I'm writing a book, but my editor says different.

[Cobbah]

I'm writing a book and have passed it to my editor who has come back and said I should make it a trilogy.

I'm not sure I want to do that. So my question to you all is.

Do you always follow the recommendations of your editor?

[TimothyEllis]

I don't have an editor.

My only attempt at a stand alone resulting in the first dozen reviews all calling for a sequel or trilogy. I did the trilogy, but started with only 1.5 books worth of story ideas.

If your editor is saying make it a trilogy, it's most likely the ending leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and readers will pick up on this and down-star you for it.

If you don't want to take your editor's word for it, have a few beta readers read it as well, and see what they say without asking the question at all.

Editors are not always right, but if several other people all say the same thing, you can assume it is right.

The other thing is go back to the editor and ask why it should be a trilogy. And make sure you get hard answers, not waffled ones. There should be actual reason for continuing the story on.

If nothing else, you might find you can edit the existing story to fix anything left open, and thus not need a sequel.

[Bill Hiatt]

One of the virtues of self publishing is that you can take your editor's advice or not.

I consider editorial feedback carefully, and I always find that it makes my work better, but I often reject some of the recommendations. Sometimes, I don't like the editor's specific suggestion but understand what the editor had a problem with and end up revising the affected text, but not in the way the editor recommended. (Different path to same result) Sometimes, I try something the editor wanted and realize it doesn't work and/or creates other problems.

[idontknowyet]

Genre matters for length. If its fantasy for example longer books sell better. A 120k book might do better than 3 50-70k ones.

Other genres do better with smaller books so I would take that into consideration.

[PJ Post]

From a marketing perspective, trilogies are almost always going to work better than standalones. But it may be that your book doesn't have a concise enough theme or plot to function as a single book. If the narrative changes gears too much it can be off-putting for the reader, and they end up not finishing. However, in a trilogy, we expect new books to be somewhat different.

[Lu Kudzoza]

When you say "make it a trilogy" do you mean more books after this one or break this book into three books?

[LilyBLily]

I got told the same thing by an editor who did not seem to grasp that the story about three intertwined people could not be broken up into three separate books--not unless one was being very artsy-fartsy and essentially retelling the story each time from a different POV. (On the other hand, I believed another editor who told me my plot included the kitchen sink.)

I would ask the editor why s/he recommended a trilogy. It's perfectly okay to have created interesting secondary characters who might make wonderful leads characters in a follow-up book yet not write that second book, but it could be a missed opportunity.

Since we do so much fiddling with our prices and with loss leaders, creating a series gives us a chance to amortize ad costs and make a profit on the sell-through. If some characters or plot points are crying out for their own books, that's all to the good. We might be too close to the story to see it. I don't think the makers of the first superhero movie including Loki had any intention of turning Tom Hiddleston into a heartthrob; viewers did that, and the word of mouth got to the execs and now he's getting his own movies. Similarly, it might be that readers of your stand alone see potential you don't yet see.

[idontknowyet]

I got told the same thing by an editor who did not seem to grasp that the story about three intertwined people could not be broken up into three separate books--not unless one was being very artsy-fartsy and essentially retelling the story each time from a different POV. (On the other hand, I believed another editor who told me my plot included the kitchen sink.)

I would ask the editor why s/he recommended a trilogy. It's perfectly okay to have created interesting secondary characters who might make wonderful leads characters in a follow-up book yet not write that second book, but it could be a missed opportunity.

Since we do so much fiddling with our prices and with loss leaders, creating a series gives us a chance to amortize ad costs and make a profit on the sell-through. If some characters or plot points are crying out for their own books, that's all to the good. We might be too close to the story to see it. I don't think the makers of the first superhero movie including Loki had any intention of turning Tom Hiddleston into a heartthrob; viewers did that, and the word of mouth got to the execs and now he's getting his own movies. Similarly, it might be that readers of your stand alone see potential you don't yet see.

No no no plz don't tell me they made Loki a heartthrob.... LALALALALA I cant hear you.

[LilyBLily]

I got told the same thing by an editor who did not seem to grasp that the story about three intertwined people could not be broken up into three separate books--not unless one was being very artsy-fartsy and essentially retelling the story each time from a different POV. (On the other hand, I believed another editor who told me my plot included the kitchen sink.)

I would ask the editor why s/he recommended a trilogy. It's perfectly okay to have created interesting secondary characters who might make wonderful leads characters in a follow-up book yet not write that second book, but it could be a missed opportunity.

Since we do so much fiddling with our prices and with loss leaders, creating a series gives us a chance to amortize ad costs and make a profit on the sell-through. If some characters or plot points are crying out for their own books, that's all to the good. We might be too close to the story to see it. I don't think the makers of the first superhero movie including Loki had any intention of turning Tom Hiddleston into a heartthrob; viewers did that, and the word of mouth got to the execs and now he's getting his own movies. Similarly, it might be that readers of your stand alone see potential you don't yet see.

No no no plz don't tell me they made Loki a heartthrob.... LALALALALA I cant hear you.

Don't you mean? 

[Dormouse]

my editor who has come back and said I should make it a trilogy.

I'd sack any editor who said that without explaining the reasons.
No way of implementing it without the reasoning.
I would not expect to have to ask.

[Cobbah]

I would like to thank Bill Hiatt for actually reading the opening post and replying to the question.

[Joe Vasicek]

For the stuff I self-publish, I use beta readers and a copy editor. Most of their suggestions aren't on such a high level, but when they are, I take them seriously and implement between a half to a third of them. If one of them suggested turning the book into a trilogy, I'd consider it.

The only stuff I publish traditionally are short stories, and the editors usually just publish it as is.

[The Bass Bagwhan]

I'm an editor, and my own editor, so to answer the question — yes, I do everything my editor suggests.
When I editor another writer's work I always err on the side of caution and make any suggestions I deem appropriate, because the author can always choose to ignore or reject that edit. There's no point in second-guessing what an author does, or doesn't, want to be told. With that in mind, you'd expect  to have some of your edits knocked back.
However, unless this is an editor who is asked to provide developmental feedback, it feels a little like overstepping the mark. And it's worth asking, is the editor's "big picture" view of the story and manuscript at odds with yourself?

[Crystal]

You're paying this person for their feedback. Treat the feedback like it has value and like it's a thing you've paid for. You can reject the idea, but you should consider why your editor has suggested it.

[Vijaya]

Cobbah, I always listen and take into consideration what my editors tell me. Most of the time, they're right, and my story's better for it. But sometimes they miss the point (and not necessarily from lack of clarity) and I can justify my position.
Expanding a stand-alone novel into a trilogy is a biggie. Did your editor tell you why? Does the advice resonate? If so, then consider it. Try it out. If not, then not. It's your story.

[Lorri Moulton]

I'm writing a book and have passed it to my editor who has come back and said I should make it a trilogy.

I'm not sure I want to do that. So my question to you all is.

Do you always follow the recommendations of your editor?

As others have said, you need clarification.  Maybe your editor loves the characters.  Maybe he/she think it has enough threads to continue the story.  Once you know why, then you can decide what you want to do.