Okay, I have a question that somewhat relates to this...
If you get a 2 or 3-book contract, and your first novel was never meant to be part of a series, do they expect you to write a sequel for it (assuming it does well), or will they allow you to go ahead with your completely new idea and leave the first one as a stand alone success?
I understand it varies, so I guess my real question is, has anyone had an experience similar to this? It seems the trend in SF/F is turn everything into a series, and while I do have a series in the works, I don't want it to be my debut, and the other projects are all stand alones. Any thoughts?
When I wrote
The Conqueror's Shadow, it was meant to be a standalone novel. I had no plans to write a sequel, and in fact, I was rather hostile to the very idea of one.
When I signed with Random House, they wanted a two-book deal--and they wanted the second book to be a sequel to the first. That wasn't negotiable.
And you know, I came up with a sequel that I'm
very happy with, and in the process of coming up with
that, I actually developed ideas for more, so if both
TCS and
The Warlord's Legacy do well, I can write more with the character.
But the point is, yeah, at least sometimes the publisher may want a sequel to a book that you planned to be stand-alone. And honestly? You're usually better off agreeing, even if you really hadn't wanted to write a sequel. Beginning writers have
very literal room for leverage, and editors
do keep track of which authors are easy to work with and which make their lives difficult.
As far as the original question...
While there are obviously exceptions--some have posted in this very thread
--my understanding is that, for the most part, a debut novel
must be able to stand on its own. Even if it leaves
room for a sequel, and even if the publisher
wants a sequel, it should not and must not
require that sequel. I know that seems a little counter-intuitive, but it's what I've been told by multiple editors and agents in the biz.