Series Vs. Stand-Alones

I may have touched on this before, but I got an email a couple of days ago from one of my regular blog readers, and thought the answer would work well as a MW posting. So, from reader Nicki B, the following:

I’ve recently finished a novel and am in the process of revisions. In the last week I had another author state that in today’s economy it is substantially easier for a previously unpublished author to get published with a stand alone novel than with the first book in a series. I’d like to get your opinion as to whether it would be easier to break out as a new author with some stand alone books, build a following and then tackle my series ideas.

First off, congratulations on finishing your novel! Hooray!

As for series vs. stand-alones, here’s my take on it (and I’m sort of basically assuming you’re writing sf/f–if you’re writing romance, all of this I’m about to say is completely irrelevant and I have different advice!): if you can, write a book that could be #1 in a series. Make it a complete story in and of itself, but if it’s something there can be sequels to, that’s perfect.

Then write another book that could be #1 in a different series. Again, make it a complete story, but make it a unique world, not related to the first.

Then do it again with a third potential series. Maybe even a fourth.

At that point, you can maybe go back and start a second book in the first series, if you feel like it. That’s actually *exactly* what I did–I wrote URBAN SHAMAN, HEART OF STONE, and (a great big chunk of) THE QUEEN’S BASTARD, as well as a YA fantasy novel that hasn’t been published yet, before I went back and started writing THUNDERBIRD FALLS. I sold URBAN SHAMAN while writing THUNDERBIRD, but even more importantly, I also had three other novels I could pitch to my new agent and to editors.

There are a bunch of advantages to this. One, it proves you’re not a one-trick pony. Two, if you don’t sell series #1 right away, you have two or three other potential series you can try to sell. Three, it gives you as a writer a lot more room to develop in creating new characters, worlds and plots than if you tie yourself down to one series/character/world right off.

There are also, mind you, disadvantages. You could sell all three series more or less at once, and it turns out it’s really hard to say no when people are offering you contracts. So you need to have a realistic grasp of your ability to pour it on and write that many series at once (I could, but believe me, I am 1. a freak, and 2. at the end of my ability to maintain the pace I’ve been writing at!). But really, except under fairly extraordinary circumstances, you’re probably not *going* to sell three series at once, so it’s not too big an argument against this approach.

My personal experience is that editors like series. In fact, I’ve ended up re-pitching a standalone book as a duology, because my editor was concerned that a stand-alone would get lost in the masses of books coming out. And I’ve got a dozen books out. o.O (OTOH, I didn’t come out of the gate with One Great Stand-Alone, so see below.) So editors /do/ like series. So do readers, because we build a connection to the characters and tend to want more of them.

Flip side: if you have a Big Idea that makes one really solid stand-alone story…don’t muck with that. If you have a great stand-alone, let it be great and don’t worry about whether editors are looking for series or singles.

Actually, mostly, don’t worry anyway. Conventional wisdom on whether to write series or stand-alones runs right down the middle. It’s probably a good idea in the more or less current climate to not write 200K novels–try to keep them closer to 100K (more fit on the shelves, which makes booksellers happy)–but I persist in believing that if you write a good story, whether it’s a series or a stand-alone, you’ll sell it.