Submitting 1st book in a trilogy means agents / publishers not interested?

Branoic

I'm working on a fantasy novel. Have been for a few years, probably will be for years to come. If it were ever to get picked up, it would be book 1 in a trilogy.

I've read on another forum recently that you shouldn't try to sell a trilogy or a series as agents and publishers don't like them. They prefer a self-contained 1st book which, if performs well, they can then commission into a series. It makes sense - if the first book performs poorly they may not want to publish the follow ups and your epic will be left unfinished.

However, numerous recent 1st time writers have published very definite trilogies, where the 1st book is very clearly "act 1". I'm thinking Joe Abercrombie, Brent Weeks, R. Scott Bakker. My novel, while having a satisfying climax towards the end and not ending on a gratuitous cliff-hanger, would very obviously need the follow ups to resolve the plot.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this and how agents / publishers view submissions for series, or any links to blogs / industry interviews where this kind of thing is discussed?

Vadakin

Um, don't tell them it's a trilogy?

Whether you have three books planned or a dozen, all of it will be for nothing if the first book doesn't get off the ground. With that in mind, the first book has to stand alone. The publisher needs to be able to read it and see a beginning, middle and end. That doesn't mean you can't include plot threads for future books or do the legwork that comes with creating a world with rich characters and tales yet to be told but the first book needs to be self-contained for the most part.

One of the best examples of this comes from the film world with the very first Star Wars film. It ends with Luke Skywalker destroying the Death Star and the rebels winning the day. Yet Vader escapes and the elusive Emperor is out there somewhere. Star Wars: A New Hope is a fairly self contained story with possibilities for sequels. Even the first three Harry Potter novels are pretty self-contained with stories that begin and end within each novel. It's not until the fourth book that it all opens up into a multi-part arc and it's only then you truly realised that the first three self contained books were actually part of something bigger.

The trick is to give the reader something that they can pick up, read and then put down after a satisfying conclusion but with just enough left unresolved to make them want to come back for more. You want to suggest that there's more to come without making them feel cheated by the experience.

pickarooney

Spoilers man, spoilers!

I think Vadakin's summation is on the nose. Unless you're going to give parts two and three away I feel it's kind of cheating a reader to sell a book that tells an incomplete story and all of the best trilogies are composed of standalone stories that link together. I know it's more film references, but compare Indiana Jones (ignoring the rubbish 4th one) or Toy Story with The Matrix or Pirates of the Caribbean.

Branoic

Thanks for the replies. I see your points regarding movies, the Harry Potter books etc.

In my situation, I think there is a satisfying beginning, middle, an end with a climactic battle, a foe defeated, some questions answered. However, the foe is a bit of an underling and isn't the "main" bad guy - he's still out there laying waste to the land etc, and not everything is explained and answered.

The problem if you want to try and create something sweeping and epic is that you can't really wait until the second book to introduce all the overarching plot points, cos then it would seem they came out of nowhere and were made up simply to extend the series. Yes, there should be resolutions and satisfaction in the first book, but part of me also thinks that plot points should be built and layered right the way through for the ultimate pay off in book 3. Look at Abercrombie's The First Law books. The Blade Itself is definitely a satisfying read on it's own, but it's clearly the set up for what follows, and couldn't be called self-contained.

its a difficult call, because it concerns the whole structure of the book.

Vadakin

Branoic wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. I see your points regarding movies, the Harry Potter books etc.

In my situation, I think there is a satisfying beginning, middle, an end with a climactic battle, a foe defeated, some questions answered. However, the foe is a bit of an underling and isn't the "main" bad guy - he's still out there laying waste to the land etc, and not everything is explained and answered.

The problem if you want to try and create something sweeping and epic is that you can't really wait until the second book to introduce all the overarching plot points, cos then it would seem they came out of nowhere and were made up simply to extend the series. Yes, there should be resolutions and satisfaction in the first book, but part of me also thinks that plot points should be built and layered right the way through for the ultimate pay off in book 3. Look at Abercrombie's The First Law books. The Blade Itself is definitely a satisfying read on it's own, but it's clearly the set up for what follows, and couldn't be called self-contained.

its a difficult call, because it concerns the whole structure of the book.

That shouldn't be a problem actually. As long as your first book works as a solo effort, even with unanswered questions then you should be fine. Just don't overload the book with things that won't be resolved. It a question of striking a balance. With any series of books, the story has to be in the here and now. You can set things up for the future, just make sure it isn't overshadowing the story of the first book.