The Word Cloud

I did post this in another thread, but rather than piggy-back on it, I've decided to move my query here...

This may seem obvious to some, but can I ask your opinion on a little dilemma I've been having with regards to querying the first of a trilogy as a first novel?

Obviously, I am aware of the pitfalls. I am aware that if the first book is a flop, the whole trilogy falls down. I am also aware (even though SFF is more open to them) - and understand - why agents would be wary of taking on a first novel that promises it is 'the first of a trilogy'. So - is it worth holding that novel back and querying a true standalone novel as your first book?

I ask because although I love working on my current, first part of a trilogy novel (and am not quite ready to trunk it yet, even if it is only for a little while), I do have at least 2 other stories that are truly stand alone. Both are planned; one has 4 chapters (in desperate need of changing, but hey, they are there) and I feel quite excited by them (I just have to pluck up the strength to let Dragonsoul go for a little while whilst I work on them!). In your infinite wisdom, would it be worth me setting my current project aside due to it's trilogy nature and working on these two concepts instead? I'm in it for the long game, so I will be querying my current novel at some time (I'm not giving up on it by any stretch of the imagination)... but I am wondering if, for a first time novelist, having one that requires nothing more is the more sensible way to go. No point in being precious, after all.

I do love my current novel and do believe in it... but I want to be practical, too. And if being practical means having a stand alone novel to query first, then so be it!

Thanks in advance,

Ely xx

If it were me, I'd go for whichever novel is the strongest in terms of writing, plot and all-round saleability. And if I wasn't sure which one that is, then I'd go for the one that I'm absolutely itching to finish - the one that I can't stop thinking about. Because that's the one where the greatest energy lies at the moment. If that's the trilogy (even though agents are wary of them for a variety of reasons), then so be it. But other Cloudies may think differently.

This is where I fall down a bit... whilst I dream that my current project is infinitely saleable, whether that is the reality - heh? Who knows?! It's not finished, so I haven't really let anyone else read it yet. Maybe I am jumping the gun?

I find my focus switches between two concepts right now - one of which is my current project. And yes, I do love it. I love living in that world and being with those characters (hence why I came up with enough material to justify a trilogy). The other concept is one born out of the first, and is a little more pie-in-the-sky than Dragonsoul (which has a first draft) simply because it is only at the planning stage - but I do have a lot of fun with it nevertheless. This second project (which does not have a proper name at the moment) has the advantage of being stand alone with the potential for sequels, whereas Dragonsoul is most definitely a trilogy (I kind of think of it as my Lord of the Rings, if I may be so bold and arrogant!).

Maybe I should just continue on working on both of them? I don't know... in the past, having one thing to concentrate on has worked, but then I get scared about putting all my eggs in one basket. Or maybe I should just chill and forget all of this until I've a few rejections under my ample belt!

Gah, so focused on all of this I forgot the obvious... THANK YOU!! I don't know what I would do without such sage advice! xx

I have the same dilemma (and am querying my first book as a stand alone book- hey, if they like it, they are probably going to like the next three). I have the second book about 3 quarters of the way done in rough form, but thats because it was originally going to be the first book- I just discovered the back story had it's own merit and actually made a very interesting story so I turned all my attention to it. Now that it's completed (haha. sarcastic laugh) I'm going back to my first love, the second book called Play City. What I love is that I can incorporate things into the first book that don't come out until the second or even third books, a little forshadowing and stuff. It also helps me to round out my characters more. knowing where they are heading. Each of my book take place a few years after each other and my charcters start out 16 and 14 years old so as you can imagine theres alot of development and change I have to orchastrate. I think... the only thing funner then working on one book is working on three!

I'm all befuddled about this, Elysia.

I'm writing a trilogy and I'm not sure how book one could stand alone when the one thing my main character is fighting for, she hasn't got yet. If that makes sense.

So at the end, you are left thinking what happens. But whenever I read a book series, I feel that way.

Book one does tell a story, beginning, middle, end, etc, but the end isn't satisfying so in that sense it couldn't stand alone.

Not sure what to do :(

This is the big problem fantasy writers face. In general, fantasy rarely comes in stand alone form... but for a first time novelist, an agent wants a book that can stand up on its own merit. We are told this over and over again.

For my novel, I looked to Harry Potter. It was obviously one of a series - Harry was, after all, only in the first year! - but the issue with Voldemort is dealt with so that, had thebooks flopped, Rowling could have used it as a stand alone book. Yes, of course, there are unanswered questions... but the basic plot itself - that of the Philosopher's Stone - is resolved. So I have had to jiggle my plot around so that although the reader doesn't know everything about Alicia, she does get a happy ending (she finds out where she belongs) and the antagonist is defeated at that point. As it happens, this works quite well 'cos it lulls her into a false sense of security, which opens the door for the second book. My problem is going to be making the second and third books more distinct, because the next two 'acts' (as I think of them) depend heavily on each other.

The days of being able to write a Lord of the Rings-esque 'big story split into three chunks' are, I fear, over. That first book has to stand up in it's own merit; you have to be able to read it on it's own and feel a good level of satisfaction that the events of that particular book have been, for the time being, resolved. Of course, there needs to be an opening for the next book in the series (in mine, there are lots of little things that hint to there being something more to Alicia than meets the eye, but I don't labour the point in the first book - they are really just that - hints), but you can't just end it on a cliff hanger nowadays; I don't think you'd get away with leaving Frodo halfway to Mount Doom, for example!

Maybe I should tweak my ending so that you think they've got what they want.

There are hints through the last few chapters that the 'baddies' aren't finished with my main character.

Maybe I should leave it so that you believe she has what she has been fighting for but also so you could see that other books were possible.

What do you think? Any help would be hugely appreciated!

:)

That's what I have done in a nutshell, Snowflake - I've given the character, and therefore the reader, the illusion of closure. As the writer, I know things are far from resolved - but at that point in time, to those on the outside, it looks like things are effectively sorted. I am *hoping* this will make it an easier sell come querying time!

Ah, thank you. I was starting to panic a bit then!

I think that will work with mine. Phew.

I assume you still mention in your covering letter that it is part of a planned three book series?

I presume so... I was planning to say something along the lines of 'this novel is one of a planned trilogy', or something along those lines. I want to make it clear that it doesn't NEED the other two books to makes sense, though.

This is where it can be a bit fraught for writers - just keep in mind that we came up with the concept; we know what happens and what breadcrumbs we leave out for our readers to follow, and where that trail will eventually lead. The reader, however, does not. They might think 'that's a bit odd' or 'that's quite cool' at the time, but unlike us, they won't necessarily keep tabs on all the little details and hints. That generally comes later, usually if they (please, please PLEASE!) read it again. I love those moments in novels when you go 'oh my lord! So that's why that little thing was mentioned in book 2! Now it makes sense - wow!', and I do aim to try to add things like that in my trilogy (although it also comes from a pathological need to tie up all potential plot holes, born from dealing for far too long with D&D nerds. Boy, those guys can sniff out a potential plot-niggle in two seconds flat, and when they do find one you can't explain, they're on it like a dog with a bloody bone...).

Have you had anyone read your novel cold? They could tell you if there's anything glaring that needs addressing. Sometimes, a fresh pair of eyes is what you need!

I have to admit, my own ending is totally unresolved! I've relying a bit to heavily on foreshadowing in the last chapter and not enough on resolution.

My second novel actually begins where the first novel used to end - I just jiggled the cut off point around so the forshadowing comes at the beginning of the second book now. Maybe that's something you could think about? Actually drawing things to an end a little earlier than originally planned when things are a bit more stable? If your plot allows that, of course!

The problem is, as I see it, that an agent / publisher isn't going to commit to three books (2 of which may not be beyond the planning / drafting stage) when they don't have a sure-fire success in the first. This is why I am trying to treat my first novel as a stand alone as much as I can - if I can get that one out there, then hopefully (and I stress hopefully...) the next two might be easier to swallow. But even then, it's not guaranteed. And that scares just a teensy bit (hence the thread. At least with a true stand alone, you only emotionally invest in one story. With a trilogy, even if you're only working on the first book, that investment goes waaaay further...)

BTW, fellow trilogy-worriers - if you wish, we could set up a little group to hammer out our 'making our first books stand-aloneable' kinks, if you like ;-)

Elysia, I've just had a look at my ending and the beginning of book two. I can do what you did and it should all work. Just chop the ending off one and add it to the beginning of two. Book two starts about five minutes after book one ends, so that works, hopefully!

That way book one ends when all is calm and good.

My sister reads my book. She's read every draft and she always gives me notes.

Thinking about it now, there are two characters that are mentioned in one but they don't appear till two. I wonder if that's a problem...

Ooh yes, a group would be great!

I shall form one forthwith! Hang on... ;-)

Okay! I have created the group - it's private right now (so people feel more comfortable discussing their plot lines and concepts), so if you want to join, just let me know and I'll add you :-)

http://writing-community.writersworkshop.co.uk/groups/profile/6314

That's an interesting idea, to play around when the ending a bit. I guess the last thing you'd want to do when trying to create a stand alone book is to put in bits of the second one... or as I thought for a quick minute actually ending the book with the first chapter of the second one. It might come across as gimmicky, but it would be a cliffhanger.

Ooo I'll join the group! The Epic Trilogy Writers (bah hah!)

I know I'm a little late but I've just stumbled acorss this post.

I've got a trilogy on the go (wrote the first book and started the second) But the way I ended the first could've went both ways - closed but with opportunity for a sequel.

I tried to get it published but to no avail, and I didn't mention that I intended to do a series; just tried to sell it off as a stand alone book!

Oh and add me to the group please... would be great to discuss a good trilogy

Hi, I don't know if this is relevant to this thread or not, but I've followed both trilogy threads Ely and have some thoughts. Might as well slap 'em down.
First, my credentials. Not a great fantasy fan, but I'm the only person I know who's read both Thomas Covenant trilogies (i.e. six books ) as they came out and do like the idea of 'continuing drama'. I've also read all the Harry Potters in sequence, all of the No.1 Ladies Detective Agency series and the Clan of the Cave Bear onwards. However, I haven't hurried to purloin the last in the Cave Bear series because the 5th one seemed to be so much recap and so little story. I digress. Actually, I feel the same about some of the Detective agency books - some are lovely, some just seem to go over old ground in case I've forgotten it. Digressing again.
Hurumph.
As an avid reader of continuing stories, I'd like to point out that if I've happened across the first in the series as it was released and liked it, then I'll go on to buy the next one and the next, as they come out.
But what about when they're ALL out there at the same time?
Readers (like me) are dopey creatures. I may pick up abook that interests me and not realise it's part way through a story. This happened (among others) with Robertson Davies's 'Cornish Trilogy' - I read the 2nd book first and loved it ('What's Bred in the Bone' for anyone who's interested). On the strength of that, I then bought and read the 1st and the 3rd. Neither were as good, and if I'd read the 1st on first, I wouldn't have bought the others.
So the point I'm trying to make, is that as a reader, each book has to stand alone anyway. And the writer has to be prepared for their readership to not do as they're told and read the books in any old order. Might not be ideal, but it'll happen - certainly if I'm in the bookshop in 20 years time.
Well, it will if each book is good enough in its own right. And if you're in it for the long haul, when your books are heaped up there and readers can pick up the one they fancy instead of the one they should.
Just saying.

Whisks - Thanks! You make a bloody good point. I have picked up books mid-series (some of them good, some of them, uh, not so good) and they seem to fall into two camps: the 'can read this alone' and the 'assumes you've read the earlier ones'. And I will admit that if the writing is good and the concept grabbed me, I didn't mind the latter too much. But that's not an excuse - I think you're right in that it is important to try to make them all stand on their own merit, not onlt because of the reasons you state, but because they, like all siblings, deserve to be treated as individuals and have their own individual needs met.

I just hope I am skilled enough to do it... :/ I *think* I can see a way through it - but it does get harder as the books progress, especially when it comes to finding a good natural break between book 2 and 3 (there is a point in the tale as a whole when things really get knocked up a gear, and I'm not entirely sure right now whether to put it into book 2 or 3; both have their merits and their downfalls. I guess until I get writing properly, I won't know!