The best person to name this would be your self. Seriously, I love creating the titles for my stories. It is fun.
Just last week I was agonizing over a title for a story. Decided to stop thinking about it and move on to other stuff. Sure enough the perfect title came to me the next day. It's similar to finding things only after you've stopped looking for them.
The title is quite broad, but my question should be fairly straightforward. Basically, is at a feasible idea to work on a novel that is originally a stand alone novel, but has the potential to be turned into a series/trilogy etc? Perhaps you could give some examples of series that were written this way, if you know of any?
Most series started out with their author intending for less chapters than what he ended up writing. As you write your story more and more loose ends come up you can't fit in your original plan and you end up adding 1 volume to the count.
True. Do you know of any series that started out with the storyline of book 1 being all wrapped up by the end of that book, then based on the success of that original book, more were added to that series?
Allan Drury's "Advise and Consent" was a standalone novel that won him a Pulitzer. He then went on to write an increasingly preachy and polemic series that he couldn't figure out how to end. More recently, Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan series started out with "The Hunt for Red October" and sprouted several sequels (as well as one prequel and a couple of spinoffs), each of which stands alone as a story. This strikes me as a rather sweeping generalization, and I would be very surprised if it were true. I only know of two cases in which an author used materials cut from a published work for another published work, in both cases Michener, who turned a large chapter cut from "Alaska" into the novella "The Journey" and character originally intended for "Mexico" into the novella "Miracle in Seville". In neither case did the publications comprise a "series". Michener also often found ways to turn his research notes into published nonfiction, including his "Six Days in Havana" which sprouted from his research for "Caribbean". My impression from Clancy's work is that each successful work prodded him with the question, "Well, what else can Jack Ryan do?" OTOH, W.E.B. Griffin's "Brotherhood of War" and "Semper Fi" series were obviously planned as series and written as such, but only once he was established as a successful writer.
I agree with Ed. It doesn't seem to me that this is the typical scenario, although while writing, an author may end up with so many ideas that he ends up writing a series. I surmise that there are many books that are written with a potential to be a series, but are stand-alone novels. And each novel has to stand alone, in order to be successful. I don't know the background of most series, but I do know that the Steig Larsson trilogy was originally conceived to be a series of *ten* novels, but the author sadly and unexpectedly died shortly after starting the fourth novel. Each of the three novels, however, stands alone, even though there are some events that are tied to events in other books.
I would say most series should start with a standalone novel. Mine does. Each book in a series should be as stand alone as possible, IMO.
I think this is actually the best way to write a series, instead of planning to write a series from the very beginning. A novel that can standalone leads to a much more satisfying experience for the reader than one that ends on a cliff hanger. Countless times I've been frustrated to get to the end of a book only to find out I need to wait a year+ to find out whether or not the characters achieved their goal.
I have an idea for a series of three books where each book, if it all comes together, will also be a stand allone
The first novel should be a complete stand alone if you're trying to get commercially published. As a new author, it's hard enough to get a single book published, so trying to a series to an agent is going to be pretty damn hard. Worry about making the first one commercially viable and worry about the trilogy second.
I agree with what the others have all ready said. Write the first book to the best of your ability and if that book is a success, that will be the time to consider if you should write a follow up.
yet again, i can thank ed and liz for saying it all for me... capn' k... what the bleep is 'putaine'?... without an 'e' it's the french word for prostitute, so i can't even guess at what 'putaine hard' would be... enlighten me, s'il te plait? hugs, m
In David Morrell's novel First Blood, Rambo dies at the end. Obviously, Morrell did not intend any sequels. But Sylvester Stallone did the movie version, and Rambo lived at the end, prompting sequels. Morrell wrote the novelizations of the next couple of movies, and included an author's note at the beginning saying those novels were sequels to the movie, not to his original novel. This might not be a true answer to your question, because the sequels were prompted by the success of the movie, not to the original novel, but it's the only example I can think of right now.
speaking of morrell. The fraternity of the stone and the brotherhood of the rose are 2 very standalone novels but the characters come together in a third book, the league of night and fog. I wonder was that planned?
A Game of Thrones was originally meant to be a single standalone book, but overtime George started planning things out and it developed into the series called A Song of Ice and Fire; there are around 7 books so far.
I have a question: Would it just be stupid to name a book "A practical guide to . . " something-rather, when it is a fictional story and quite clearly not a practical guide to anything?
I like the "hitchhikers guide to" a tad better. Doesn't have to be hitchhikers, of course. It depends on if "practical" has a key meaning to the story or not.
There has to be a reason for the title...(unless you're doing some ironic thing) so if it fits, go for it. The irony may be perfect. I don't have anything against the idea!
that and 'hitchhiker's' prove that even seemingly inappropriate titles for novels can be highly successful... so go ahead and call your book whatever feels right to you... it can always be changed later and if you are lucky enough to snag a publisher, they might keep it or change it, so it's not important at this juncture...
