How far along with the sequel before submitting first book?

[Lemon3]

Hi everyone,
I'm still drafting my first book and I know it will have a sequel. Am I supposed to have a certain amount of words for the sequel to show before submitting my first book to publishers?

 

[lizmonster]

1) What genre?
2) Is the first book standalone?
3) Is there a reason you're subbing directly to publishers instead of through an agent?

 

[Unimportant]

As the wise @lizmonster said: It all depends on your specific circumstances.

A lot of books have sequels that don't ever get published because the first book doesn't sell well enough. So the common wisdom is to have sequel ideas in your head, but don't worry about actually producing them until someone wants it -- which won't happen until someone has contracted the first book.

Unless the first book doesn't stand alone and it's basically the first part of a single ginormous book that's being split into sections simply for Page Number reasons, in which case.... yes it'd be good to have it finished, with the caveat that selling an actual trilogy etc as opposed to a standalone book that could be part of a series is....highly unlikely. Like, a hundred or a thousand times less likely for a debut author. Those books are better temporarily trunked until the author has an agent, a following, and enough creds with their publisher(s) with standalone sales that the publishers are confident a non-standalone trilogy will sell well.

Specific publishers, if you're subbing directly, may offer specific instructions, but the majority of the large trade presses won't accept submissions from authors, only from literary agents representing authors. So if you want trade publication you'll probably want to be querying agents. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this post definitely apply to agents.

If you're planning to self publish, of course, then you can do whatever you like!

 

[CMBright]

It is strongly recommended that each book have a complete arc, even if there is a larger over-arching storyline through a trilogy or series. There is nothing worse than selling the first book of a trilogy or series, then have the publisher decide it isn't profitable enough to print and market the second.

Most agents and most direct to (often small) publishers expect a finished and polished novel before submitting. Keep in mind that every manuscript is competing with hundreds (or more) manuscripts for an agent or publisher's attention.

A good agent is worth it, because they will be marketing to publishers that don't take manuscripts directly and they will be negotiating the best contract for their clients. A bad agent can be worse than no agent. Which is why AW has a Bewares, Recommendations and Background Checks area for writers who are at the point of selling a manuscript to an agent or a publisher. There is also Query Letter Hell SYW, aka QLH, to polish that query letter once the manuscript is finished (or sooner) to give your manuscript the best chance of being seen by that agent or publisher.

If you are self-publishing, AW has information here.

 

[Lemon3]

Thank you all for your advice! Also, @lizmonster, sorry I meant submitting to agent.

 

[Unimportant]

Thank you all for your advice! Also, @lizmonster, sorry I meant submitting to agent.

In that case, follow @CMBright's links to Query Letter Hell! You'll see that a lot of query letters end with "this is a standalone novel with series potential".

Me, I'm one of those risk-averse control freaks, so if I wanted to improve my odds of getting an agent I'd write three different 'standalone novels with series potential' rather than three books in a series, to spread my eggs across multiple baskets or whatever the right metaphor would be.

 

[lizmonster]

Like the other smart folx have said - query the first book as "standalone with series potential," assuming it's actually a standalone.

As for whether to write the next in the series or not - the general advice is to write something different, but it really depends on your own plans. And sometimes we have to write what we're being called on to write, whether or not it's going to sell.

 

[Sage]

You can have written the entire sequel or none of it at all. When you’re querying, you’re querying the first book alone, even if you have an entire series written.

There are pros and cons to writing sequels before book 1 is published (or nearly there).

Pros:

• You can make sure all things needed for future books exist in book 1 before it’s “set in stone” by publication
• You’re probably most excited about the series as you go from book to book without pause/you love these characters and want to stick with them/you’re not finding inspiration elsewhere
• Less time to forget things (like how to write a character’s voice, as an example)

Cons:

• Book 1 might not be picked up, and future books usually depend on it, so then you’re sad that those other books don’t have a chance
• Book 1 (& therefore others in the series) might not be picked up, and you have nothing available to query afterwards because you only worked on the series
• Agent/publisher revisions on book 1 might make large sections or all of later books obsolete

Probably there are more, but these are what come to mind. I always say to work on what’s inspiring you, no matter what, but it’s good to know the pros and cons. But as to whether you need some of the sequel written before you query, you definitely don’t.

 

[Woollybear]

Taking the publishing out of the equation for the minute, ... ...

One advantage to writing the complete trilogy before putting any of it into the public sphere is that you can change and tweak and fiddle with the first book in various ways to make the final book work better. If book one is out in the world, it's hard to add foreshadowing for the things that you devise while writing books 2 and 3.

So, 75% of me says write the best single book you can and query it. But 25% of me says there's some value to writing the whole thing out first. Be aware that as soon as the first book is out there, your creativity for the subsequent books will be more constrained.

 

[Brigid Barry]

In that case, follow @CMBright's links to Query Letter Hell! You'll see that a lot of query letters end with "this is a standalone novel with series potential".

Me, I'm one of those risk-averse control freaks, so if I wanted to improve my odds of getting an agent I'd write three different 'standalone novels with series potential' rather than three books in a series, to spread my eggs across multiple baskets or whatever the right metaphor would be.

I wrote a fantasy novel.
Loved on of the characters so much that I wrote an overlapping second book.
Was so worried about the first book flopping that I did a second version of the second book that is a complete standalone.

I think in all the queries I've sent, only two or three have asked about other projects. You don't have to have anything ready to submit the first book (other than that book, obviously), but while you're querying definitely work on something new.

 

[Lemon3]

Taking the publishing out of the equation for the minute, ... ...

One advantage to writing the complete trilogy before putting any of it into the public sphere is that you can change and tweak and fiddle with the first book in various ways to make the final book work better. If book one is out in the world, it's hard to add foreshadowing for the things that you devise while writing books 2 and 3.

So, 75% of me says write the best single book you can and query it. But 25% of me says there's some value to writing the whole thing out first. Be aware that as soon as the first book is out there, your creativity for the subsequent books will be more constrained.

That's a very good point...

 

[Woollybear]

That's a very good point...

It boils down to your goals and personality. Some people know they have a trilogy to tell and feel driven to get it all done. Other people want very much to get a book deal and from what I hear it's very hard if not impossible to debut with a trilogy. I think trilogies from debuts (like the poppy war? Maybe?) often start as subbed standalone novels but find a an editor who will contract for two more. Others here can speak more directly to that.

Some people are happy to write multiple manuscripts, dozens, and keep them shelved until they break in. They just write more manuscripts and figure one will work out eventually.

So it depends on your goals and personality.

 

[Parametric]

The problem with the received wisdom (to not write any sequels unless the book sells) is that after a few years you end up with half a dozen orphaned novels and dozens of unwritten sequels. You start to question why you're letting complete strangers who aren't interested in your work prevent you from writing the books you actually want to write.

 

[Brigid Barry]

The problem with the received wisdom (to not write any sequels unless the book sells) is that after a few years you end up with half a dozen orphaned novels and dozens of unwritten sequels. You start to question why you're letting complete strangers who aren't interested in your work prevent you from writing the books you actually want to write.

Because that's how trade publishing works. The publishers tell the editors who tell the agents who tell the authors.

Say you get a three-book deal. Book one is a flop. But Book 2 was already in the works so they release it with no support. It flops. They cancel Book 3. Readers are ticked at the author, not the publisher (I think).

If the question was self publishing that's a different matter entirely.

 

[Nether]

The joy of writing sequels before querying your first book is instead of one book potentially not selling, you could have two or three

idk, depending on the continuity, you could always rewrite the sequels to be standalones that could launch a series and then, if that works, market the other book as a prequel.

Say you get a three-book deal. Book one is a flop. But Book 2 was already in the works so they release it with no support. It flops. They cancel Book 3. Readers are ticked at the author, not the publisher (I think).

While I understand (and relate to) the concept, it's probably worth remembering that self-pubbing sequels would still be an option if a fanbase exists.

 

[Parametric]

Because that's how trade publishing works.

I understand how trade publishing works, but many of us are receiving exactly nothing from publishing - no book deals, no advances, no royalties, no readers, not even form rejections on our queries. In that case, authors should write exactly what they enjoy writing, because the enjoyment of writing those books will probably be the only reward we ever get, and it's certainly the only one that's in our control.

 

[lizmonster]

from what I hear it's very hard if not impossible to debut with a trilogy.

This goes in and out of fashion. My agent subbed one book for me, and the first publisher to offer wanted two. I finally sold a trilogy at auction. This was 2014; a number of other writers I knew had the same experience around that time.

It’s my understanding this isn’t the trend right now, but it was.

I think trilogies from debuts (like the poppy war? Maybe?) often start as subbed standalone novels but find a an editor who will contract for two more.

I don’t know what it was subbed as, but it was bought as a trilogy, and positioned as a Big Title. (I spoke with the author shortly after the sale.)

 

[lizmonster]

I understand how trade publishing works, but many of us are receiving exactly nothing from publishing - no book deals, no advances, no royalties, no readers, not even form rejections on our queries. In that case, authors should write exactly what they enjoy writing, because the enjoyment of writing those books will probably be the only reward we ever get, and it's certainly the only one that's in our control.

This is the reality for most writers. It’s even the reality for writers who’ve had something trade published.

Write what feeds you. If you want to trade publish, your best bet is to query a standalone. What you write next is up to you.

 

[Brigid Barry]

I understand how trade publishing works, but many of us are receiving exactly nothing from publishing - no book deals, no advances, no royalties, no readers, not even form rejections on our queries.

Oh, I am fully aware.

In that case, authors should write exactly what they enjoy writing, because the enjoyment of writing those books will probably be the only reward we ever get, and it's certainly the only one that's in our control.

And this is the attitude that lets me write at all. I write a story that I want to read and if someone else likes it enough to publish it, cool beans. If not, I can read it whenever I want and enjoy it.

Sorry for the derail OP!

 

[alexp336]

I asked an agent about pretty much this exact thing last month, funnily enough. My question was basically "if an eager author had written the second book in a planned series, would an agent want to know about that being complete when the first book in said-series was out on query?"

Their answer was effectively the same as advice up-thread: that flagging there is series potential is helpful, but actively writing a second book (the publishing viability of which depends on the first succeeding) is a bigger risk than this agent thought authors might want to take. In the end, they confirmed, the first book lives or dies (in trade publishing) on its own merits, and while an agent loving it might make them even more excited about a sequel possibility, the promise of a sequel won't rescue an underwhelming first book (or first book query).

FWIW, you can know the good advice and understand it, and still do differently. I have the second in a possible trilogy written, the first book of which is currently being queried; my brain was too eager, my characters too fresh for me, and a particularly enthusiastic beta reader meant I couldn't quite keep the story in. The third is just notes and ideas at this stage, though.

As the (excellent) advice up-thread makes clear, there's a difference between "what's a good idea as a writer" and "what's a good idea as a writer looking to maximize their chances of trade publishing success." Writing what you want to write is obviously the foundation, and reason enough in itself. If you want to position yourself best for trade-pub, meanwhile, there are strategies (or maybe guide rails) on top of that: that includes focusing on individually-sellable works rather than investing time and energy into sequels. Having a sequel prepped and ready to go won't really hurt your chances of selling the first book - unless you demand a 2+ deal or nothing, ha, or if the first ends on an insufferable cliffhanger - but it's time you could've spent writing something different.

Just my 2c; ignore at will (apart, maybe, from the "enjoying writing is the most important thing" bit)

 

[Unimportant]

I'll agree with both sides: If you're aiming for trade publishing, then it is less of a risk if you write the kind of books that agents are looking for and trade is actively acquiring. But if you are writing something you're not passionate about, that's very likely to come through to the reader and nobody's going to want to read it.

If you're danged lucky, what you're passionate about is what the market wants. If you're even luckier, you'll hit the right agent/editor on the right day with the right book.

If you're not lucky, welcome to the 99%, I guess?

 

[alexp336]

I'll agree with both sides: If you're aiming for trade publishing, then it is less of a risk if you write the kind of books that agents are looking for and trade is actively acquiring. But if you are writing something you're not passionate about, that's very likely to come through to the reader and nobody's going to want to read it.

I definitely think there's a tendency for people to say "don't work on the sequel, work on a different, standalone book" and perhaps overlook the fact that our brains (or, at least, my brain) seldom approaches things so rationally. For me, it wasn't a case of "you can either write this sequel, or work on something else" - my brain had to see its sequel thoughts put down on paper (well, screen). Creativity doesn't run on train tracks, after all, where you can just shift the points and redirect your output.