Writing sequels as stand alone novels

jasonaaronfox · Feb 18, 2012

Is there any disadvantage to writing a sequel in such a way that it can stand as it's own as a novel?

I've been re-reading a nearly completed manuscript for the second in a series I am writing and I am finding that all of the back story details have been placed into the story sparsely through key pieces of dialog. There's nothing so far that you would have to read in the first novel to be able to appreciate the second. It's story stands on it's own, and adds to a much larger story arc I am working on.

I'm new to writing and I have no idea if this is a good thing or some kind of "no-no."

Any advice is appreciated.

kuwisdelu · Feb 18, 2012

I vastly prefer them that way. I'd think it's a strength.

jjdebenedictis · Feb 18, 2012

I think it's a good thing.

One of my pet peeves is when I pick up a new book, thinking it's a stand-alone, only to realize I've accidentally bought the second or third book in a series.

That is often not a problem, but many times it is (I wish they'd write "Book Two of the ____ Series" in larger font on the cover!), because I don't enjoy spending half the book trying to piece together what's happening because the story keeps referencing back to something I've never read.

Brigid Barry · Feb 18, 2012

jasonaaronfox said:
Is there any disadvantage to writing a sequel in such a way that it can stand as it's own as a novel?

I've been re-reading a nearly completed manuscript for the second in a series I am writing and I am finding that all of the back story details have been placed into the story sparsely through key pieces of dialog. There's nothing so far that you would have to read in the first novel to be able to appreciate the second. It's story stands on it's own, and adds to a much larger story arc I am working on.

I'm new to writing and I have no idea if this is a good thing or some kind of "no-no."

Any advice is appreciated.

Having a sequel that can stand alone is great. I am forever picking up a book and discovering that it is book 3 or 10 in a series and I missed everything leading up to it. Sometimes I am hopelessly confused as to what is going on, other times I can read and enjoy the novel without reading priors.

On the other side, make sure you don't make it redundant for someone who is reading it as a sequel, or part of a series. I am so sick of Anita Blake telling me to never take your eyes off an opponent on the Judo mat. I really am. Because it's in every novel. It's just a thing that she thinks but it gets tiring to see it constantly as I read the books.

Hope I made sense!

Mr Flibble · Feb 18, 2012

kuwisdelu said:
I vastly prefer them that way. I'd think it's a strength.

What he said. Nothing worse than accidentally picking up book 2 in a series, and discovering it's incomprehensible without having read the first. They should put 'book 2' in flashing neon lights or something.....

Tom from UK · Feb 18, 2012

I've just written a novel called 'Cawnpore' which is a sequel to 'The White Rajah'. It has the same MC and starts where 'The White Rajah' leaves off but it has a completely separate plot in a different country with all the characters other than the MC being new.

I do worry that people will be put off because they haven't read the first one, but it is a stand-alone novel. Obviously, I think that is the way to go.

Personally, I hate picking up a book to be completely confused because I haven't read the first in the series. Usually the author will help me out by feeding important information from previous novels into the first chapter so that I know where I am.

Snowstorm · Feb 18, 2012

I agree with the others upthread. I always prefer to get the first book in a series, but often I don't know an interesting book is in a series. Each novel in a series should be a stand-alone for that reason.

jasonaaronfox · Feb 18, 2012

Well, that's a relief. Thank you all for the input.

dangerousbill · Feb 18, 2012

jasonaaronfox said:
Is there any disadvantage to writing a sequel in such a way that it can stand as it's own as a novel?

Virtually all the great series writers produce stand-alone novels, with just enough connection to previous volumes for a serious reader to keep up with the larger, series-spanning plot.

Lawrence Block, in his Matt Scudder series, follows Scudder's evolution from down-at-heel drunk to successful ex-drunk and responsible ex-husband, while each volume stands alone as a separate adventure.

kuwisdelu · Feb 18, 2012

I read Haruki Murakami's Dance Dance Dance long before I read A Wild Sheep Chase. I didn't realize it was a sequel to anything until I started reading the novel to which it was a sequel. I liked it that way. (And they're both great books.) And seeing as it's hard to get away with series in literary fiction, it's about the only way to do it with what I read and write.

Buffysquirrel · Feb 18, 2012

I'm more worried that people won't understand the second book even if they have read the first one. Too much sleep dep.

Paul · Feb 18, 2012

@ op. unfortunately mine has hit it's target word count and it screams book two please!

But i'm ok with that. Because there's enough denouement in bk one to satisfy the reader. the scream is really a response to the hook for bk two.

If i do write book two (ie a 3 book deal!) it will exist independently but with a few ref to before.

i think a writer had a responsibility to ensure each book can stand alone.

Mari · Feb 18, 2012

jasonaaronfox said:
Is there any disadvantage to writing a sequel in such a way that it can stand as it's own as a novel?

I've been told this is what you're supposed to do.

jdwhitelaw · Feb 19, 2012

I think it's a matter of opinion both for the reader and the writer.

Having read Chris Wooding's trilogy of Ketty Jay novels, they all run on from each other and are perfectly feasible stand alone novels too.

This is what I'm working from as part of my latest project, what will turn out to be a stand alone piece of work with the characters and newer elements form the original piece.

What's strange is I'v already clocked up 20k+ words from what I've been loosely jotting down with the vague imprint of a storyline that will be buffed out at a later date.

Is this something others have found too when doing sequel work?

b_radom · Feb 23, 2012

jasonaaronfox said:
I've been re-reading a nearly completed manuscript for the second in a series I am writing and I am finding that all of the back story details have been placed into the story sparsely through key pieces of dialog.

Be careful doing it all through dialogue. That can start to feel heavy-handed and forced, just like doing it ALL through narrative of thoughts and feelings of the character who was there for the events of the first book.

I'm relieved that it's "sparse", but share your work with someone you trust for good advice, ask specific questions about how the references to the earlier novel work (if they're forced, for example), and then revise. You'll be on your way.

Writing sequels as stand alone novels

jasonaaronfox

idle hands

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World

jjdebenedictis

is watching you via her avatar

Brigid Barry

🧂🐎👩

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Tom from UK

Snowstorm

Baby plot bunneh sniffs out a clue

jasonaaronfox

idle hands

dangerousbill

Retired Illuminatus

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World

Buffysquirrel

Paul

Mari

that hillbilly vampire lady

jdwhitelaw

Gone Drinkin'

b_radom

Calculating the odds