Does this book 'stand alone'?

[Chasing the Horizon]

What determines whether a book which is the start of a planned series stands alone? I've been reading a few articles by various agents and other writers and am just getting more and more confused. I always thought that in order for a book to stand alone every question had to have been answered by the end, but I've read several times that agents consider a book which concludes its main plot but leaves at least one minor thread hanging as a 'stand alone with series potential'. Now I'm not sure what to put in my query letter.

My book does conclude its main plot and the major relationship plot, but there is another relationship/character thread which is left hanging (purposefully, it's set up for the next book). Basically, the readers know there is something odd about how these characters feel for each other, but what exactly is going on is never answered.

I also would have plotted and paced the book differently if I wasn't looking at is as the introduction to a series. I put more emphasis on the characters and relationships in this book because of all the complex plots I know are going to happen later.

It's impossible for me to look at the book as standing alone because I know what happens in the rest of the series, but I'm not sure someone just reading this book without that knowledge would think that.

So, at what point does a book stop being a 'stand alone' to you? How many loose ends does it take to make it clearly the start of a series?

[Azure Skye]

I'm going to be watching this thread because I'm just as confused.

[EriRae]

Sometimes the only loose end needed to start the next book of a series is the fact that the MC (or at least one of the characters) is still living.

That said, this is the first book. By default, as long as you don't stop mid-action with nothing resolved (which has been done, so it's not impossible), it's going to stand alone. The work comes with the second book standing on its own enough to make its readers want to go back and read the first, and go on to read book 3.

For your query, don't waste space telling them it's the first in a series: use the space to sell the novel. Put the series information in the synopsis and/or outline.

It's ok to have a character-driven novel, as long as something happens, and it sounds like you've got that covered. Great characters are what's going to build series loyalty, so you're off to a good start!

PM me if you need a beta :)

[Azraelsbane]

I have a problem with this myself :) My series has an overall goal that is not realized until the final novel, but there are always smaller plotlines that I wrap up in each of the two earlier books. I'm probably not the best person to ask about this though, considering at the end of book 1 in my series the antagonist for that book is defeated, but all 3 main characters are either thought to be dead or in mortal peril. No idea if that is even going to be sellable ;) But here's hopin'.


Good luck on yours!

[katiemac]

I read recently on an agent's blog (forget whose), that they prefer to see a query that states the book COULD be part of a series, rather than the book IS part of a series. Among other things, it shows you're open-minded about the book.

So, I'd try to separate your book from the rest of the series and look at the plot threads. (Instead of, for example, "Does this plot thread end here?", ask "Could this plot thread end here?") If the majority, if not all, of your plot threads are "Could it end here? Yes," then I think you're okay. What you've described above sounds like it could stand alone, but not having read it I can't give a better response.

[JohnDavidPaxton]

I know as much about the publishing industry as a...small, unaware child. But it seems to me that you NEED to write every piece as a stand alone novel.

My first book is the first quarter of my story. I've engineered a plot in my mind that consists of a four story arc. As such the books can't end on absolute completion.

The first book ends on a psychological cliffhanger. Nobody is physically in danger. The Bad guys haven't said "HAH! AND NOW WE SHALL BE VIC-TOR-REE-OOOOOUS!" But there are still many questions raised in the final pages.

Does that mean it's not stand-alone? I hope not. Because I told a single story throughout the book. The story of someone inheriting powers and using them to escape his fate. The transition of one reality to another. I feel like you could read it all and say: "This is alright. I don't feel the need to read another but I don't feel like he held everything back to make me go out and get it either."

Or, to use a cultural reference, don't you think The Empire Strike Back stands alone? Think of the end of the movie and clear your mind of Return of the Jedi. You have a protagonist who has been defeated. His best friend has been incapacitated. The Rebels are still scrambling from their defeat.

But it still works as a story, yeah? You wouldn't walk out of it and say "well I've been cheated!"

Basically, that my definition. If the reader gets through you book and doesn't feel like the HAVE to get another book to complete the story, you did fine.

Now, hooking them and making them want to? I hope you and I both do it. :D

[Chasing the Horizon]

I always try to end the books with a conclusion of some kind, even if the main plot itself has to continue, I'll at least end with concluding a subplot or resolving a major part of the main plot. I hate cliffhangers. The main reason none of my books other than the first have a chance of standing alone is because they don't have a real 'beginning'. They start with the assumption that you know who these people are and what their relationships are. When I read a series I don't like much repetition, so I almost never re-explain something from the last book, unless it was very important or very subtle.

Of course, Destiny and Desire has a complete beginning, since it's meant to be the first, and, the more I think about it, the ending is satisfying, if not 'absolute'.

[Jamesaritchie]

You can tie up every loose end there is, and you can still have a series. A series just means the protagonist is coming back for another book, and a new adventure.

[Toothpaste]

I guess also the question is, if I just read your one book, and didn't want to read any further in the series, would I feel like I'd just finished a book, or that I was obligated to read the next one?

[swvaughn]

Or, to use a cultural reference, don't you think The Empire Strike Back stands alone? Think of the end of the movie and clear your mind of Return of the Jedi. You have a protagonist who has been defeated. His best friend has been incapacitated. The Rebels are still scrambling from their defeat.

But it still works as a story, yeah? You wouldn't walk out of it and say "well I've been cheated!"

I, for one, felt most cheated. :D I adored Han, and I was so mad they'd just left him frozen in carbonite and then ended the movie!!

If I hadn't known there was another movie, then yeah, I would've felt robbed.

[MidnightMuse]

I tend to think and write in terms of "series", but I make sure in each novel - ALL of the plots and subplots are concluded. They become a series by mere fact that I pick up these characters again and take them on another adventure - introducing new plots and subplots, and carrying the character development further and further along, showing growth and change.

That way, each book is a stand alone, and the reader can stop along the series and never be left hanging.

[Jamesaritchie]

No, I don't think The Empire Strikes Back stands alone. Far too many loose ends, and it gives no idea how the main story will conclude. It has a cliffhanger ending, if ever there was one.

[Kaytie]

KatieMac and all: I think the blog you read belongs to Nathan Bransford. He recently wrote an entry titled "How to mention a series in a query (http://nathanbransford.blogspot.com/2007/07/how-to-mention-series-in-query.html)."

And he even brings up Empire Strikes Back. If I may paraphrase Mr. Bransford's stance, it's that a first book should definitely stand alone and that a writer should write a second book to the series until the first book sold and the second is under contract.

I think that makes sense from a business/publishing standpoint. If the goal is publication and the first book doesn't sell, write a new one, not a sequel. For a writer who loves the story, though, not writing the sequel seems like an impossibility.

Go read the blog post as well as the comment thread--it's pretty informative.

[Chasing the Horizon]

Yep, that's the blog. :)
I am one of those writers who MUST write the story, whether there's a market for it or not. I'm going to write the entire series even if the first one doesn't sell. Even if it doesn't sell at first, that still doesn't mean it might not sell later when I've had more experience and can make it better, or I could sell a different MS (not part of the series), and then the editor might be interested in my other work if that sold well. *shrug* If my main priority was getting published I wouldn't be writing fantasy in the first place.

[EriRae]

I have 2 5-shelf bookcases that says Fantasy sells...what, I'm not the majority of readers? :rant:

oh wait... I mean :hooray:

[Azure Skye]

Thanks for the link Kaytie.