I recently listened to an old Brandon Sanderson interview where he talked briefly about his first published novel, Elantris. For those unfamiliar with the book, it's a standalone epic fantasy story. During the interview he mentioned that after he turned in Elantris, his publisher asked if he would like to write a sequel. Sanderson replied that he liked the idea of releasing a standalone epic fantasy book, partly because it doesn't happen very often in the genre. My question for the forum is: what are the reasons for this? And as a follow up question: if you believe there are multiple reasons for why there aren't more standalone epic fantasy works, which reason (if any) do you suspect plays the biggest role?
1. Readers want a series. 2. Publishers want a series. 3. The scope of epic fantasy stories lends itself to series. I was going to put publishers as number one, but it makes more sense to me that publishers want a series because they know it will sell (i.e. that readers want a series). It's not limited to fantasy--series are popular across genres. But it seems particularly prevalent in fantasy. Whatever the genre, though, I think there is a push toward a series primarily because readers want to spend more time with characters they love and are willing to pay for the next book, and the next one after that, in order to do so.
This is undeniable. But my next question would be: do epic fantasy readers want a series on average more than other genre (and non-genre) readers, and if so, why?
Frankly I'm tired of everything being in a series. There are so many times I read a blurb that sounds interesting, but then I find out it's part of a series. I don't often get into a book series unless I'm desperate or very interested and know how many books are in the series. A book that's a stand-alone within a series I might buy/read, but I'm not likely to read one that will require me to read a bunch of novels with increasing page count just to get to the ending. I really, really wish publishers would start telling us if a book within a series actually works well as a stand-alone; it would certainly make finding new books to read a whole lot easier for people like me.
I think that fantasy readers do want a series more than other genres. For me personally, I like the immersion. I want a series because it allows for more of that. It allows the proper amount of time to explore the world.
You and me both. I occasionally will invest in a series, but more often than not I opt for standalone books.
Maybe they want it more on average, I don't know. If so, maybe it's because a fantasy often provides a unique fantasy world that is not the real world. To revisit that same world, you need the next book in the series. For books in the real world, you can revisit the same setting through any other book set in the real world.
Funny. While I do like Elantris, it reads like a fantasy series shoe-horned into a long book. The story had so many interesting characters and elements that were not fully developed. Then, the ending felt more it was aborted more than it was concluded; he abruptly shifted into action story mode and 'pop' it was over. I would not mind if Sanderson rewrote it as a series.
I disagree. I have my share of criticisms for Elantris, but the page count of the book isn't one of them.
I think with epic fantasy at - the keyword of course is epic. There is some not enough page-space that can explore the entire world in one book and do it justice. Readers of the genre want to spend more time with not just the main characters, but with the side characters and the side-plot that get them interested, and sequels allow that to happen, and shift the focus between books. Personally, it's the waxing and waning of rulers and empires, the shifting in dynamics on the geopolitical scale that fascinates me - which can only be done convincingly in a longer timeframe with a story spread out over several books. Just think how many times the balance of power shifts between the different novels in A Song of Ice and Fire, for example. In a standalone novel, such a thing could only feasibly happen once, maybe twice before getting too disorienting for any reader.
I really do watch for good, standalone epic fantasies. Some of my favorites have been long series indeed (e.g. Steven Erikson's Malazan books), but I'm at the point now where a new book in a series is a hard sell to me. I'm more likely to buy after the series is done (which isn't great for the author/publisher, I know).
Pretty much any series I get into is a completed series. I don't like waiting years and an unknown number of books to reach that darn conclusion--I'm a slow and rather impatient reader!
When I first started working on my current project, it was going to be a single novel. An intro to the world where I could set other stories, sure, but still a single, standalone novel. After awhile, I realized that the story I wanted to tell was too big for a single novel, so I expaneded it. I think that's part of the reason, especially for something set in a new world - it's hard to tell a story that you can complete in just a single novel because you've got all these ideas and concepts and background that you've created and want to bring to life and share with everyone. Sure, you could just create a basic world with only a little depth (Stackpole did it several times), but these days, people want more - like steerpike said, they want a world they can spend time in and explore and get to know. Readers want more from their books, so authors have to provide it for them.
To an extent, fantasy is more about wish fulfillment than other genres. I think that need for immersion trumps a love of innovation that drives other genres more. Certainly, other genres have similarly written series - like the whole Honorverse thing. But a lot of the rest of SF is about a unique situation and how it plays out, and not so much about the day-to-day life of an astronaut compared to a mage.
I mostly read standalone. I’m way less forgiving about prose when I know it is a series, and if I find even a sentence on the first page dense or annoying in any way, I won’t buy it. I think people can get drawn into series because the second book can deliver what most people wanted anyway—more character and less exposition. I feel like standalone books often lean on tropes so they can get right into character and story, which I like better. The last thing I want to read about is the history of a kingdom or the nature of your weird hard magic system where knitted blankets confer elemental magic as the threads fray. I mean, I have read some series lately. Red Queens War is great. I just way prefer standalone.
Do you have any recommendations for standalone epic fantasies? Almost every fantasy book I find others reading (or writing, in a couple of cases) is part of a series these days.
Yes--depending on what you mean by epic. Tigana, by Guy Gavriel Kay is excellent. And certainly an epic fantasy. So is The Lions of Al-Rassan, also by Kay. No magic in that one. Kind of a historical fantasy, but epic. War of the Flowers, by Tad Williams Best Served Cold, by Joe Abercrombie (takes place in a world shared by many of his books but stands alone quite well) The Anvil of the World, Kage Baker. Humor, kind of different. I think it qualifies as an epic fantasy, but not convention. The Drawing of the Dark, Tim Powers. Also unusual. The Elfin Ship, James Blaylock. Funny. Odd. Quirky. A couple books with the same characters followed, but it stands alone. Epic in its own way. The Hobbit, I suppose. Good ones that I don't consider "epic" fantasies: Deerskin, by Robin McKinley War for the Oaks, by Emma Bull The Anubis Gates, by Tim Powers The Company, by KJ Parker Swordspoint, by Ellen Kushner Sunshine, by Robin McKinley Faerie Tale, Raymond Feist I'll keep thinking.
I have to say, there are series and there are series. Some series are just a big novel chopped up (LotR), some are open and episodic like comic books, and some are interrelated standalone novels, like the Dune books. I have a great preference for the last and the first because they are actually going somewhere to complete an idea, while the episodic type interests me least for a book.
