by James Scott Bell
@jamesscottbell
The old pulp writers recognized the value of a series character. Erle Stanley Gardner called it “the pulp writers insurance policy.” He certainly collected with his character Perry Mason.
Carroll John Daley was the first to score big with his detective Race Williams, who appeared in many issues of Black Mask.
We’ve seen many a successful series character over the years—McGee, Spenser, Reacher, Bosch, Millhone, Lucas Davenport, Jonathan Grave, Louis Kincaid. The list goes on.
Perhaps that’s why in the early years of the indie revolution, the mantra was Go for the series. It makes a certain degree of sense. You build a readership, a fan base that wants your next book. When you bring new readers in, some will want to buy all the other books in the series.
On the other hand, the indie landscape is littered with the bleached bones of series books that never caught on. This was especially true for first-time authors.
Which brings me to a blog post from a marketing expert (and friend of mine) who says, “Stop writing book series!” (Thomas also knows how to get clicks.)
He does a lot of math in the post, which is a good exercise for your brain. But I think I can simplify his assertions.
- If the first book in a series doesn’t sell well, the ones that follow won’t either.
- Advertising the heck out of a lackluster book just loses money. “Good advertising helps a bad product fail faster.”
- If you’re just starting out (a “rookie”) beware:
When you start your career by writing book #1 in a series, the nature of the series sends all new readers through your freshman effort for the rest of your career. Before readers can enjoy your better, more polished writing, they must first read your oldest, sloppiest writing. When readers tell their friends, “Author Smith’s series gets really good around book 3,” Author Smith is in trouble.
Marketing a series with a weak first book is like trying to run with weights on your ankles.
On the other hand:
Writing a series is good advice for authors who have written a hit book.
But what about the other 999 authors whose books sold hundreds of copies? Should they write a sequel? Not if they want to write for a living.
They will likely make more money writing another standalone book. They should figure out why the first book was not appealing and work to make the next book more appealing.
That is just what the pulp writers did in order to keep bread on the table. They constantly studied the market and what was popular. Then the best set out to tap into that market with their own, original creations.
Another challenge for the new, would-be series writer is “battered reader syndrome.” He brings up the examples of George R. R. Martin and Patrick Rothfuss, both of whom have left their series unfinished. That left loyal readers, who invested time and emotion in the books, out in the cold. Thus:
When battered readers see that a book is the first in an unfinished series, they’re hesitant. That book #1 designation is a liability instead of an asset. It tells readers this story may not have a satisfying ending, or perhaps no ending at all!
Readers who don’t know you won’t trust you to complete all three books in your trilogy. They may wait to buy book #1 until you’ve published book #3. Battered reader syndrome makes it really hard for new authors to attract readers to new series.
Thomas’s answer for the new writer is:
[W]rite book #1 as a standalone book. Keep any numbering off the title. Don’t include a series name. Just write a good story with a good ending…[I]t’s a lot easier to turn a successful standalone book into a popular series than it is to use a series to make the first book successful.
Thomas does recognize that established authors, who know how to “stick the landing,” can hit the ground running on a series:
If you already have a tribe of readers and have learned how to write books they love, and you want to commit to a series, go for it! You’ve earned the trust of your readers to write a series.
But don’t tell brand-new authors with no platform to follow your example. It hurts them by committing them to books that may not find an audience. It also hurts you by contributing to battered reader syndrome, which scares readers away from books altogether.
New authors haven’t yet gained the trust of their readers. They don’t have the caliber of skills you have. If you encourage a new author to write a series, you may be dooming their careers without realizing it.
So, for a new writer wanting to do series, the best move may be to write that first book and gauge the results. Not just sales but customer reviews. Note not only the star rating (some say the “sweet spot” is 4.2-4.5 stars) but also the content. Would what is said there be positive word of mouth in a Starbucks conversation?
This seems like a low-risk way for a new writer to test the waters for a series. It’s sort of like what we say about prologues (write it, just don’t call it a prologue!)
I offer this as breakfast for thought today. Comments welcome.
Funny–I just got done listening to Thomas U’s podcast just a few minutes before I checked in here at TKZ.
While I understand the risks as specified in the podcast, I reject the advice to write stand-alone instead of series for a couple reasons:
1) I can’t help myself. Most of the time, when writing, I’m thinking in terms of series. When I’ve spent all that time thinking about the protag and their story for one book, I naturally want to think about how I can use them in another. And it’s partly all the research you put into your story world. I want to get the most out of it I can, especially given how little time I have to focus on writing each week.
2) The assumption is that each book in a series does not stand on their own. While that is certainly true in many cases, it isn’t always. If you are writing a series of books based on an amateur sleuth, the story is resolved by book’s end. Sure, there may be personal relationship or other threads that might carry through the books in the series, but the reader can read whichever book in the series and get the gist of what they need to know.
My long list of “wanna do” writing projects includes both stand alones and book series–but my heart (and my limited schedule) has led me to work on the series stuff first. To me, the business side of writing is hard, regardless whether you’re writing series or stand-alones. Let the chips fall where they may.
#2 is right, BK. Poirot, Marple, etc. My Try series was going to go on, but when I finished Book 3 the ending was so perfect I didn’t want to spoil it. So it became, by itself, a trilogy.
I have enough energy for ONE thing: finishing the trilogy I’ve been writing continuously since 2000, and will probably take 4-5 to finish properly.
I have had wonderful reviews – but no word-of-mouth in any quantity.
I know real marketing will have to wait – and am happy for the support I’ve had for the first two books. But I can’t write any faster.
I started my writing career with a mystery series which didn’t sell – if it had, I might have followed that traditional path of just adding another book to the series periodically. Maybe I lucked out.
But I am thrilled with the trilogy – even if I end up being a one-trilogy mainstream indie author – because the only thing wrong with it is my slowness in executing the plan, for my own satisfaction, and not every writer can say that. I don’t have the problem of the first volume not being good enough, not in my mind anyway, because I did the work to learn, and all of it had the whole thing included, like other extreme plotters.
Just hope I’m allowed to finish, because this last book is going to be a real doozy. I can’t see beyond that.
One-item writers – Margaret Mitchell never wrote another book, Nell Harper Lee stopped at one – are not uncommon.
We’ll see. And if I fail, it is a grand enterprise to have failed at, and that shall be enough.
That you are “thrilled” with it is the main thing, Alicia. That will translate into the books. It should be that way with all authors.
Except that it is a real luxury NOT to depend on the trilogy for the income to feed my family – and most indie authors are in it as a business.
They would consider me a literary dilettante, regardless of the reason I can’t write faster.
Not that I have a choice: the time will pass, and I will have written, or I won’t have.
Jim, thanks for presenting Thomas’s interesting take on series.
My definition of series is the same as Brenda’s–a collection of books with continuing characters but each story has its own beginning, middle, and end. Nancy Drew could be read in any order. Same with Sherlock, Kinsey, Mike Romeo, etc.
That’s what irritated me about The Hunger Games. I didn’t realize beforehand that it ended mid-plot and I had to read two more books to wrap everything up.
But Thomas is right about the first book. Most readers want to start with #1, even when each book is a standalone with continuing characters. The later books in my series are stronger but #1 sells the most. However, enough readers ask when Tawny and Tillman’s next adventure is coming out so I’ve kept them going through nine books.
Suzanne Collins and Thomas sell more books than I do so what do I know?
I don’t mind a trilogy (or more) if it is marketed as such. I can’t recall if The Hunger Games was thought of that way until lit became such a hit.
I do agree that most readers wanting to start with Book 1.
Of the four “series” I write, only one, the Mapleton Mysteries, is a true series, although I write each book so it can stand on its own. Romance and all its sub-genres tend to be what I call “connected books” with recurring characters who get their turns at center stage. JD Robb just released #60 in her In Death series, and she’s doing just fine.
Nora/JD is overwhelmingly amazing. I don’t think she needs my advice.
Both my series started as standalones. It wasn’t until readers wanted more that I turned them into series. So, this makes a lot of sense to me.
That’s the best way to make it happen. Nice, Sue!
This is my personal zeitgeist at the moment, Jim. I just read Rebecca Thorne’s recent Five Sentence Method, a book on creating a tentpole structure for your novel. Later in the book she turned to applying this to trilogies, and began with a publishing aside.
In that aside she made the same overall point as Thomas. Rebecca is a hybrid author who had a breakout self-publishing hit that was then picked up a big publisher, but that book was planned as a stand alone. Her advice is to try different sub-genres, but link them by the Venn diagram of your interests and passions, so that, even with stand alones, your backlist will have a kind of unity.
The received wisdom (for me at least) in indie publishing had been that, because we were our own publisher, we could put out several books in a series, before beginning to advertise. The magic number was three books. Which meant if you only put out a book a year, you had to wait three years to start real advertising. Obviously, if you could write three to four books a year, then you’d only be waiting a year.
I have friends writing urban fantasy would typically wrote trilogies unless that particular set of books took off, then the trilogy would grow longer.
For my part, my Meg Booker series has not been a big hit. The third book is drafted and cooling for a little while before I rewrite it. I have the plot for the fourth book, and high concept for a fifth, with titles for both. I’m mulling over whether I continue past book three, or pivot to something else, I’ve learned a lot writing these three books which would help with a new cozy mystery series.
Another point Thomas and Rebecca make is one you’ve made many times, finish the book and use what you’ve learned to strive to write an even better book next time. Tis striving for improvement is central to setting up the possibility for success as a published novelist.
Great breakfast food for thought this morning. Thank you!
Reminds me of Dr. Ronald Chevalier, author of all ten cyborg harpy trilogies.
https://youtu.be/HVoD1804bkc?si=fkraRSMzAYrKDXWc
LOL—that’s a classic bit by Jermaine.
Totally agree with the ideas here. After I wrote my first historical fiction about the birth of NYC, I thought next about a series in a different genre (time-travel sci-fi), but hedged my bet by writing it as a stand-alone with continuation potential and waited. The results were strong, so I continued and ended up with a trilogy called “NEANDER” (plunging back to the time of Neanderthals). I’ve also finished two more (very different) stand-alones after that, but the trilogy is doing the best for me (1.5k+ ratings, 4.3-4.4 stars, 3+ million page reads so far). Works for me.
Nicely done, Harald.
I wrote my first novel as a standalone but got such good feedback from reviewers asking for more books with those characters that I decided to make it a series.
I also wrote a short story as a reader magnet that my dev editor liked so much that she suggested I write a novel based on those characters. That became the first novel in the Lady Pilot-in-Command series.
So I think reader response is the deciding factor in making a series.
Perfect examples of how it can be done, Kay.
What would you all consider a successful book in terms of ‘good enough to merit a sequel?’ Do you mean that the first standalone gets a positive reception? Or that the first book is flying off the shelves? I kinda’ followed Mr. Bell’s advice above, in part because I wasn’t sure if I could commit to the same character for more than one book. I’m working on book 3 now and I’m glad I learned I could do it, but I’m not selling gobs of books. I’m thinking about trying a new standalone/potential series. . If you self-publish, what would you look for to determine if a stand alone deserves a trilogy?
Good question, Leann. I think early in a career positive reception is more realistic than flying off the shelves. The books that follow could then begin to generate word of mouth and cross sell.
Thank you!
What would you all consider a successful book in terms of ‘good enough to merit a sequel?’ Do you mean that the first standalone gets a positive reception? Or that the first book is flying off the shelves? I kinda’ followed Mr. Bell’s advice above, in part because I wasn’t sure if I could commit to the same character for more than one book. I’m working on book 3 now and I’m glad I learned I could do it, but I’m not selling gobs of books. I’m thinking about trying a new standalone/potential series. . If you self-publish, what would you look for to determine if a stand alone deserves a trilogy?
Each of my contracts were for a four-book series (each being a stand-alone) using the same setting and a character from a previous book becoming the protagonist. The book I just finished returns to the location of the first series, ten years later. I realize this isn’t exactly the kind of series you’re talking about.
I’ve often thought I’d like to write a series with one character throughout.
Me! I’m a battered reader! In fact, I’ve become a chronic book1 reader. I just will not read any further into a series because I’ve been betrayed so many times. Lots of times that first book is complete perfection, too. Perfect character arcs, great storylines, great endings. Then book 2 comes along and undoes everything book 1 accomplished (looking at you, Maggie Steifvater and Glynn Stewart). I’ve found that mystery series don’t do this as bad, because each book is a case that gets presented and solved in a single book. But ongoing worlds, plots, etc.? Oh heavens. You can smell the cash grab with every extra page of padding the author crams in.