Why Not Be Both?

Jeff Cohen

Are you a series, or a standalone?

What the hell, I can steal from the Mac/PC commercials. I'm shameless.

I just finished writing my first standalone book. For the uninitiated, a standalone is a book whose entire story is told in one volume, as opposed to a series, which has a new story in every book but whose characters will "recur," meaning they show up every time with something else to do.

In short, a standalone is a feature film, and a series is, well, a television series.

Think of how it works: In a feature film, the characters are all new (except for sequels, which now account for about 104% of all movies), the situations immediate and generally extreme. I tell my screenwriting students that they should be telling the story of the most important thing that's ever happened in their characters' lives. Because if there's something more important, why aren't they telling that one?

On a TV series, it would be entertainment suicide to tell the most important story in the first episode. Do that, and what reason does anyone have to tune in next week? The story here is a  much longer, more episodic, being, a thing that will take (hopefully) a very long time to tell in a tremendously huge number of installments. The story really becomes the journey, then, and those who are loyal to the series will see payoffs in a late episode that might come from seeds planted very early on. Keep reading, Haunted Guesthouse fans!

For example, throughout the three books in the Double Feature series (remember that, both of you who read it?), I made jokes about how small Elliot Freed's office was, and I did so because I knew that at some point--as it turned out, in the third and final book--I would want to include a scene in which the size of Elliot's office was the whole point. Readers who started with book one (which included a reference to book two so obscure I think my editor and I were the only ones who got it) would be rewarded in book three by the small-office scene. But it was important that new readers wouldn't feel like they didn't know what was going on.

A standalone, however, raises the stakes. Anything can happen, no future book is guaranteed, so the ending is The Ending. The reader might have a tiny bit more suspense reading a standalone because the characters won't have to recur, if you catch my drift (and if you don't, I recommend more drift practice after school). 

So there are pleasures, for the writer and one hopes the reader, in both. A standalone heightens the tension but a series provides a somewhat deeper experience for the character's development. Someone who is an irritant in book one might be a trusted ally by the time book four rolls around. You never know.

The standalone was an eye-opening experience for me. Even books I've written that haven't sold (yet) had until now been considered part of a series; I had future installments in mind while writing them and was deciding on recurring characters, threads that could be picked up later, and possible plot strands that could color the first book without even being mentioned, but would show up in later volumes so the reader would go, "Oh! So THAT'S what all that was about!"

In a standalone, there's none of that. The story is about this one incident in the character's life, and it can have all the implications I want, because there will be no sequel. Unless, of course, the book-buying public insists on one. I wouldn't want to disappoint my readers, after all.

It is also said that standalones appeal to men, while series are more popular with women. Personally, I find that an appalling generalization, but then, I know as much about marketing as the next guy, assuming the next guy doesn't know much about marketing. So perhaps writing a standalone for me was a baldfaced appeal to get more male readers. Although women have faces that are generally more bald than men, so perhaps not.

Writing a standalone was in some ways liberating as a writer--as I mentioned here last week, it was emotionally difficult because it was more intense. But I'm not at all interested in giving up series writing; I do love to see characters in new and different situations to find out how they'll react. So returning to characters I know is... I wouldn't say comforting, because it's never comfortable to write a book. But it is a way to test myself, see how much I really know about these people I made up, and find out whether readers will go with them in a new direction with each installment.

The next book I write will be #5 in the Haunted Guesthouse series, and after the standalone, it will be something of a relief to get back to Alison and her merry band. But I bet after that, I'll have the itch to write a one-and-out again. There's an exhilaration that goes with it that might just become addictive.

But first, we have to find someone to publish the one I just wrote. Stay tuned!

Comments

[Mare F]

Jeff, you always bring a smile to my face. Thank you for that. I like stand-alones because they get to the point. Their characters get along or they don't, but it's a temporary concern. I enjoy series, but find myself drifting away from them after a certain number of books. Please keep up the entertaining work and I look forward to your stand-alone.

[Theresa de Valence]

Hey Jeff, nice post.

[Elaine Charton]

Hi Jeff-
Great post, I like both but I do enjoy series more. If the characters grab me I don't want it to end.
Sometimes the public will take the decision out of your hands. It's happened to me. I had to bring a character back from the dead because so many readers wanted more of him. :)

[Darren Fretcher]

This is very good post.
Thanks for sharing.
I really like it a lot.

[Thomas C.]

Jeff, enjoyed the post. Particularly when you discuss standalones being emotionally difficult and more intense. The pressures not on to leave strands for possible future books, but clear red herrings and define lingering plot points in one. I love learning more about the characters and (when it works) then watching others begin to like them too. Good to hear your insights.

[Maridunham]

I think it's very important for books in a series to be able to stand alone. Otherwise, it can be too frustrating to wait or to have to move on to the next one.

But I guess my definition of a series book standing alone is different from some. As long as it doesn't end with a cliffhanger, and it at least temporarily ties up the story arcs, I'm happy.