Hi. I've written the first novel of a series I'm hoping to progress. I've been sending it out mainly to agencies and a couple of publishers during the past year, but it remains unpublished - I understand that it still needs some tidying up in places which is why I've recently joined WW.

Question 1: As it is part of a series, should I mention this in my cover letter, or should I just concentrate on trying to get book #1 published as a stand-alone?

I'm guessing that I'd be seen as a more valuable asset if the agent/editor knew I had a series rather than a single book in mind. Or would the agent/editor say, 'heard that one before' when I mention that it's part of a series?

Question 2: If you think I should promote the series at the book #1 submission stage, should I include a complete overview of the masterplot, or just stick with the book #1 sample chapters and synopsis?

KHG

For my tuppence worth, and I don't know what genre you're in, my agent told me that he can't think of any editors now who are interested in buying a single book.

I think mentioning the series is the best route for the reasons you state. It shows you've thought beyond one novel, and aren't a 'have a go Henry'. It shows you take the art seriously and mean to continue at it. All these things are good news to an editor.

JB

JB, I think the field you write in is the most series-friendly, and not all are. For the most part, and taking the gloomy view (always wise when dealing with the book trade) they're not going to commit to a series beyond a book, or maybe a two-book contract. Mentioning a series in any major way, I would suggest, will make them nervous about whether Book One really stands on its own. If it doesn't, it won't sell, and they won't buy it.

This, from Editorial Anonymous's blog, is about picture books, but it makes sense to me for others too:

"Is it better to sell a PB as a stand-alone and then mention to the editor that you would love to expand your book into a series after all contracts are signed? If you mention 'series' before contracts are signed, would that make an editor question if they should buy a book that has stand-alone potential?" If you send me a picture book I want to acquire, I'm going to acquire it. If you mention at that early date that you have ideas for second, third, and fourth books just like it, I'll explain why we're going to wait for some market feedback on the first one before we throw money into developing a sequel. I'll be nice about it, but I'll be rolling my eyes the whole time. Lots and lots of authors are so enamored of what they've created that they envision it becoming a series. If the book-buying public turns out to be just as enamored, then great! If not, no dice. Some types of books are best as a series, but as I mentioned before, they should have very solid market potential.

The blog is here http://editorialanonymous.blogspot.com/ and yes, there is an earlier question about pitching a series and the need for 'solid market potential', which I can't see at the moment but you could find.

Which suggests to me that you could certainly mention that you have further books in mind, (they might offer you a two-book contract) but the important thing is to try to convince them that they want Book One for itself.

Emma

That does surprise me about Picture Books, Emma.
I wasn't going to mention it in this context, since KHG's book is not in the Children's Genre, but some of the larger Agencies I've submitted to ask for a minimum of Four ms if it's a PB.
And Children's publishers certainly prefer to publish series in the lower age ranges (PBs & KSI books).
Not sure about other genres though, (although Crime certainly lends itself to the series format).

- NaomiM

You are probably in a much stronger position if your first novel can be sold as a novel in it's own right. To say it is the first part of a series that carries on the story may well increase the potential to sell, but it also increases the risk of investment because as a new author, you have nothing to prove you can go the distance of a trilogy. The other thing to consider is how much your novel could change once an agent or an editor takes it on. What if they love it, but ask that the ending be altered or extended in order to make it a stronger novel, yet such changes would ruin the series? Would you go there, or stand your ground and risk rejection?

Colin M

The industry does tend to say rather disparaging things about trilogies but if the series (of say 6 books, which I think is what KHG is planning) was at least half written, with the rest mapped out, it would put the writer in a much stronger position.
At the very least, by then the writer would know for themselves whether or not it was working. If not, there would be enough material to edit down into one novel, with a sequel - two book deals tend to be the norm in the industry.
I say Go For It.


- NaomiM

Good point Emma. Yes, fantasy is lucky in the respect that series are pretty much par for the course, and the usual laws of word count go out the window.

Talking to my agent recently (sorry, but I still love saying that), I worried over the fact that my book, with all the added in backdrop, was going to me a literal monster, probably just under 200,000 words.

'And your point is?' he replied. 'It's as long as it needs to be. Besides, remember it is a fantasy novel...'

I find that relieving, but as I approach the 60,000 word mark and I'm nowhere near halfway through, the professional in me is beginning to get antsy.

JB

Well, I don't think you could do any 'worse' than Susanna Clarke and her brick-sized opus, JB.

I think there's quite a difference between a series and a trilogy, and yes, in something like crime, the fact that you've got other ideas for your detective to make a series would certainly be something to talk about.

The trouble (I suspect) with selling a book as part of a trilogy and similar things where it's basically a single narrative thread through all of them, is this business of the books not standing well in their own right. It doesn't matter what order you read Ian Rankin's work, for instance, but if a reader picked up The Two Towers, for example, would they be baffled, or at least feel there was too much they weren't getting? If I were an editor I'd be worried about that.

Emma

In think the Two Towers would baffle someone who hadn't read the first bit, but remember Lord of the Rings was not originally a trilogy, it was one book with three parts. Because of its length, later publishers have split it into three (and presumably to make more money), but I take your point.

Of course, there is always the synopsis at the front of each new book, the famed 'What Has Gone Before' bit, or in my case 'Predicament', but I think it's important to try as much as possible to make each book stand alone and approach them as novels in their own right.

I quite like the idea of the 'anti-trilogy', when the same thread of events is told through the eyes of different MC's. Makes it more interesting. I think with any trilogy you have to know all three books before you begin to write them. I know of one author who is struggling a little because he never thought beyond book one. His first book is a hit, and that must be a terrible pressure.

JB

Thanks for all your responses so far. From what has been said to this point, it would appear that:

1. The first book should be viable as a stand-alone;

2. The first book shouldn't be submitted purely as part one of a series;

3. The writer should tell the agent/editor that he/she has ideas for other books which have the potential to follow on from the first book.

This is how it sounds to me. Is this a fair conclusion?

KHG

Makes a lot of sense to me.

Emma

Ditto

From what has been said to this point, it would appear that: 1. The first book should be viable as a stand-alone; 2. The first book shouldn't be submitted purely as part one of a series; 3. The writer should tell the agent/editor that he/she has ideas for other books which have the potential to follow on from the first book. This is how it sounds to me. Is this a fair conclusion? KHG

I submitted a ms that was book 1 of a planned trilogy, with a definite ending but which also clearly led on to a bigger story arc, the agent knew from the beginning it was part of a series, so did the publishers. When the publishers made an offer though, it was for 2 books not 3. They wanted the option of the series being longer than 3. More than one publisher had this reaction.

HOWEVER - in original drafts of book one I kept holding back some of the bigger story arc, saving it up for later books. The agent convinced me that 'it's all got to be in book 1, book 1 has to have the biggest possible impact...or there'll never be a book 2'

The thing is to make sure you have enough complexity built into book 1 to launch the series whilst also serving up a properly satisfying ending. I think the central dilemma of the series must be apparent from book 1, also. Think of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. It's the shortest one but so much of the whole series has its roots right there.

The agent and publishers will at some stage want to know what you have planned for future books. However, I have never been asked, nor do I know, how my series ends.

Maria, that's so interesting, and it sounds as if KHG's strategy is going to fit with your experience.

I do know of a three-book contract, from Simon & Schuster, for Linda Buckley-Archer's Gideon the Cut-Purse trilogy, which is for 9-12 year olds. (Book Two, The Tar Man, out now and highly recommended ). But I think it's pretty rare.

Emma