Anyone dislike series?

[Dan_Malone]

I used to love starting a new series - always great to read 1 book, love it and see there is 10-15 more featuring that character to read. But this year I've gravitated more towards standalone novels and thinking back to the year - I much prefer that. It's nice to be able to have each book as a separate story and remember it specifically - with series too I find they all blend together.

[GeoffR]

I like stand-alone novels and series both, but I think some good authors spend too much of their valuable time writing series, given the choice I'd prefer to read 12 stand-alone novels, a couple of short-story collections, and a couple of trilogies rather than one 20-book series.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GeoffR

I like stand-alone novels and series both, but I think some good authors spend too much of their valuable time writing series, given the choice I'd prefer to read 12 stand-alone novels, a couple of short-story collections, and a couple of trilogies rather than one 20-book series.

That's the author's choice to make, surely? Forgive me, but I think it's slightly presumptuous for a reader to tell an author what they "should" be writing. The author writes what they wish; you read what you wish. If the two happen to coincide, that's great, but there's no obligation on an author to satisfy your whims .

[DiapDealer]

I was always a big fan of fantasy when I was growing up. I would still be if there were a reasonable amount of true standalone novels in the genre to scratch the occasional itch. But there's not. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry gets a contract to write a fantasy series before anyone knows if the author is even capable of satisfactorily completing a multi-volume work.

So while I understand the "write what you like/read what you like philosophy, the fact is that fans of stand alone fantasy novels have very few options to "read what they like." I can't just mix in a one-off fantasy novel every now and then because no one's writing them. And I've already read most of the ones that do exist.

Starting a thread for recommendations for true stand alone fantasy novels will devolve into readers' rationalizations about why "this one" installment of their favorite series should be considered a stand-alone (it's not). And it will devolve inside of 4-5 posts. I've done it. "Series mentality" is so ingrained in the fantasy genre that fans have no choice but to grant special dispensation to books that are clearly part of a series to build a list of stand alone fantasy novels of any substance.

I've no doubt that for some (maybe even many) fantasy authors, "the series" is a natural side-effect of their artistic vision. But the fact that true one-offs in the genre are virtually non-existent is proof enough for me that the driving force behind this dogma is business and not art.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Tarana

A really good series novel doesn't require you to read the rest of the series in order to enjoy it. That is why many authors remain popular and vibrant. You can pick up book #22 and read it, having never read a thing before by that author, and enjoy it! Of course the disadvantage is if you picked up book #18 and it was one of the more disappointing books in the series, you aren't likely to pick up another one for that series. But, that's how it goes.

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't think that's true, Jon. There are many detective series that one can happily read the books in any order. You may get slightly more from them if you do read them in publication order in terms of ongoing character development, but not everybody has the luxury (or the desire) of doing that. If you borrow books from a library, for example, you'll just borrow what happens to be there at the time.

While what you say is undoubtedly true for some, maybe even the majority, of people, some of us just can't do it. I can't get my head around what I'm "missing" and enjoy a book to the fullest if I know there are others in the series that came before it. Sometimes you're really missing nothing, but whenever I know I'm reading a book from a series that I know has previous entries I find myself incapable of really enjoying it. Shrug, different strokes...

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

While what you say is undoubtedly true for some, maybe even the majority, of people, some of us just can't do it. I can't get my head around what I'm "missing" and enjoy a book to the fullest if I know there are others in the series that came before it. Sometimes you're really missing nothing, but whenever I know I'm reading a book from a series that I know has previous entries I find myself incapable of really enjoying it. Shrug, different strokes...

Different strokes because I don't mind reading out of order, unless it is an actual trilogy.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I was always a big fan of fantasy when I was growing up.

I've been wanting to go back and re-read some of the old fantasy and sci-fi books from my youth. Andre Norton was a favorite. I remember being very entertained by her juvenile series books like "Here Abide Monsters", "Crossroads of Time", etc. Also some of Heinlein's juvenile books - "Tunnel in the Sky", etc.

Ah, the books of my youth. Fond memories!

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's the author's choice to make, surely? Forgive me, but I think it's slightly presumptuous for a reader to tell an author what they "should" be writing. The author writes what they wish; you read what you wish. If the two happen to coincide, that's great, but there's no obligation on an author to satisfy your whims .

An author who does not attempt to appeal to potential readers is simply indulging in literary masturbation. My personal opinion is that many authors prefer series since an established series has an existing purchaser/reader base allowing the author to indulge in the luxuries of life, things like a roof, a pot, something to cook in the pot.

Admittedly, I read series, standalone, cereal boxes. I do tend to binge read a series when either a new book comes out or I just feel like re-visiting an old friend such as the last week's re-reading of David & Leigh Eddings' Belgararth set (all 13 of them) plus The Redemption of Althalus.

[Tarana]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But you don't know what happened in previous books that led up to what happened in #22 and reading #22 could spoil all of that. so no thank you. I'll either read in order or not at all.

I don't disagree with you on that. In some ways, it's true - you KNOW a character is still alive in book #22 so if you read about something happening to them in book #6, it will take away some of the suspense since you know they won't die. Most scifi is like that, so I do start with the first book and work my way through. Crime thrillers, not so much, because I know Harry Bosch is still going to be there in later books. Then you have series like Dresden Files where by book 4 or 5, you really HAVE to have read books in order because it is an ongoing story arc.

So, I guess it may be helpful to make up a listing of prolific CURRENT authors who primarily write standalones. My contribution for a currently writing author would be Robin Cook with a mention that most of Stephen King's novels are also stand-a-lone.

[seanyyz]

An interesting factoid: most of the great Victorian novels (e.g. Dickens) were originally published in a magazine form where you would get little installments each time a periodical was published until the novel was complete. There are stories of people waiting on the docks of New York harbor to get their hands on the next installment of whichever Victorian novel was being published then. Because there was no immediate communication between England and America British readers would find out whether a beloved character lived or died weeks before the American readers.

But these were not series in today’s sense because those novels were each a world unto themselves with a distinct beginning and end in the shape we associate with the modern novel.

And Shakespeare did it himself with for example Henry IV Part 1 being continued into a completely separate play, Henry IV Part 2.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by seanyyz

An interesting factoid: most of the great Victorian novels (e.g. Dickens) were originally published in a magazine form where you would get little installments each time a periodical was published until the novel was complete. There are stories of people waiting on the docks of New York harbor to get their hands on the next installment of whichever Victorian novel was being published then. Because there was no immediate communication between England and America British readers would find out whether a beloved character lived or died weeks before the American readers.

But these were not series in today’s sense because those novels were each a world unto themselves with a distinct beginning and end in the shape we associate with the modern novel.

And Shakespeare did it himself with for example Henry IV Part 1 being continued into a completely separate play, Henry IV Part 2.

Installment books are commonly referred to as serials or episodes in today's ebook world. Or if you get too many going, the author can become known as a money grabber.

[ekbell]

My memory is horribly quirky but I do enjoy series fiction as long as each book either has a full plot or the (sub)series is short. I have never been able to reliably remember all details from the beginning of a book to the end knowing so being able to keep track of all details from one book to another has never been much of a concern. Spoilers are simply not something that effects my enjoyment and my grasp of chronology or character development isn't often helped by reading in series order or hindered by reading out of series order so I don't really care about reading books with a standalone plot out of order (the associations I lose by not having read an earlier book are generally made up for by associations gained from reading a later book -wondering what happened is just as enjoyable as wondering where they are going).

(In fact I read fanfic for shows I've never seen just to enjoy the gradual accumulation of 'canon' knowledge acquired though the different retellings (it's like studying folktales and/or history!))

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ekbell

My memory is horribly quirky but I do enjoy series fiction as long as each book either has a full plot or the (sub)series is short. I have never been able to reliably remember all details from the beginning of a book to the end knowing so being able to keep track of all details from one book to another has never been much of a concern. Spoilers are simply not something that effects my enjoyment and my grasp of chronology or character development isn't often helped by reading in series order or hindered by reading out of series order so I don't really care about reading books with a standalone plot out of order (the associations I lose by not having read an earlier book are generally made up for by associations gained from reading a later book -wondering what happened is just as enjoyable as wondering where they are going).

(In fact I read fanfic for shows I've never seen just to enjoy the gradual accumulation of 'canon' knowledge acquired though the different retellings (it's like studying folktales and/or history!))

I recently finished Naked in Death. I am glad I didn't read it first. The later ones were better.

[DiapDealer]

I refuse to call a book that shares fictional characters (or a fictional world) with another book a "stand alone."

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Tarana

Crime thrillers, not so much, because I know Harry Bosch is still going to be there in later books.

But there could be other characters that are or are not there and if you read #22, you spoil that big time. And there could be things that happen to Harry that you spoil as well. It's not as standalone as you think. In fact, it's not standalone at all.

Then you have series like Dresden Files where by book 4 or 5, you really HAVE to have read books in order because it is an ongoing story arc.

Yes, you do have to read series like this in order. And then again the Harry Bosch series is also one you have to read in order. You show me one series where nothing written in a book that's at least the 5th book where it has nothing to do with the books that came before. You can't because it's not possible. It doesn't work that way.