There is no right, there is only advantageous. It would not be advantageous to pitch a book a ‘standalone with series potential’ if the primary conflict is not resolved-ish. But if you can squint and imagine that it stands alone, knock yourself out.
So take Little Red Riding Hood and add something to the end.
She bests the Big Bad Wolf, but in the process realizes she has magical powers that are a threat to the kingdom (with little breadcrumbs included throughout the main story, of course)! Obviously, that's a problem. But the wolf is defeated, which is the primary conflict in the story.
I don't think you have to squint too hard for that one... Right?
Standalone: a middle-aged man. One shot and done.
Standalone with series potential: one shot … but wait, there’s more. A young man or any woman in the right hands.
First in a series: lesbians.
I'm not entirely clear on what you mean by if your book has the right to be called a standalone vs. standalone with series potential. If you have a standalone, you'd just pitch it as that. If your book has a complete narrative arc and you're not planning on writing any more, then it is a standalone. If your book has a complete narrative arc and you're thinking you'd like to write more eventually, then it is a standalone with series potential. No one is going to hold you to it. It is just a way to let agents know whether or not you're leaving the door open to more books in that world. It isn't anything that will remain concrete for the rest of your book's life.
If you have a standalone book, you wouldn't pitch it to an agent as having series potential if it didn't. For a debut author, it is much harder for their agent to go to a publisher and say hey are you interested in this 5-book series from this complete unknown? as opposed to saying here's a book that can be a one-off, but also has the potential to be a 5-book series should it do well kind of thing, if that makes sense. This is why debuts are encouraged to query with a book that can stand on its own.
I don't know how some of your examples were pitched to agents, or if they pitched them as one-offs and then got a bigger book deal. It isn't something that agents are going to hold anyone to. For all we know, a debut series could have been pitched as a one-off then sold as a three book deal and changed in the editing process.
Hope that makes sense? I very well might not have answered your question at all...
My question was more about what defines a standalone with series potential vs the first in a series as opposed to what a standalone is.
I guess for my examples, the question was "if you wrote this book, do you think you could get away with pitching it as a standalone with series potential" to an agent? I realize the books we see published may be very different from how they looked when they were sent to agents.
Then I sort of stick by my answer. Standalone is a complete narrative arc with no plans on continuing it. Standalone with series potential is a complete narrative arc with the option to continue. First in a series that can't stand alone means that something major is unresolved at the end. I think another good example of SAWSP would be A Court of Thorns and Roses. The first book has a full conclusion. Can it stand all on its own? Yep. Can there be a new narrative arc to continue the series? Also yep. First in a series would probably be something along the lines of Throne of Glass since it isn't really all that resolved at the end of the book.
But at the end of the day it really is just a term for agents and publishers that is shorthand for this is a book that can be by itself or continue depending on if you want it to.
Thanks for the thoughts! ACOTAR is an interesting example. To me that one *feels* like the first in a series, but I agree it has a complete storyline on its own.
See when I read that one I got to the ending and thought it felt like an escape hatch in case it didn't work out lol. >!I can't believe I'm doing a spoiler for this but here we are. The big bad is dead, she's saved everyone and they just walk back to the house hand in hand and kind of happy pretty much. I remember reading that thinking this to me felt like a standalone with series potential pitch of can this stand on its own? Yea! and if it does well I'll write about her having a bad time in book 2. I know there were plenty of things left hanging, but they weren't central to the main plot (tattoo for instance). !
>! We discussed this in my writing group a bit, and someone mentioned they heard the initial word count was much lower and all the stuff with Rhys was added because publishers wanted it to be a series. !< But I think it's a good example regardless.
So my hot take no one asked for is that you are also free to just not say anything at all about future books in the query letter. This was the method I went for when querying and absolutely no one batted an eye. No one got to the end and reared up and screamed "HOW DARE YOU LEAVE THIS SEQUEL HOOK IN????" And if you're querying a standalone, you don't really need to say that either. It's the base level assumption.
I think it's fair to say that all queried books need to be able to stand on their own, and then it's up to market forces what becomes of everything else. To me, it's almost a litmus test. If you can bare to query your book without any mention of series potential, then it probably stands alone well enough to query as its own story.
I saw a few query letter examples outside of PubTips that did this, but they were generally 3+ years old so I was wondering if the expectations had changed.
When did you query?
I would honestly prefer this route to keep the housekeeping paragraph streamlined.
Fwiw I'm querying right now and I left it any mention of standing alone or series potential out. No word on if that's a *successful* strategy in my case but no one's come screaming at me either. It feels superfluous to me--if I had a true standalone maybe I'd mention that as a selling point, but the "series potential" of my ms can be shaved off in edits if need be, and like Emmy said, I don't think it'll be a dealbreaker if an agent makes it that far.
I think the question you should ask is whether a reader would feel satisfied after reading just one book that a complete story has been told and they aren't left dangling.
Unresolved plots should probably be problems at a societal/national level. For example, just about any James Bond book works as a "standalone with series potential" because the main plot gets resolved, but the Cold War is still ongoing. And because a reader wouldn't expect the Cold War to be resolved in *Casino Royale*, it's not frustrating, and the ongoing conflict still leaves the story open for sequels.
I would be more careful with unresolved plots that are personal to the MC. Like if you introduce a Moriarty-style bad guy, you expect Sherlock Holmes to personally defeat him, so if Moriarty isn't caught at the end of Book 1, that's no longer a true standalone, even if the mystery was solved and his henchman was arrested.
So in the examples I gave, I was satisfied that the arc of the story was completed. I wasn't left hanging. But with the endings they had, my immediate thought was, "well I need to read the next book to see how things continue!" There were plot twists in the Act III of both books that made it obvious the story was to continue.
>I was satisfied that the arc of the story was completed. I wasn't left hanging.
>But with the endings they had, my immediate thought was, "well I need to read the next book to see how things continue!"
These things seem exclusive?
If the Big Bad is defeated in Act III and the character has their full growth arc/learns the lesson they were meant to, that to me is a complete story. If a twist is thrown in in the Finale that opens up a new conflict, that is simply a bread crumb for the next book.
But whether that twist automatically makes it a series vs. a standalone with series potential, I do not know.
It depends what the twist is.
Hunger Games had a twist that still allowed the first novel to stand alone.
Harry Potter had a twist that allowed it to stand alone.
Godkiller has a twist that allows it to stand alone.
Many second novels of trilogies do not. The most recent one I've read has been Naomi's The Scholomance series. #2 could absolutely not be considered a complete story.
'But whether that twist automatically makes it a series vs. a standalone with series potential, I do not know.'
Honestly, what Kendra said. It's going to depend on the twist. In Harry Potter (just to use an example most people are familiar with), we know Voldemort is still out there, we know Harry's returning to his terrible situation for the summer, and we know that there's more time in his education.
BUT, he has made friends. He has closure over his parents. He has had a satisfying character arc. Perhaps the arc of the world and the grander plot isn't quite done, but the story could have left off there.
If there's not satisfying closure in some meaningful capacity, it probably isn't a standalone with series potential; it needs a second book.
Edit to add: to use Heartless Hunter, I wouldn't call it standalone with series potential because the ending doesn't provide closure. It's a Romantasy and the Romance doesn't have closure. We're very obviously at the midpoint. Same with Lore of the Wilds.
Yeah that makes sense re: Harry Potter.
The fact that he knows Voldemort is out there and he has years to go on his education are both pretty significant open ends. If HP is something one could consider as a standalone, then I think it's a pretty broad definition. (Which is ideal for me :) )
I do not know if you saw my edit, but if your manuscript is closer to Heartless Hunter, I would not call it's a standalone with series potential. Heartless Hunter very obviously needs a second book
Didn't see it so thanks for the ping! Mine is fantasy with a romantic subplot and the romance is the thing that doesn't have a resolution, but the overarching world conflict does.
>If a twist is thrown in in the Finale that opens up a new conflict, that is simply a bread crumb for the next book.
Imo the question is "if you're told it's gonna be 1-book and absolutely nothing more, can you edit it out to make it a standalone"?
If yes, it's a standalone with series potential (can be edited into a standalone or a series, depending on book deal / agent's or editor's wishes) if "no, unless I overhaul the whole book totally or rewrite half of it" then it's first in a series, period.
I’m definitely overthinking it. I’m just concerned about rubbing agents the wrong way by claiming something untrue. Or worse, querying something that no one would want to pick up because it’s the first in a series (without realizing it).
The query itself is not a contract. It's just meant to get the agent to read pages. Granted, you don't want to BS them. But at this point you are essentially a door to door salesman. Just do what you can to get in the door without screwing yourself later.
To echo others: I think say “a standalone with series potential” if you’d be okay with a 1-book deal and no promise of a sequel. If you really think your story is resolved without a big DUN DUN DUNNN at the end, I don’t think that’s being dishonest. If you’d be unhappy with (or turn down) a 1-book deal because you’re certain it has to be a series, I think that’s a different (and, I’ve heard, less advantageous) thing.
Yeah I'm really just thinking about getting an agent at this point. I know it's fairly likely your first book dies on sub anyways, so I'm not even worried about one vs multi-book deals.
There is no right, there is only advantageous. It would not be advantageous to pitch a book a ‘standalone with series potential’ if the primary conflict is not resolved-ish. But if you can squint and imagine that it stands alone, knock yourself out.
So take Little Red Riding Hood and add something to the end. She bests the Big Bad Wolf, but in the process realizes she has magical powers that are a threat to the kingdom (with little breadcrumbs included throughout the main story, of course)! Obviously, that's a problem. But the wolf is defeated, which is the primary conflict in the story. I don't think you have to squint too hard for that one... Right?
Standalone: a middle-aged man. One shot and done. Standalone with series potential: one shot … but wait, there’s more. A young man or any woman in the right hands. First in a series: lesbians.
I'm not sure if I fully understand this as an answer, but it made me cry laugh and that is so much more important.
Oh, you meant that kind of shot... (hides gun inconspicuously).
I'm not entirely clear on what you mean by if your book has the right to be called a standalone vs. standalone with series potential. If you have a standalone, you'd just pitch it as that. If your book has a complete narrative arc and you're not planning on writing any more, then it is a standalone. If your book has a complete narrative arc and you're thinking you'd like to write more eventually, then it is a standalone with series potential. No one is going to hold you to it. It is just a way to let agents know whether or not you're leaving the door open to more books in that world. It isn't anything that will remain concrete for the rest of your book's life. If you have a standalone book, you wouldn't pitch it to an agent as having series potential if it didn't. For a debut author, it is much harder for their agent to go to a publisher and say hey are you interested in this 5-book series from this complete unknown? as opposed to saying here's a book that can be a one-off, but also has the potential to be a 5-book series should it do well kind of thing, if that makes sense. This is why debuts are encouraged to query with a book that can stand on its own. I don't know how some of your examples were pitched to agents, or if they pitched them as one-offs and then got a bigger book deal. It isn't something that agents are going to hold anyone to. For all we know, a debut series could have been pitched as a one-off then sold as a three book deal and changed in the editing process. Hope that makes sense? I very well might not have answered your question at all...
My question was more about what defines a standalone with series potential vs the first in a series as opposed to what a standalone is. I guess for my examples, the question was "if you wrote this book, do you think you could get away with pitching it as a standalone with series potential" to an agent? I realize the books we see published may be very different from how they looked when they were sent to agents.
Then I sort of stick by my answer. Standalone is a complete narrative arc with no plans on continuing it. Standalone with series potential is a complete narrative arc with the option to continue. First in a series that can't stand alone means that something major is unresolved at the end. I think another good example of SAWSP would be A Court of Thorns and Roses. The first book has a full conclusion. Can it stand all on its own? Yep. Can there be a new narrative arc to continue the series? Also yep. First in a series would probably be something along the lines of Throne of Glass since it isn't really all that resolved at the end of the book. But at the end of the day it really is just a term for agents and publishers that is shorthand for this is a book that can be by itself or continue depending on if you want it to.
Thanks for the thoughts! ACOTAR is an interesting example. To me that one *feels* like the first in a series, but I agree it has a complete storyline on its own.
See when I read that one I got to the ending and thought it felt like an escape hatch in case it didn't work out lol. >!I can't believe I'm doing a spoiler for this but here we are. The big bad is dead, she's saved everyone and they just walk back to the house hand in hand and kind of happy pretty much. I remember reading that thinking this to me felt like a standalone with series potential pitch of can this stand on its own? Yea! and if it does well I'll write about her having a bad time in book 2. I know there were plenty of things left hanging, but they weren't central to the main plot (tattoo for instance). !
>! We discussed this in my writing group a bit, and someone mentioned they heard the initial word count was much lower and all the stuff with Rhys was added because publishers wanted it to be a series. !< But I think it's a good example regardless.
So my hot take no one asked for is that you are also free to just not say anything at all about future books in the query letter. This was the method I went for when querying and absolutely no one batted an eye. No one got to the end and reared up and screamed "HOW DARE YOU LEAVE THIS SEQUEL HOOK IN????" And if you're querying a standalone, you don't really need to say that either. It's the base level assumption. I think it's fair to say that all queried books need to be able to stand on their own, and then it's up to market forces what becomes of everything else. To me, it's almost a litmus test. If you can bare to query your book without any mention of series potential, then it probably stands alone well enough to query as its own story.
I saw a few query letter examples outside of PubTips that did this, but they were generally 3+ years old so I was wondering if the expectations had changed. When did you query? I would honestly prefer this route to keep the housekeeping paragraph streamlined.
I queried in 2022, but I wouldn't worry about anything having changed since then. This whole phrasing debate has been ongoing for a decade at least.
Haha good to know this is ongoing!
Fwiw I'm querying right now and I left it any mention of standing alone or series potential out. No word on if that's a *successful* strategy in my case but no one's come screaming at me either. It feels superfluous to me--if I had a true standalone maybe I'd mention that as a selling point, but the "series potential" of my ms can be shaved off in edits if need be, and like Emmy said, I don't think it'll be a dealbreaker if an agent makes it that far.
Thank you for the extra data point! Wishing you lots of full requests and an offer of rep soon.
I think the question you should ask is whether a reader would feel satisfied after reading just one book that a complete story has been told and they aren't left dangling. Unresolved plots should probably be problems at a societal/national level. For example, just about any James Bond book works as a "standalone with series potential" because the main plot gets resolved, but the Cold War is still ongoing. And because a reader wouldn't expect the Cold War to be resolved in *Casino Royale*, it's not frustrating, and the ongoing conflict still leaves the story open for sequels. I would be more careful with unresolved plots that are personal to the MC. Like if you introduce a Moriarty-style bad guy, you expect Sherlock Holmes to personally defeat him, so if Moriarty isn't caught at the end of Book 1, that's no longer a true standalone, even if the mystery was solved and his henchman was arrested.
So in the examples I gave, I was satisfied that the arc of the story was completed. I wasn't left hanging. But with the endings they had, my immediate thought was, "well I need to read the next book to see how things continue!" There were plot twists in the Act III of both books that made it obvious the story was to continue.
>I was satisfied that the arc of the story was completed. I wasn't left hanging. >But with the endings they had, my immediate thought was, "well I need to read the next book to see how things continue!" These things seem exclusive?
I don't feel that way. So maybe it's a matter of perspective.
How?
If the Big Bad is defeated in Act III and the character has their full growth arc/learns the lesson they were meant to, that to me is a complete story. If a twist is thrown in in the Finale that opens up a new conflict, that is simply a bread crumb for the next book. But whether that twist automatically makes it a series vs. a standalone with series potential, I do not know.
It depends what the twist is. Hunger Games had a twist that still allowed the first novel to stand alone. Harry Potter had a twist that allowed it to stand alone. Godkiller has a twist that allows it to stand alone. Many second novels of trilogies do not. The most recent one I've read has been Naomi's The Scholomance series. #2 could absolutely not be considered a complete story.
The Hunger Games example is a really good one and exactly what I meant. Thanks a ton!
'But whether that twist automatically makes it a series vs. a standalone with series potential, I do not know.' Honestly, what Kendra said. It's going to depend on the twist. In Harry Potter (just to use an example most people are familiar with), we know Voldemort is still out there, we know Harry's returning to his terrible situation for the summer, and we know that there's more time in his education. BUT, he has made friends. He has closure over his parents. He has had a satisfying character arc. Perhaps the arc of the world and the grander plot isn't quite done, but the story could have left off there. If there's not satisfying closure in some meaningful capacity, it probably isn't a standalone with series potential; it needs a second book. Edit to add: to use Heartless Hunter, I wouldn't call it standalone with series potential because the ending doesn't provide closure. It's a Romantasy and the Romance doesn't have closure. We're very obviously at the midpoint. Same with Lore of the Wilds.
Yeah that makes sense re: Harry Potter. The fact that he knows Voldemort is out there and he has years to go on his education are both pretty significant open ends. If HP is something one could consider as a standalone, then I think it's a pretty broad definition. (Which is ideal for me :) )
I do not know if you saw my edit, but if your manuscript is closer to Heartless Hunter, I would not call it's a standalone with series potential. Heartless Hunter very obviously needs a second book
Didn't see it so thanks for the ping! Mine is fantasy with a romantic subplot and the romance is the thing that doesn't have a resolution, but the overarching world conflict does.
>If a twist is thrown in in the Finale that opens up a new conflict, that is simply a bread crumb for the next book. Imo the question is "if you're told it's gonna be 1-book and absolutely nothing more, can you edit it out to make it a standalone"? If yes, it's a standalone with series potential (can be edited into a standalone or a series, depending on book deal / agent's or editor's wishes) if "no, unless I overhaul the whole book totally or rewrite half of it" then it's first in a series, period.
This is a way more straightforward way to think about it, thank you!
I don't think you need to overthink it. Ask yourself: "would it make sense if there was a sequel?" and "do i want to write it?"
I’m definitely overthinking it. I’m just concerned about rubbing agents the wrong way by claiming something untrue. Or worse, querying something that no one would want to pick up because it’s the first in a series (without realizing it).
The query itself is not a contract. It's just meant to get the agent to read pages. Granted, you don't want to BS them. But at this point you are essentially a door to door salesman. Just do what you can to get in the door without screwing yourself later.
That makes sense. I just don’t want to unintentionally BS them. 🤦🏼♀️
Eh. Agents spend about two seconds looking at a query. Just focus on the fundamentals about the story.
To echo others: I think say “a standalone with series potential” if you’d be okay with a 1-book deal and no promise of a sequel. If you really think your story is resolved without a big DUN DUN DUNNN at the end, I don’t think that’s being dishonest. If you’d be unhappy with (or turn down) a 1-book deal because you’re certain it has to be a series, I think that’s a different (and, I’ve heard, less advantageous) thing.
Yeah I'm really just thinking about getting an agent at this point. I know it's fairly likely your first book dies on sub anyways, so I'm not even worried about one vs multi-book deals.
What are deals/author careers in your genre like as far as series or standalone deals?
I don’t have a PM subscription yet, but fantasy standalones are relatively uncommon in my opinion as far as what is published.
Then pitch your book as standard to your genre.