Which One is Better: Series Or Standalone?

I read…a lot. Anyone who has happened upon my blog will know this. And since I read a lot, I start to notice patterns. I’ve done several other posts on things that I like or that bother me in literature, but today I’m going to compare two types of books: a standalone and a series. After reading many of both, I’ve noticed each have their strengths and weaknesses. As a writer as well as an active reader, it’s important for me to understand what I like about both to help me write and review books better.

Down in the comments, I’d love to hear whether you prefer reading a series or a standalone. So, let’s get into the benefits and negatives of both.


Whether it is three books long, or forty books+, a series can be so much more detailed than a standalone book. You can get into characters’ lives, seeing them change over years. In a standalone, you are limited to only three to five hundred pages (on average). In a series, you can introduce more characters and understand the world in more detail. You’re not limited by length.

However, length is also a double-edged sword. If, for example, you really want to get two characters together, in a series you may have to wait seven or more books. In a standalone, you know that the entire arch of their relationship will be finished in that one book. The foreshadowing and payoff is quicker in a standalone, making it ideal for people who don’t want to wait five books for the villain to be defeated.


This thought is gear more towards fantasy/sci-fi novels, but it could work for any genre. If you have an incredibly detailed world, it is difficult to get everything into one book without feeling like there are constant info dumps. A series gives you a chance to examine different parts of a world organically without putting too many things into the first book. That, and in a standalone novel, most aspects of the world have to be covered rather shallowly.

Saying that, if you are writing a pretty generic world and want to only detail a couple aspects of the world, than a standalone would be better. If you don’t have a compelling story to tell and an interesting world to examine, it’s just going to pull the series down. Having extra time world-building may be actually a bad thing, depending on what kind of writer is writing the series.

More Characters

Again, this can be both good and bad. In a series, you can have a lot more characters because you have more time to develop them. However, it also means the readers have more to keep track of. You don’t know how many times I start reading a series, go away from it, and come back to one of the later books with no recollection of who is who.

In a standalone, you can’t add that many characters because it confuses the reader. However, you don’t have to worry about keeping track of a large cast of characters over several entries (I’m looking at you, Game of Thrones) and you know every character’s arch begins and ends in that single book.

Keeping Engagement

This is one of the biggest negatives of a series. In a standalone, you know what you’re getting into when you start. You have one book to read, from start to finish. When it comes to a series, only the first book may be out and you have no idea how long the series will be. You may read the first few books and then get bored.

This is that hardest part of writing a series. There is that constant pressure to make the next book better, raising expectations. It’s hard, if not impossible, to keep hype going forever. This works fine in series whose endings are planned or are shorter (like Lord of the Rings or any series planned as a trilogy). But for fantasy series that go on and on, it is impossible to keep readers engaged forever. In a standalone, you don’t have to worry about future engagement, just keeping readers engaged in one book.

The Big Plot and The Little Plot

In a single entry of a series, you must have two plots: the plot that encompasses that single book and the plot which carries through to the sequel. For example, in Harry Potter each book takes place over one year at school, dealing with the misadventures of Harry and his friends. But the big plot is figuring out how to defeat Voldemort. In this sense, there has to be a balance with plot progression for the sake of the big and the little story.

In a standalone, there is only the little plot. The plot that will start and finish in that one book. Not only is it easier for an author to write, but it is easier for the reader to keep track of.


As you can see by my list, there are positives and negatives to both series and standalones. I honestly prefer standalones myself, usually because I don’t want to get sucked into twenty+ books of one series. I will occasionally read a short series which is completed or some murder mysteries, but rarely do I read long series. But I can understand why so many people love them.

Which do you prefer? Did I miss any flaws or strengths of either? Let me know your thoughts down in the comments, follow my blog for more musings and, as always,

Best wishes in your life full of adventure,

Madame Writer

23 thoughts on “Which One is Better: Series Or Standalone?

  1. Definitely agree with your argument about maintaining reader engagement, Anne. πŸ™‚ Much easier to hook people’s initial interest with a single stand-along book than to spread it out over a number of novels and implicitly reassure them that the quality remains the same through to the end.
    On the flip-side, if you begin a new series with a strong start and finish each work with an engaging cliffhanger / sequel hook, it might encourage readers to continue reading rather than just a single damp-squib debut that loses readers halfway through.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You make a good point. I’ve read a lot of series which have a strong start but then get weak, but most of the best series books end in a sequel hook to get the reader reading the next book. And standalones are definitely easier to write, because a series book has to both tell a story and set up for the rest of the series.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Standalones are my choice most of the time, but a mini-series of two or three books isn’t too bad. To write? Definitely standalone. My mind is always exploring new ideas and to stay stuck in one town with the same characters would bore me, but if it is a series with several authors contributing it can be fun and breaks up the monotony of the same voice in each book.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Interesting. That’s cool, because I’m the opposite. I struggle getting into a really long series, though I understand the appeal. You can really get into a world and a group of characters with a series, whereas you can’t in a standalone.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. It’s been ages since I read anything longer than a trilogy, and the trilogies I’ve read are also few and far between. I guess that’d indicate I prefer standalones, but now that I think about it, I don’t really have anything against series… I guess they appeal to different types, and I just fell off the wagon where the series lovers sit.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. When I was younger and first discovered reading I was definitely all for series – some of my favourites being PJO and HP, and many more – but now I find I much prefer standalones. Not only are my usual favourite genres, like classics, usually standalones, but also I find starting a series is such a huge committment now; and I always let too much time pass before I continue with the sequels.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. True and precisely why I couldn’t choose. Though, since commenting on your post, I’ve thought of a hybrid form: the series centered on a main character or small set of characters in stand alone tales ie: Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan novels.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Firstly, this was a great post.

    I prefer standalones and sometimes I don’t mind a trilogy, but it has to be well done and in a timely frame too as the Luc Moncrief trio James Patterson collaborated on. The only series I was never mad at was the Alex Cross one for it kept me at the edge of my seat, but I’ve outgrown it now.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you! I prefer standalones too, though I understand that some series can be really great! I haven’t read Alex Cross, but the series in on my TBR. Also, I found a couple of your comments in my spam folder and approved them. I don’t know why they thought they were spam…

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You’re welcome! Whether you like te series or not, if/whenever you get around to it, I’ll like to know your thoughts. Ah, I blame WordPress. πŸ˜‰

        Liked by 1 person

  6. To be honest, I think I prefer short series to standalones, especially with characters that I love. Maybe a duology or a trilogy, something like that. Everything you’ve said here is spot on, and I agree that it is really hard to keep a readers interest with a very long series. However, with long series that are mysteries, many of the books can be read as standalones as well, so I think that’s another perk of long series.

    Great post πŸ™‚

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I agree with you. I certainly prefer standalones or shorter series. And you’re right that many mystery series can be read as standalones, which is why mysteries are the only long series I read. Thank you!

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s