A Series Problem. No Book Is Truly stand alone.

[Samuel , Director]

Recently on amazon, I checked out this book which one of our group members reviewed. At the time there were only two reviews. Our group member's one which was detailed and gushing with praise about how good the book was, and another review that was short and scathing. The second review moaned about how he didn't realize it was the sixth book in the series and gave it 2 stars for that reason.

This got me thinking about the "stand-alone" book. Every spy thriller writer who has developed a series around a particular character, will swear on their mother's graves that their books are "stand-alone", that anyone can pick them up at any time, read them and not need to go back to the start in order to prevent confusion.

But is that true? Is there really such thing as a "true" stand alone novel except for the first book in a thriller novel series? Or is it more of an aspiration where being stand-alone depends on how much the perfect balance of backstory info-dumped into the book is gotten right?

I'm of the opinion that there is no truly stand-alone novel in a thriller series except for the first book. It's more like a goal that writers strive towards.

I would love to hear your thoughts. Is it perfectly possible to write a spy/military thriller series made up of truly stand-alone novels? Or can only an approximation of a stand-alone novel be achieved after writing that first book?

Reason why I've set up this thread is because the criticism I illustrated at the start of the post is one of the most common complaints in the single/double star amazon reviews. And I find such accusations, especially when directed at a perfectly good and well written book to be unfair and uncalled for.

[[deleted user]]

I think that spy/military thriller novel can be part of a series while still being red like a stand-alone. The trick is about keeping essentially the same main character(s), but have him/her/them go on a different adventure/mission. Then, you only need a short part to reintroduce the reader to the main character(s).

[Keith]

This being the information age I think just about anyone and everyone can check for a review on their mobile phone and see then it's part of a series.
I personally think it'd be near impossible to make a series of books all be able to stand on their own, unless you intend to pretend like the previous books never existed but by doing that your characters will never grow beyond that one story.

[Jack]

I working on #4 of my series. People have read them out of order and enjoyed them, however, when they go back to the first one they all say the same thing, "I wish I would have read #1 first." This is why I write in my book blurb on Amazon, this is #2 or #3 in the series. The Author highly recommends that you read the foundation novel first. There are reoccurring characters and history that will bring greater depth and enjoyment to the rest of the series. The whole point of my writing and what I think makes it special is that you know these people, you fall in love with these people, they become family and friends. You get the "Why." Why do these people think and act the way they do. My books do stand on there own, but they are so much better in order. One little mechanism that I have learned is to reintroduce a snippet of the characters story. This came about just last weekend when I brought an ancillary character from the other books into #4. My beta editor asked, "Who is this guy. I'll give you the abbreviated scene.

It was hard to keep that smile on his face. The truck was tight entering the turn, tight in the middle and loose coming off. Every time he got back in the gas coming out of the turn, he spun the tires. Red all but threw up his hands. “I’ve done everythin’ I know to do. These truck chassis don’t respond like the Late Models.”
Joseph heard a squeak as the back stretch gate opened. A black 1969 Camaro with tinted windows made its way across the track and parked next to Joseph’s hauler. Earl Spencer got out, spat on the ground, and said, “Boy, I’ve been watchin’ you from the back stretch. Y’all look like a monkey fuckin’ a football.”
Joseph’s eyes narrowed and jaw tightened. But after a few beats he took a deep breath and smiled. “I feel like a monkey fuckin’ a football.”
Earl laughed. “Mind if I pick at her for a bit?”
“I’d be grateful.”
Earl looked over at Red and called, “Hey you old bastard, ain’t you dead yet?”
Red shot back, “I’ll outlive you, ya spoiled little shit.”
Earl laughed, walked over and gave Red a hug. “You can come by the shop anytime ya want.”
Red grinned, “I know. Y’all too pro-fessional and uptight for me.”
Earl nodded in agreement. “Yeah, seemed like I had more fun when I did it all myself.” He playfully threw his arm around Joseph’s neck. “It’s a steep learning curve. We’ll get ya set up. Then it’s up to you.”
“Thanks Earl.”

My Editor did not remember who Earl Spencer was, even though he had been a Character that played a few major roles in my protagonist and her families lives. This is how I fixed it.

Earl nodded in agreement. “Yeah, seemed like I had more fun when I did it all myself.” He playfully threw his arm around Joseph’s neck. “It’s a steep learning curve. We’ll get ya set up. Then it’s up to you.”
“Thanks Earl.”
“That’s the way this business works. Someday I may need you to throw a block for me, understand?”
“Yep.”
“Good. How’s your sister?”
“My Sister?”
“Oh yeah, one of the prettiest girls I’d ever seen, runnin around in that big block yellow truck.”
“She’s married and pregnant.”
“Figures, all the good ones get scooped up quick.”
“That’s funny, she said she had a crush on you but you never called.”
“That’s cause I was skeered of your Daddy and your Uncle Jack.”
“Oh, yeah, that’s a good damn reason.”

That reminded him of exactly who Earl spencer was. Hopefully it will also remind the reader.

[Kyle]

In my mind, no series book can be truly stand alone. Even if the author never mentions previously introduced secondary characters or scenarios, the protagonist will have evolved based on those relationships/prior adventures.

Trying to create a book that can be enjoyed equally by both rabid fans and first-time readers is a real trick--one that gets harder with every new volume in the series. If anyone figures it out, let me know immediately!

[Bodo]

Samuel wrote: "

Recently on amazon, I checked out this book which one of our group members reviewed. At the time there were only two reviews. Our group member's one which was de..."

I totally agree! It also troubles me that great books receive bad reviews just because they are part of a serialized arc and the reviewer just didn't realized it.

I find Will Jordan's work to be a prime example of the beauty of serialized story telling and I also agree with Keith and Kyle in that it is virtually impossible to write a series of true standalone novels. Hell the reason why I read a series because I want to see the characters grow and evolve:

With the exception of Tom Wood almost all my favorite authors write serialized arcs and even Wood throws in some (ingenious)references, which you can only catch if you have read the other books!

[Samuel , Director]

Indeed. Tom's little easter eggs are a treat to look for. Book 6 for instance, in the preview, there's a reason why Victor's prints will never be on the painkiller bottle, one which can only be found all the way back in book 1.

[Bodo]

Samuel wrote: "Indeed. Tom's little easter eggs are a treat to look for. Book 6 for instance, in the preview, there's a reason why Victor's prints will never be on the painkiller bottle, one which can only be fou..."

Exactly! Or the scene in book 3 where Muir asks him if he knows a certain arms dealer with the name Kasakov, and Victor denies it...:)

[Samuel , Director]

Bodo wrote: "Samuel wrote: "Indeed. Tom's little easter eggs are a treat to look for. Book 6 for instance, in the preview, there's a reason why Victor's prints will never be on the painkiller bottle, one which ..."

Ah, yes that one! It's the example I cited to Ryan when explaining the "ground rules" about Victor, one of them being that he's more than happy to lie about his life if it means he can further cloak himself in mystery.

[J.T.]

To Samuel's point on serials, that is why I decided to entitle all my books as "Safe Havens:" first. Like Harry Potter or Star Wars, I tried to make it easier for the reader to know what series and book they were reading. It becomes more apparent that it is a saga and I take less beating when the endings can continue on with the cliff hanger, albeit some resolution is accomplished.

[Bodo]

J.T. wrote: "To Samuel's point on serials, that is why I decided to entitle all my books as "Safe Havens:" first. Like Harry Potter or Star Wars, I tried to make it easier for the reader to know what series and..."

Your books are a perfect example for the benefits of continued story arcs! Considering the scale of your conspiracy, wrapping it up over the course of a single book, would just feel contrived.

And so much more depth can be accomplished for the characters, if one allows them to grow and evolve along with the experiences they make in each novel!

[Aiden]

I think a lot depends on how you market your book too. When I set out writing The Benevolent Deception I thought I was writing a long novel, but 100,000 words into the first book and not even a third of the way through the plot, I realised it was a trilogy. Therefore, I needed to market it and release it that way.

In the second book, The Benevolent Conflict (currently in progress), I'm going to be even more clear that you need to read the first book before embarking on the second, because nothing will make sense otherwise. I don't want to sell readers something that will disappoint because they came in half-way. But series that are dependent on previous installments leads to diminishing returns, so it will only be a trilogy.

Which made me think about how to write my next series. It is already in the planning and will be about CIA agent (this might change) operating in various countries across the globe. I decided that I should adopt INDIANA JONES, JACK REACHER or JAMES BOND approach, which is same hero, but different villain in each book. Thus can be read out of order (even the Indiana Jones films are not filmed in chronological order and it doesn't matter). And while I will have links to each story in the series, I will definitely write them all to be stand alone.

If you keep using the same character with the same villain/plot (AKA JASON BOURNE) you start to run out of ideas and risk repeating yourself, plus you become more reliant on referrals to previous books in the same series. Which leads back to the problem that trilogies and the like have.

So I'm thinking about this a lot, with the next series, how to structure it so I can keep writing it for 20 years or more, if I get lucky enough with it. So readers can pop in anytime, and pick it up from whatever book they start with first.

I think as a writer, I owe that to my readers.

[Jack]

I'm in the process of putting out #4 in a series. The books are 95-130K words long. I make it clear it's a series. But you can read them as stand alone and they are still good. Not as good as having the backstories of the characters you are reading about. That was my goal. To give my readers something I always felt was lacking. The WHY? Why does this character behave in this manner. I started the first book when she was 12 and she just had a baby in book #4. I don't market crap. It's word of mouth.