This discussion over at queenoftheskies  had me fuming. And I left comments. But I wanted to see what Nathan Bransford really had to say. And I found a number of posts on the topic of series vs standalones.

He has some good advice re: submitting the first book in a series:

Which seems reasonable. Then he ruins it with this:

"But I haven't actually blogged about whether an unpublished author should set out to write a series in the first place. My opinion? You shouldn't."

And while it's just one agent's advice and a young agent at that, it still has that dreaded "should" word, in this case "shouldn't." And then he says this:

"But here's the thing: getting a first novel published is really, really difficult. And getting a second novel published can be even more difficult. You shouldn't be saving your best ideas for the third, fifth, or seventh book in an unpublished series: when you're starting out you should go for broke with that one novel, throwing in everything including the kitchen sink, and making that one novel as stellar as possible. Sure, leave a few threads dangling if you want, leave open the possibility of revisiting the characters and the world, but the novel should be completely self-contained and satisfying on its own. "

And this is where I think he really shows a carelessness in his own writing. He's assuming the later books will be more creative than the first. He's assuming that the first novel can't stand on its own. He's assuming a lot of things he doesn't explain upfront and therefore, he muddies his thesis. Because later in the post, he says:

"Now, I do want to make a distinction here between series with a serial plot where one book depends upon the other and series that are set in the same world with the same characters but feature a stand-alone plot."

Uh, shouldn't that distinction have been made upfront, so people would know what you were talking about, before they got all worked up or confused? And yet, I still don't know what the heck he's referring to. Because my WIR can stand on its own. The sequel however, picks up 5 years later and is dependent on the events of the first book. I think I can write it so it would stand on its own and if it got published and not the first, I could use the first for a lot of backstory. But book 2's plot is inspired by book 1. It grows out of it. Book 1 ends with a certain state of the universe. Book 2 disrupts that now status quo violently in the first paragraph. So, not really a serial plot, but definitely a direct sequel. And I'd bet we could come up with many other permutations of this. But to start off talking about series when you mean a specific kind of series is misleading, IMO. And there's a big difference in discussing one story broken up into a trilogy and a series of stories that are either standalones set in the same universe (with or not with the same characters) and a series of connected stories or sequels.

Before he explains, though, he says:

"But if you go for broke and can't find a taker for that first novel: Start a new one. Do not write a sequel. Unless it's just for fun. Agents are not going to spring for the sequel to an unpublished novel."

While I can see this being good advice, I bristle at the "for fun" comment and that's what got many of us annoyed. Because if you have nothing else to write that gets your juices flowing, write the f'in sequel if that's in your heart. If it, too, can stand on its own while still being connected to the first, what is the problem? If it sells, maybe they'll be interested in the prequel. If nothing else, you'll be working on your writing skills. You might find you can work in enough of the first book into the second and make it one outstanding book. While being flexible and not wed to your words is usually a sound MO, it's not the only one worth pursuing.

When he extolls the virtues of starting fresh with: "Who says you can't create another world that's better than the first?" he has no idea it took me 2 years to rework a universe that it took my former collaborator and I 6 years before that to create and populate. And I had to create new characters for the WIR, which I did over the next 2 years I put into the writing and first full revision. I've already put somewhere around a decade into this project and I don't want to take even half that time on a new one. I have an aborted effort (another 2 years, though concurrent with the WIR) of trying to create something fresh, already. I want to get on with writing something new and that's the sequel.

Am I hurting my odds? Maybe. But I'd hurt my odds more with poor plotting and writing.

And yet, I would have left this alone, if not for this section:

"Professional writers are RUTHLESS with their own worlds and work. They will walk away from something or delete 150 pages faster than you can say Justin Bobby, and half the time they won't even really sweat it (the other half of the time they'll start the drinking and wonder why in the world anyone thinks writing is fun). Professional writers press the delete button because know they can do better. For-fun writers linger and linger in the same world or with the same characters and can't bear to start a new world or delete anything. And unless you press that delete button or start fresh or create a new world it's impossible to get better. "

*sigh*

Professional writers as with pro anybodies, get paid and make a living from their writing, or whatever other thing they do (photography, art, music, writing software, designing websites, agenting). However they achieve that success likely varies from person to person. I may never be a pro writer, but I've already deleted 80 single spaced 10pt prose twice before finishing the first draft of the WIR. That doesn't make me a pro. Was I ruthless? No. I was frustrated. Those pages weren't working. I couldn't finish unless I tossed them. I call it sanity maintenance. It was frighteningly easy to toss drek. And y'know, it was fun, because it meant I was trying to solve a puzzle and that's the fun part of this for me: figuring out the story by writing it.

I don't like the implication that you can't get better if you don't create a new world. As with any skill, if you keep working at it, especially if you can develop a critical eye and learn from what doesn't work, you are very likely to improve. And he was missing a comma or two in that quoted section.

When he talks about his version of "for fun" writers, he insults would-be pros and fun writers (I think of them as hobbyists) alike. People who write for fun often write fanfic. They'll write to share stories or stick 'em in a drawer. They'll write in one universe or many. Fanfic writers do both all the time. I know. I used to be one.

One of my fanfic friends is a terrific writer. She often writes novella length fan stories, so I once asked her why she never attempted an original novel. She told me she didn't want to be a pro writer. She just wrote for the fun of it. And she's written in a dozen fandoms, and has never created a universe from scratch.

"So if you don't sell a novel? Move on. Write something new and something better."

And how much time, do you suppose, he thinks should be devoted to this? A year? Ten? Something in between? Better would be to start something new, anything (sequel or completely different), as soon as the first is sent on its way to the first agent and/or editor on your list. And given how many people seem to break in with books that are followed by sequels or other books in that universe (mystery, fantasy, and SF are big genres for this), I have to wonder if they tried something different after book 1, or waited til they had a few under their belt, like, y'know, Dennis Lehane, who didn't have a standalone, Mystic River, til he had a few books in his Patrick and Angie series in print. I don't know what books he wrote first or in what order, but I believe he didn't write Mystic River until he had some of the others done. I doubt he could have written the superior Mystic River without having written some of his series first.

Finally, we get the caveat that should have come upfront, albeit in a shortened form:

"But whenever I'm offering general advice, it's all about odds -- your best odds are with a self-contained first novel, and when you're facing long odds to begin with, I think it's smart to avoid anything that makes you even more of an underdog."

Yes, it's about the odds. Of getting published. None of this advice has much to do with writing the best book(s) you can. I think you improve your odds of doing that by writing in a universe you believe in, with characters you can be excited about. I think you improve your odds by writing better than everyone else in the slush pile with you. I think you improve your odds if you can come up with something new or something with a new spin on an old idea. And by writing a publishable book, you improve your odds of getting published.

Same as it makes little sense to write according to trends (which don't tell you what's in the works, only what was bought by editors a year or two earlier), unless you want to write those kinds of books, ie write vampire stories because you like them, not just because they're hot right now.

Because he's a literary agent, his advice will be taken more seriously than uh, mine, because I'm just a former fanfic writer who hasn't even submitted her novel anywhere yet. But that doesn't mean his advice is gospel. As with any writing advice, take what you can use and leave the rest. And I think his advice would have been easier to swallow if he hadn't been so careless with his wording and so cavalier about "fun" writers, which is his term, not mine, and not a usage I've ever seen before. He would've been better to simply discuss the things that might impede the chance of getting your first novel published than to make it an issue re: what you should write. If that's not what he said or meant, it sure is how it seemed to me.

I would've posted this on my Blogger writing blog, but I think I've pretty much given up on that. So, I'm keeping it public here.