commenters have said, the author can always write more stories in the same world, or even continue the main character’s story later. Bujold’s Vorkosigan stories are a great example of this approach. Every novel has an actual ending, even if there are plenty of hooks for future stories. She definitely improved as a writer, but the earlier books are still perfectly readable. I believe she also explicitly tried to write each book so a new reader could start the series there. Of course, some of the books are better starting points than others, but I’ve heard that some people even started with Civil Campaign and liked it!
Seanan McGuire is pretty hit-or-miss for me. When I read her books, I usually find myself carried along with the story, but the stories she likes to tell don’t necessarily match my preferences very well. That said, my Kindle informs me that I liked the October Daye books well enough to read 16(!) of them, and I may eventually pick up the series again at some point. I don’t remember whether I started with the first book, but if I did, whatever faults it had obviously didn’t stop me from continuing. However, I completely bounced off Incryptid and only finished the first book because I was voting on the Hugos and wanted to give it a fair chance.
Linda, I should think any series where you read SIXTEEN BOOKS ought to leave a pretty clear impression!
Yes, alas, I bounced VERY hard off the Incryptid series.