You're aiming for a book that can be read without reading the previous books. When you're done, the best way to know you succeeded is to ask other readers (beta readers, etc). It's hard to be subjective.

I try to write stand-alones because I can advertise them like first books (though some promo sites won't advertise them). I also have a personal dislike of cliffhangers (I just don't like reading them). But there's a catch. You'll have to repeat some things and that can run you the risk of explaining too much.

 

Sorry for the late reply. Good suggestion about the beta readers. Thanks.

 

It just depends on how much you want/need to introduce the characters and their backstories. If it makes sense to drop information as you go (without losing track of the story) you're probably fine. If you need a chapter to catch everyone up, that might not work as well.

 

Sorry for the late reply. (I wasn't getting email notifications.) Yeah, the chapter to catch up would be hard. The more I think about this, I think I'm stretching things to want them to work as stand-alones.

 

Whatever you do, don't copy and paste from the first book. I read a sequel where the author literally did that a few times when describing a place, piece of background information, or a character. It came off as just plain lazy.

I'm writing a sequel right now intended as a standalone. I'm reintroducing my main characters and setting - yeah, there will be some repetition for readers who might be binging the books, but for readers new to my characters or who read my first novel a while ago and need a refresher, that's necessary - but otherwise, I am treating what happened in Book #1 as backstory. If something is required from Book #1 to tell the story in Book #2, I'll refer to it as I would any other piece of backstory about the character - summarized and sprinkled into the story, at an appropriate time.

 

Sorry for the late reply. Sounds like you've got a good plan. Thanks for the input.

 

Like, I understand it means little narrative connection to the original, but how much connection is too much? How do you treat character death that happened in the original where there's a whole backstory to it? Looking for ideas here.
routerlogin.ltd
pikashow.ltd

 

Basically, wrap up the case in that one book. No cliffhangers. No loose threads that they'd need to buy the next book to find out about.

 

Sorry for the last reply. Yeah, I think you're right. And my first book, while not a major cliffhanger, does not tie things up tidily. I think I'm okay just writing a series with no stand-alone dual nature.

 

All of our characters have backstories. They don't spring from the ether at the beginning of their book. Write that back story as you usually would, then ask someone who hasn't read the previous book to be your checker to make sure it stands alone. People expect a bit of retelling, and often appreciate it if it has been a while since they read the last one. I'm waiting to see what other people say because I have sequel planned with the same characters as their book one. I didn't expect another book, so book one wrapped up their story neatly. So this is truly a sequel and I'll have to make it stand alone with their getting together as their back story. This one will not be a romance but rather a continuing adventure.

 

I 100% agree with this. As a reader, I definitely don't mind some repetition, as long as it's not, as I said, literally copying and pasting from the first novel. I don't usually binge on series, but in this case, I did, and the word-for-word copying stuck out like a sore thumb.

Part of the reason authors identify their sequels as "standalone" is because not all sequels do standalone. My book #1 is like Sheri's book #1 - it was a major, discrete event in the main character's life and was neatly wrapped up at the end. But we all know life continues onward after "The End" and what seems neatly wrapped up can always come unraveled or new problems can crop up. My book #2 is going to be set six years later and is going to be about another major, discrete event in the same character's life. What happened in book #1 is now part of my character's backstory, and if necessary, I'll convey the events from book #1 in book #2 the same way as I'd treat any other part of the character's backstory.

If the problem is you're finding book #1 is critical to book #2, to the point you feel like you HAVE to explain the events that occur in book #1 in detail to catch the reader up, then, IMO, you are not writing a standalone sequel.

Legal thrillers lend themselves fairly easily to standalone sequels because cases are discrete events in a lawyer's life. Book #1 could be about a murder case, book #2 could be about a bank robbery case, etc.

 

Think Lee Child's Jack Reacher thriller series. All are individual plots with only Jack Reacher as the main character. Only the first book describes him in detail but it doesn't detract from reading books further down the line without having read the first book and going over all his background again in detail in later books.

Another is Michael Connolley's Harry Bosch crime detective thriller series. Again all centers around different cases with the same detective.

I'm sure there are others. As yours is a legal thriller, then base it all around whoever is the main character, say in the case of a lawyer from the first book without referencing the previous case.

Maybe put the main character in a different law practice so as not to go over previous relationships in the first book as backstory. Possibly have them start their own practice. Maybe haver the character drop out of the profession, only to get caught up in a legal case. That's ideas for three sequels right there.

 

Thanks Declan. Yeah, I hear you about Reacher and Bosch-type series. I don't know, I think I'm more comfortable writing with things carrying over from the previous book. Characters getting pregnant or whatever.

 

You need to make sure you wrap up the main plot or crime in each book.

 

Thanks Madeline. I've done that. The main plot is wrapped up. But I'll need to reintroduce the MC if I want to have Book Two be a standalone, right? And the loose ends (not main plot) that I'll refer to will all have to bring the reader up to speed for those. Sure, even with a series that isn't a stand-alone there will need to be some refreshing as to previous events, but to have it truly function as a stand alone it will need a lot more. I would think anyway.

 

Harlan Coben does this very well with the Myron Bolitar series. I started with Long Lost, check them out.

 

You should read more legal thriller series. Almost all of them are written this way.

 

I’m probably the least experienced person here, but I don’t think it’s an issue of backstory. I think it’s a matter of whether the timeline in each book is completely independent from other books.

I wrote a trilogy. Each book is a complete story with no remaining issues, cliffhangers, or loose ends. However, the timeline is important because each subsequent book builds on facts from the previous book which had to have happened for the stories in the later books to move forward, so they’re not standalones.

Take a page out of Erle Stanley Gardner's book. Perry Mason is a good example. Same characters every week, but every week a different story, and it makes no difference whether you watched the previous episode because stories in subsequent episodes didn’t depend on the facts from previous weeks to make sense. They were completely independent of each other. If you have loose ends that need to be tied up in a subsequent book, it's not a standalone.

 

Greg, sorry to say this, but If you have to tie anything up from the 1st book in the 2nd book, or mention anything that occurs in the 1st book in that 2nd book, then neither can be standalone and defeats the object of reading them in any order. You have to tie everything besides the plot and any loose ends so they don't have to be referred to at all in the 2nd and subsequent books, even if it means writing a final chapter in the 1st book as an Epilogue to tie up loose ends.. Period.

If you can't do this, then as an alternative to a standalone series where it is not possible not to refer to previous events or relationships, then consider say a trilogy as did for my post-apocalyptic thriller, where the 3 act structure plot is realized in each book, but there are a few loose ends, with characters and relationships that develop over the trilogy. Then consider each of the three books as act 1, act 2 and act 3 of an over arching overall plot.

I have a second standalone in an intended detective series put to one side, and it's at the midpoint. The only reason I can't finish it is I have conflict between 2 detectives that spill over into the 2nd book that refers to conflict between them in the1st book. The situation arises that the timeline would be dysfunctional if the books were read out of order. This makes it that though the first book is a standalone, the 2nd couldn't be a standalone and would have to be read in order. I have to resolve this before I can continue if I want them to be a standalone series. It is more likely that if I ever go back to it, it will be easier to end up with a series that has to be read in order, with only the 1st book as a true standalone.

 

As it's apparent from these posts, what makes a book stand on its own can be open to interpretation. Sometimes it's up to our readers to tell us. That's why I advised beta reads or other critiques before launching a book and claiming stand-alone status. Because if readers grab your book midway through and don't get stuff, they'll comment in their reviews (you don't want it then). I need other viewpoints to make the call because, as the writer, I find my opinion biased.

 

Just a gentle difference of opinion here, but by definition, relating to past events eg backstory to keep people in the loop from the 1st book would involve a set timeline of events that would negate stand-alone status. I can't see the point of beta readers to point this out as the author would be only too aware of the problem. If a reader downloads book 2, and then goes to book 1, the cat will be out of the bag as to events that unfold from the backstory in the 2nd book. Not ideal.

 

We do disagree a bit. When I write that a book is a standalone in a blurb, I'm telling readers that reading my book instead of the preceding ones will not confuse them and that it can be enjoyed without reading prior books. This takes outsider opinion. I also write, however, that some spoilers cannot be avoided. Here's where we agree, I think. By introducing past information, I've spoiled some of the prior book (s). But I try to keep this at a minimum. Many of my books take place in the same universe. I believe that if my books stand on their own, they're standalones.

The reason this is an important distinction in today's market is that there are many books in series that read similar to serials. They have cliffhangers without definite endings. I don't write cliffhangers and I don't connect plots like that. All my books have definitive endings, three part acts that start independently and end (which is challenging to write, btw, in itself).

 

Sounds like you are talking different types of series. A continuing main character can define a series and even though there is backstory that carries through, it doesn't have to spoil reading them out of order. Some have no order. Some series are based on a story arc. In that case, you might be better off with a trilogy (as Decon suggested) or limited series. The thing is there is a difference between standalone stories in a series and a standalone novel. A series always will have some overlap but they should never have cliffhanger endings, because that is a serial, rather than a series.
Think Perry Mason or Tarzan. Standalone stories in a continuing series with no overall story arc. And no cliffhanger endings. Readers need resolution.

 

Here's a practical reason to write sequels as stand-alones. This is in answer to the OP's original thread question. Because I've written independent sequels, I've successfully promoted them in the same way I promote first books. You can advertise and market them and sell them like first books--as long as they are truly independent.

How do you do it? You write books focused on MCs or settings, not a particular quest or life journey. Yes, to do this you're looking to write a series that's more focused on a main character, like Jack Reacher or Bond, than a trilogy journey like Lord of the Rings.

Now this also has a practical disadvantage. Some readers like prolonged connected journeys and they want to binge those sort of books.