We hear it pronounced with solemn certitude and serious mien. “Every book must stand alone.” It’s like a natural law, immutable, never to be questioned, whether you have twenty books in a series or just two.
That’s one side of the equation. There are others who say, with somewhat less authority in their voices, that “it ain’t necessarily so”. I can’t decide who’s right.
The topic came up for me because it is a dilemma I face currently with the third book in my trilogy. My editor has told me it does not ‘stand-alone’. There are events and characters in the previous book that have a direct bearing on the current one which, I am told, need to be explained or my readers will be frustrated. That makes sense to me. I don’t want frustrated readers.
I understand that ‘stand-alone’ means that the reader can follow and enjoy any story in a series without needing to know what occurred in the previous installments. I take this to mean that I must not create questions in the reader’s mind about what ‘came before’ without answering them at least minimally.
At first I wondered what I need to do to remedy this. But then I got to thinking about whether I agree with that ‘law’ or whether this is another rule that has reasonable exceptions. As a reader I love reading series. Sometimes I have been lured into them part way through without realising the book I have in my hands is not the first.
When I find out, I go back and find the others – but what about that first one I read without knowing? Was there anything missing that frustrated me? Not really, or I would not have gone on to look for the others. So, they ‘stood alone’. How did I learn about what ‘went on before’? I don’t recall big flashbacks or information dumps. Yet, I found out there were previous books in the series, which I then sought out. Why, if I knew enough? The answer, for me, is that I didn’t know enough. Yes, I enjoyed the current story, but I also wanted to know what led to that situation. There were gaps I wanted filled.
Which led me to delve more deeply into what ‘stand-alone’ really means and where the line is drawn. Yeah, I know, I ask too many questions and get dragged deeper and deeper into the quagmire. What starts out as a simple question becomes an abyss with no bottom. Ah, well. It’s a dirty job but someone with a big mouth has to ask.
What questions? Thank you for asking. How much backstory is necessary and how do I insert it without raising the hackles of those who say that’s another taboo? How much repetition and reminding will turn off those who have already read the earlier books? How can I tell? Will adding too much about the previous books prevent people from reading them? I certainly don’t want that to happen.
Are there ways around this if I want to avoid back stories and info dumps? One author I respect , Lynne Cantwell, suggested a short synopsis of the previous story could be included to fill things in if making the story ‘stand-alone’ was too difficult. It is a viable suggestion and may work, in some cases. It could be placed either before or after the end of the current book.
In the final analysis I think there is no single answer. I have decided to try to find that precarious place where I can add just enough to make the book stand alone without giving in to the urge to say too much.
Maybe I’ll join a circus and learn to walk a tightrope for my next act. Maybe I’ll fall on my face. You be the judge.
Yvonne: You have touched on the issue that probably is the most bedeviling for a series author – and, one that will perhaps never be answered with any finality. Good luck to all of us.
Thanks, Charlie. Amen to that.
Hello, Yvonne. I am editing the sequel to vol.1 of my trilogy. I came out with Lynne solution, and have a short blurb of the necessary details from vol. 1 needed in vol. 2. There are a few flashbacks in vol.2 and the blurb would help placing them in time and circumstances.
Thanks Massimo. I am considering that for Book Three as well.
As a reader let me say that there are two things that drive me sufficiently wild to create a paper snowstorm with a book I am reading (or in the case of an ebook, to remove it from my device – even unfinished). Those two things are (1) not giving me a decent ending to the story told in THIS book, and (2) handling the backstory poorly or not at all (i.e., putting too much in or leaving too much out). Those two things subsume into one cause: the author assumes that I have already, or someday will, read the other books in the series. An author should never assume this. If he/she doesn’t make me happy with the book I’m reading, why would I bother picking up another one of his/hers?
As far as handling backstory, every book has a backstory. I vote for feeding it to us in a series the same way it’s done in a good standalone story. That’s good writing. Plus, it leaves the other books in the series fresh and interesting. So I might actually go read one. Diana Gabaldon has written several series that demonstrate perfect, non-intrusive handling of backstory. And her books are FAT.
Good thoughts, JK. The trick is to get it just right and, as you say, that’s what good writing is all about. I am a Gabaldon fan as well and she does it masterfully.
I’m another fan of Gabaldon, and you guys are right — she is wonderful about including enough backstory in each novel. I wouldn’t mind being her when I grow up. 🙂
I have two sequels in progress (as in there is some work done on them and I think I will get around to seriously working on them eventually), and what I consider the ‘stand alone’ term to mean is that each book should be able to be read for and of its own enjoyment, without having to have part of its enjoyment reliant on having read the previous, or dependent on reading the sequel. In other words it should be a well written book and that’s all.
Excellent post, Yvonne.
Thanks, TD.
My editor, Susan, and I discuss this every time a new book in my series is in development.
In my third novel in The Paranormal Adventures of John Hazard series, Send No Angel, I had the same questions. Ultimately when there were parts of the story that were a continuation and needed explaining, I let the characters tell THEIR previous story to the new characters in the book. This storytelling within the story enabled my main characters to move forward without too much narrative explanation.
If you think about real life, when people tell stories about their experiences, they often change slightly between one person and another. Often a story is embellished the more often it is told with more facts, or more fantastical elements.
So it is natural to have the regular characters in the series tell their stories to the new ones. In adding different detail, the series reader is not concerned that they have read it before and the person who is new to the series can understand exactly where they are in the story.
I can usually tell if I have done it right when a reviewer states that although a book is part of a series, the story can be enjoyed on it’s own.
That’s an interesting approach. Thank you.
Nice questions, Yvonne. I liked TD’s definition of stand-alone. That’s what it means to me although I’d have wasted more words saying it. 🙂
As for the question of whether a book in a series has to stand alone …
I think the answer is probably, like most answers, it depends.Some of the answer might even depend on your definition of ‘book’. With the apparent revival of serials I think in some cases we’re getting books (individual installments in the serial) that definitely can’t. Isn’t a serial a special kind of series?
But I think even books in a series that isn’t a serial can depend. Some kinds of series (think in terms a mystery or police procedural series where each book is a single “case”) then the reader would reasonably expect each book to stand alone. And there is no reason to expect it to be otherwise. Sure, a later book might mention something that came before and, if it does, there should be enough back story to understand what is needed for the current story.
However, in a series that has an overriding story arc for the full series with a shorter arc in each installment. Can a reader be expected to ever get the impact of the full story if they join the series midway? Ideally you’ll give them enough to figure much of it out, but I think there are times when it is reasonable to just say, “you’ll want to read the first of the series before reading this or you won’t get some of this book.”
In the past, that wouldn’t have been practical because the prior books might have been out of print. Today, at least in the case of indie authors, that doesn’t have to (and shouldn’t) be. Maybe that justifies a change to the rules.
Good points, Al. I got a bit of blowback from serializing my Kate Jones thrillers, but only a bit. Most people understood they needed to start at the first book (which is free) and read them in sequential order. WIth Leine Basso, I made a point to have Bad Traffick stand alone from Serial Date, since the two are pretty darned different from each other.
Personally, I’d rather read a series in order and grow with the protagonist and author. But, that’s just me.
And, good, thoughtful post, Yvonne–thanks! (hit the post comment button too fast… 🙂 )
🙂 Thanks DV
lol The ‘ít depends’ seems to be a response to a writing question seems to be pretty standard now. And I think in this case we pretty much agree.
As a writer, I appreciate the need to give enough back story and to try to make a book stand on its own.
As a reader, I think you can go way too far with that. If I’m reading the 5th book in a series, I should be prepared to be a little confused. I mean, come on. I understand the need to give background, but if I’m reading book 5, or 3, or even 2, I should know I might be a little lost at first.
One popular writer drives me nearly crazy with the way back story is shoved into the first 2-3 chapters of every book in the series. X says something. Y responds. Insert paragraph of explanation. Z says something. X responds. Insert paragraph of explanation. Page after page of it. And this is a NYT bestselling author. People like this? Seriously?
Sure, it makes the book standalone, but the only reason I didn’t throw the book across the room is I didn’t want to damage my Kindle, and I only continued reading because I don’t like spending money on a book and then not reading it, as long as the prose is decent.
But I don’t buy that author’s books anymore, either.
Yes, I appreciate being given essential information from earlier books, but I’m a big girl. I seriously don’t expect to understand *everything* if I start in the middle of a series, and I shouldn’t. It puts too big a burden on an author to weave that much information into a story without pounding the reader into the ground with it.
I hear you, Christie. I felt like I was doing exactly that in an early scene of my current WIP, and had to force myself to stop. (And yes, I did it even though I’ve put the “what has gone before” stuff in front of Chapter 1, because I know some readers will skip over it.) Backstory is necessary, of course, but to pile it all into one scene breaks up the flow of the dialogue at minimum, and risks seriously annoying the reader.
I tend to agree, Christie. The number in the series does make a difference.
Great post, Yvonne — and despite my solution, I struggle with this, too. I resisted putting a “what has come before” in the front of the first few Pipe Woman Chronicles books, but then I got comments from reviewers on a book tour that they wished they’d had one.
Writing the thing was a fun exercise (not!). “I’ll only need a couple of paragraphs for each book,” I thought. Oh haha — the summary at the front of the fifth book is nearly ten pages long.
It’s a dilemma for sure. I’m still not completely decided what to do with my third book.
Great post, Yvonne. Two examples come to mind.
As Christie says above, starting at book four or five in the middle of a series is ludicrous. Imagine picking up “The Goblet of Fire” and expecting to have a clue as to what is going on? I know someone who tried to do this, and they complained about it. In the fantasy realm we enter the mind of the author, often a very unique world, and we must respect what they create. I like Lynne’s suggestion, but if you specifically say the book is number three in a series shouldn’t the reader know they are encouraged to read the first two novels?
I discovered P.D. James about five mysteries into the series. Her Detective, Adam Dagliesh is a superb character. In this case, I didn’t feel that it inhibited me from fully enjoying the book, but it is a murder mystery not fantasy. When I was finished with the book I went back and read everything that preceded it. I wished I had taken the time to do this first.
Amanda Hocking has said that readers would buy all five books at a time in her series. I don’t know how she priced them, but maybe this is a marketing opportunity and not a writing issue. Just a thought. 🙂
Thanks.Lois. So the genre is a factor in this as well. It seems there is no solid answer for all situations – as usual.
Great post (again) Yvonne. I made sure all my books could stand alone and yet they work as a series. It was hard work. I like the idea of doing a synopsis at the beginning of each book. If I do another trilogy I might try that.
thanks Carol
As soon as I started reading this post Yvonne, I thought of Tad William’s series Otherland. The series is made up of 4 volumes – huge ones- and essentially it is one very long over-arching story split into 4 chunks. Each chunk has a beginning, middle and end, and is a satisfying read in its own right BUT there is just one real story from start to finish. You could not start in the middle.
I think when we’re writing a single story that just happens to spread over a number of volumes, it’s not unfair to expect the reader to meet us half way.
As a reader, I hate the technique of the ‘integrated synopsis’. I will, sometimes read a short synopsis placed at the beginning, but mostly I start at the beginning and follow the storyline from one book to the next.
So long as your 3rd book doesn’t end on a cliff-hanger, I don’t think a few loose threads carried over to the next book are a bad thing. 🙂
I tend to feel the same way but others say we must not expect readers to buy the whole series. It’s a tough call sometimes.
Hi Yvonne,
great post — and just what I needed! I’m working on the third in my “Mother and Me” mystery series. Backstory– how much, when, and how not to give anything away about the first two books while providing enough information about the characters, etc., for the new reader of the 3rd. Not an easy thing to do.
sandy gardner
[email protected]
Thank you. I’m glad you found it helpful.
J.K.,
excellent comment re: every book has a backstory– feed it to the reader in a series the same way it’s done in a good standalone story. Thank you much!
sandy gardner
Thanks. JK.