Which novel type sells better, a series or single story?

[aweis]

My story concept is too large to fit into one novel so I'm spreading it out over 3 or maybe 4 novels. I love the concept and I'll complete it even if I don't make a single dime selling it. I'm in it for the love of writing and it allows me to vent my thoughts constructively. However, don't get me wrong making money at it would be great.

My question: Disregarding genre if possible, would publishers rather see a series of novels or do they prefer single standalone stories? If book one of a series is good and sells then I'm sure publishers like the idea that there are others to follow. However, if you have only one book that sells then you have to prove yourself all over again with a new all-original concept which seems risky to a publisher and puts you back in square-one but with one foot in the door.

I don't let this question dictate what I write, but I am curious if this question floats around the big publishing houses.

[maestrowork]

It's great if you have the books written already and could sell them as a series... BUT! Each book should stand on its own (especially the first one).

[aweis]

Of course. The first book sets stage for the remaining books of the series. But let's assume all is great with the books, series and single. What would a publisher prefer since they're thinking in terms of profit?

[Holmes Adie]

Let's not forget that books written as stand-alone novels can still spawn unplanned sequels in the future.

[maestrowork]

My thought is a publisher would/could only focus on one book at a time, especially if you're a new author. Sure, there are times when a publisher would sign you for the whole series because it's just so exceptional. Or they would sign you for a 5-book deal, even if the books have not been written. But most likely a publisher could only see so far in the future. Consider each book takes about 18 months to produce... a 3 book series would take about 5 years -- that's a commitment without knowing how the first book would do in the market.

I'd say, write what you love. If you have a series, then write it. Just plant your feet firmly on the ground when you market it. That's what JK Rowling did. She had only started on her second book when she sold Philosopher's Stone.

[blackbird]

Given that the books do well, trilogies can certainly be more lucrative than single stories. Also, series books tend to develop cult followings, which naturally increases sales.

The problem is that so much hinges on what that first book does, and getting publishers to take that gamble. If the first book seels poorly, it may be harder to publish the sequels.

I think single stories probably tend to get more respect from a purely critical (literary) standpoint, but it's hard to say. So many series (like Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles, for example) began as single books, but what happens is that the story keeps growing and the reader demand is there, so it ends up being a series. Her first novel, Interview With the Vampire, really didn't fare that well initially, but slowly developed a cult following, so that by the time of The Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned, her books had skyrocketed to the top of the bestseller charts.

There seems to be an unofficial view among some critics and "literary" people that writers who can crank out a successful series are somehow more crass and less literary than those who opt to tell single, contained stories. But I think this really depends on how you measure success. If success to you means large numbers of readers and bookstore sales (and who can argue with that?) then I think, yes, writing a series is the way to go. Readers tend to get hooked, the same as people do with soap operas; they learn to care about these characters on a level that goes beyond simply enjoying a good book.
They become engaged with the characters on a very real and intimate level.

And what of authors like Sherman Alexie, who doesn't write series books per se, but whose characters continue to be recycled and to reappear in new stories and books, like resurrected spirits? Is this also not a form of series, or at least of some form of cyclical writing?

It seems to me that its a trend being engaged in by many of today's most renowned, bestselling authors, and in part what's led to their success. I don't think it's necessaily "better" than writing the self-contained novel, but there does seem to be a proven track record that these books DO sell.

[Kiva Wolfe]

You might try testing the market for your book and series idea. Having written my first novel as a stand alone with a happy, mainstream ending, I was eager to move onto Project #2. However, the core group of readers I assembled actually cared so much about the characters, they wanted me to write more. So I reworked the story, changed the ending, and turned it into a series-based book. Some stories just naturally lend themselves to sequels or series. Why fight it? If you've a good story concept, if you have established the market, if you've produced something that is well-written, whether it is a stand alone book or a series based book, it will potentially sell. The trick is finding an agent or publisher enthusiastic enough to take it on. It's also wise to also have something else creatively cooking on the stove, in the event it takes longer to find the right house for your work.

[victoriastrauss]

My question: Disregarding genre if possible, would publishers rather see a series of novels or do they prefer single standalone stories?I don't think you can disregard genre. Series are actively sought by publishers in some genres. They aren't in others. So if you were asking about a fantasy or detective novel, I'd say yes, a series would probably sell better than a standalone book. With mainstream commercial fiction, where readers aren't habituated to following stories and characters through multiple books, it's anyone's guess.

And I'd agree that even if you do decide to do a series, the first book should stand alone.

- Victoria

[Jamesaritchie]

Of course. The first book sets stage for the remaining books of the series. But let's assume all is great with the books, series and single. What would a publisher prefer since they're thinking in terms of profit?

Publishers prefer a great first novel that stands alone. Most series begin with a standalone novel. If the first book doesn't sell well, there will be no series. If the first book does sell well, turning it into a series is usually pretty easy.

Bazillions of new writer think they have a concept that won't fit into a single book. It's usually not true, and even if it is, you still have to write book one, and you still probably have to make book one a standalone novel.

[AdamH]

For a first time novelist, I'd say a stand-alone is the way to go. It shows the publisher that you know and understand (and complete) a story arc.

After that first one, if you can spin it off into a series, great! You'd have an easier sell after the first one is done.

Other than that, it all depends on how enthralling the story is.

[scarletpeaches]

From a purely personal point of view, I much prefer stand alone novels. There's nothing worse than picking up a novel in a shop, getting it home and only then discovering, due to there being no clue on the cover, that it is the sequel to another that you haven't read!

[teraflop]

I never finished Anthony Powell's Dance to the Music of Time, figuring the 8-odd novels to be already a considerable investment in his characters. But it was enjoyable to recognize characters flit in & out of subsequent novels. Also, in Evelyn Waugh's trilogy, whose name escapes me (something like Surrender...), each novel stood on its own but you loved the continuation. What was most heartbreaking for me was when I completed the third novel.

I'm considering a series myself, having completed the manuscript for the first. But I have no intention on selling them as a series as I don't trust my own skills and market for such an effort.

[Jewel101]

I put both but I must say that I prefer series. one reason is because i get to read about the wonderful world and character some more.

[Liam Jackson]

Exam the question from a $$$ perspective. As Victoria indicated, some genres are series-friendly. A specific readership might prefer long-lasting storylines, evolving plot arches, and enough characters to staff your typical aircraft carrier. On the other hand, as James pointed out, all those subsequent efforts will likely never see print if the very first installment crashes and burns on the landing pad. The publisher might take a chance on a "part two" if sales for part one are dismal. Improbable but possible.

I think we've all heard tales of publishers giving a weak seller another shot, and taking a chance on part two. Its a gamble, hoping readers will eventually discover the author/story and jump on the bandwagon. Such a publisher would need exceedingly deep pockets (or nothing to lose) in order take such risks on a regular basis. There's no future in playing against the odds.

Solution? A stand alone book that can support expanison to subsequent installments. Sure there are exceptions; stories that are told over three, four, or twelve installments. (Robert Jordan's stuff comes readily to mind) There are exceptions to every rule. However, keep in mind, the reason they are called "exceptions" is that they occur so infrequently.

I think too many new authors (me included) have trouble reconciling the notion of stand alone books, and series. A stand alone book doesnt mean the story is necessarily written without plans for other, related books. It simply means the first book doesn't necessarily need a second in order to reach some kind of satisfying conclusion.