How complete does a book in a series have to be? (spoilers for the first ASOIAF and LOTR books)

Are you published? If so, ask your agent. If not, write a standalone novel. IMO.

ASoIaF and LOTR are rare examples that IMO don't even apply to this. The publishing world has changed and both authors were previously published and well known before such series.

As a debut author, there's a good chance that your publisher doesn't hold the greatest confidence with you. Having a self-contained story within one book is a way that your agent, publisher, and reader can take a chance on you. Commitment is one of the largest deciding factors when an agent represents you, and publisher buys your rights, and a reader buys a book.

I would be less likely to buy the first of a series than any other non-series book. Both for time, money, and the doubt of if the payoff isn't good. I've read enough shitty series where the second and third books didn't live up to the first.

BTW, you should remove spoilers from your post.

I agree with kuwi. Unless you have an agent to ask, better safe than sorry.

Ideally, as a reader, I want a Star Wars: Episode IV level of resolution: an in-book/movie arc completed, where one can walk away reasonably satisfied even if the evil Empire still stands.

As a writer, I know there's roughly a snowball's chance in Heck of me ever getting a shot at mainstream publishing - so I want whatever snowballs I lob into that inferno to be strong and self-contained as I can possibly make it.

As Osu said, those really aren't great examples for what a newbie writer can expect right now. There's always gonna be That Guy/Gal who can get away with murder; that doesn't mean the rest of us should stab our neighbors in the back and expect to get away with it... at least, not the first time.

There's a huge difference between closing off all threads, and telling a solid standalone novel. There are many interesting and well-loved standalone novels that have unresolved, open, or ambiguous endings, yet still are fully functional standalone stories that have a clear arc with a beginning, middle, and end. A New Hope is the quintessential example of this, but I would maintain that both Fellowship and GoT actually mostly do this as well (and which is one reason they're so beloved).

Fellowship is easy: the central story arc is the creation, and then breaking of the Fellowship. Of course there's more in the journey, but the clear story of this group was told. GoT has many threads, but the two central ones follow very clear arcs: there's the tragedy of Ned Stark, an good man done in by his honor in an honorless world, and the rise of Dany, who goes from powerless pawn to empowered Mother of Dragons. All of these are clear, satisfying stories that fill you up while also leaving you hungry for more. I'd point to some of the later Asoiaf books as good examples of what happens when a book in a series does *not* function as a standalone; Affc and Adwd are both transitionary books, chapters in a whole with no self-contained arcs, and so are deeply unsatisfying.

I think most of the Harry Potter books were perfect as a balance of "The Day: We Have Saved It!" and "Oh Noes, The Ebil Is Still Out There!"

Most of the books have a well-developed mystery that is introduced, investigated, and solved with great derring-do and in a satisfying manner by the end of the novel. However, Voldemort is still out there and plotting, and every book is sure to remind the reader of that fact before it wraps up.

As for the question of how well the story in the first book has to wrap up, it really does depend. As mentioned, ASoIF and LoTR both came from published authors, so they aren't so relevant because the publisher already had faith in the authors.

Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy is a much better example. Those three books do NOT stand alone, but obviously the first one was good enough that a publisher had faith they could make money with it. However, old Auntie Wikipedia tells me the manuscript was shopped to publishers for a full year before finding its home, so it wasn't a slam-dunk.

If you have no track record in publishing, you're safer writing a book that can stand alone. It's not a rule, just a rule-of-thumb.

What defines a book that stands alone? If there's a satisfying arc and a major victory, could that be marketed as a standalone piece, even if not all the questions are answered and the Biggest Bad is still out there?

I ask because almost all of my ideas lend themselves to two or three separate books, and the idea of having to wrap everything up in one to sell it is a bit daunting. Blame it on all the YA I've read.

wittyblather said:

If there's a satisfying arc and a major victory, could that be marketed as a standalone piece, even if not all the questions are answered and the Biggest Bad is still out there?

Click to expand...

That, to me, is precisely the sort of book that you could query as "a standalone with series potential".

The "satisfying" part is the important bit; if it feels like a complete piece of entertainment in its own right, then you're probably fine.

My debut is being marketed by the publisher as the first in a series but it's a self-contained story that reaches a resolution. If it tanks and they decide not to publish the second one, readers of the first won't feel cheated that they only got half a story, if you see what I mean.

I think the ground rules are changing. A little.

We are seeing more stories told in series, whether this is as a novel or a film. Television box sets are becoming more and more popular, even to the point where they are starting to rival Hollywood. Hollywood films are increasingly following LOTR into the planned trilogy/ series route. In novels, many authors are using the trick of a free or cheap first book to lead readers into a series.

I have even heard readers say that they would not read anything unless it was in a series. So, yes, the ability to turn a story into a series is becoming more and more important, regardless of genre or medium.

But I would echo what others have said about the first part needing to have at least some element of closure. The reader can feel cheated if they find they have bought an incomplete book. It can look wholly too cynical if book one is nothing more than a come-on to hook you into book two.

For me, as a reader - if the series are already finished, I don't care. If they are good, I'll read them back to back, if they're not good I wouldn't mind stopping and not finishing the series.
If the series are not yet finished however, I'd prefer the books to be relatively completed. If they're not and I like them, I'm going to regret not waiting for all the books to be finished first (I'm looking at you GRRM and Rothfuss) - it's like watching a great movie, pausing it in the middle and not watching its second half for the next 3-4-9-10 years...

To me there are two sorts of series

One big story arc divided across several books as in your examples. Some are more cliff-hangerish than others.

Episodes in the life of - which may or may not have a big story arc start up at some point. A lot of UF series are like this. Each problem that pops up is generally solved in that book, and there is a new problem for the next book. You may or may not have old problems re-occur, or people you hacked off solving problem 1, returning to cause problem 3.

I honestly cannot imagine reading TFOTR without the rest of the trilogy or reading A Game of Thrones without the rest (oh I am suffering so much waiting). They are separate adventures but all combine to form a greater, more epic story than a standalone would be. I love short fiction that is wrapped up fairly quickly, particularly horror, but that can have a cliffhanger because of the genre, I feel like fantasy adventures are much more of an investment. If the last book of ASOIAF ends abruptly without at least ending character arcs, if not their own story, I would feel cheated that there was no ending. I'd probably say the same about standalones, A Game of Thrones certainly feels like the beginning of a saga rather than a tale that just suddenly stops but I think it was different in Tolkien's case. Wasn't he writing a novel to go with the Elvish language he had created and hadn't expected his work to do so well, therefore making a sequel expected?

At the moment series seem to be prefered. In fantasy and scifi it can take some time to really immerse oneself in a world. So even a closed story could feel short after reading one book. Who doesn´t know the feeling of loss after reading the last words of a great book. And you know, this was the last time you experience something new in this awesome world?

Having said that. I am getting tired of all the endless series. I often find a world interesting and am hooked on it but it starts to drag after some books and I just want an end. Not always but very often. I prefer stand alone books at the moment. But that might change.

In any novel, be it stand-alone, or one in a series, there needs to be satisfying conclusion. It may be best to think of stand-alone novel as a story in its entirety, with no unresolved issues, or loose-ends left after the last page. (Of course, characters can be resurrected for a sequel, but a sequel isn't really the same thing as the next book in a series.)

But even with books in a series, there is a need for a satisfying end-state. Readers would feel cheated if a book ended on the eve of a climactic battle, but happier if the battle had been fought and a result achieved, for good, or ill. Whether the immediate aftermath of the battle is a good place to end a book depends on the circumstances surrounding it. They will also feel cheated if your hero(es) haven't managed to resolve some of the major issues and problems which confront them as they move through the story, but, perhaps, not the big one.

Heavens, this is difficult to explain!

OK. A book/story starts with the characters and situation in a certain state - let's call it 'normality'. Then things start to happen. The story revolves around how their state changes as they act and react, working their way through dangers, confusions, trials, tribulations, times of reflection and periods of frenetic action. At the end of the book/story, in order to be satisfying for a reader, the characters and situation need to assume a new 'normality' - a situation in which, while they have been changed and influenced by what has happened throughout, they are capable of moving on to further exploits, encounters and adventures - a sort of a lull before the next storm.

This doesn't mean your heroes always have to win, or come out on top. A peerless warrior-lord at the start of a story could end it as a homeless fugitive, selling his prowess for bread; a wealthy merchant from chapter one could, at the end of the story, have become a penniless beggar.

I think the trick with writing a series is to leave your characters changed at the end of each book (even if they're just a bit wiser) and in a state which becomes their new 'normality' for a time, until something major happens, usually near the beginning of the next book, which sets things in motion once again. This can be a resurgence, reappearance of the old threat from the previous book, or a new threat which calls upon them to act. (N.B. both call for the removal, or suppression of the threat at the centre of the former book. Of course, it's entirely feasible, at the end of a book in a series, to have the threat triumphant and your heroes scattered and fleeing for their lives, in which case, the next book would begin with their planning their return (and ultimate victory). I believe readers would find this acceptable provided there had been enough drama, incident and action leading up to it and your heroes had achieved some degree of success cf LOTR/TFOTR. The main thing working in its favour is that every reader knows that, eventually and after Heaven knows how many books, your hero(es) will win out. It's what he/she/they go through to get there and what challenges they face which provide the meat for the individual stories/books in a series.)

You know, it's funny. I'm a huge fantasy reader. I've read fantasy all my life. Fantasy stories are notorious for being written as series. Still it annoys me when I'm at the book store and I see an interesting book, and I pick it up, and right there on the cover it says, "Book Two of the Blah Blah Saga". More often than not, I put the book back down and move on. The reason? I have so many series started. I'm either waiting for the next installment, or I put it off for a minute to explore something else a bit.
Now I realize I'm probably not up to date, I don't research writers or books or anything. I go to the book store and I look at the books on the shelf and I pick one, read the first few pages, then make my decision. What I'm getting at though is that stand alone stories are totally underestimated. I appreciate them greatly.

Plenty of debut authors have sold series. It may be true that having standalone-ish books ups your chances some, but it's not required by any means.

Irish Whiskey said:

What I'm getting at though is that stand alone stories are totally underestimated. I appreciate them greatly.

Click to expand...

Me too; I used to have a policy of never starting a series until the author had completed it (had to relax that thanks to GRRM; love that guy's books). It just irritated me so much to get to the end of the book and feel like I'd been victim of a bait and switch because nothing had been resolved. I didn't pay money with the intention of getting NO story; at least have a subplot resolved, dammit...

I'm the opposite to a lot of people when I shop in bookstores. Knowing that there are more books in the series is a selling point for me. I'll only buy them if I like Book 1, though. I just like the potential to be there--makes the investment seem more momentous, especially if it's an author I haven't read before.

You'd better not let me down with that first book, though. I agree with everyone who says make the book satisfying. There are loads of ways to use story cycles, trilogies, and so on to tell long tales. These have their place. But they're macro-structure. If you're book doesn't work on its own it doesn't matter what part of the series it is. It's a bad book. If you think about this, it makes sense. We always want some degree of resolution. There is always story arc. Learn how to structure a story and these questions largely take care of themselves.