Anyone dislike series?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

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.

Or chapter books.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

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

Well said. Thanks.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

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

The thing is, with the In Death series, things that happened back at the beginning are referred to later on in the series. So that is a good example of a series that should be read in order.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

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

Of course, with some series there is quite a bit of discussion about what is the best order to read since they were published out of chronological order. MZB's Darkover series jumped all over the place chronologically. The Hornblower series was published out of chronological order as well. Many series that aren't a continuous story arc get published out of chronological order

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Or chapter books.

Jon, it is my understanding that chapter books are what children read after beginner books. They are called chapter books because they have chapters.

Of course, we could both be right.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The thing is, with the In Death series, things that happened back at the beginning are referred to later on in the series. So that is a good example of a series that should be read in order.

Actually not in my case, because I really didn't care for NID.

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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.

And some of us don't care or might even :gasp: enjoy spoilers! IMO there is no one true way to read for pure enjoyment, there is simply knowing yourself well enough to know what and how you best enjoy reading (and realizing that other people will be different)

My enjoyment for reading books without having the expected level of knowledge may be perverse by some standards but I've greatly enjoyed reading and re-reading different series in order, out-of-order and backwards depending on my mood and availabity and I'm not going to change my reading habits based on someone's preferences. When it comes to matters of enjoyment there is no one true way!

I do agree that while series books can have independent plots (and be stand-alone in that sense) calling them standalones without qualification would only be accurate if each book was a reset with no long term series development.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ekbell

And some of us don't care or might even :gasp: enjoy spoilers! IMO there is no one true way to read for pure enjoyment, there is simply knowing yourself well enough to know what and how you best enjoy reading (and realizing that other people will be different)

My enjoyment for reading books without having the expected level of knowledge may be perverse by some standards but I've greatly enjoyed reading and re-reading different series in order, out-of-order and backwards depending on my mood and availabity and I'm not going to change my reading habits based on someone's preferences. When it comes to matters of enjoyment there is no one true way!

I do agree that while series books can have independent plots (and be stand-alone in that sense) calling them standalones without qualification would only be accurate if each book was a reset with no long term series development.

The only books I have found that it might be better to read in order are Cheaper by the dozen and Belles on their Toes. Though you can read/watch one without the other.
Note: The Clifton Webb version not the Steve Martin version.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Jon, it is my understanding that chapter books are what children read after beginner books. They are called chapter books because they have chapters.

Of course, we could both be right.

A chapter book is a book released in parts with those parts being each chapter.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

A chapter book is a book released in parts with those parts being each chapter.

I have other titles for those.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I have other titles for those.

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.

For some reason, I was under the impression that Dicken's Pickwick Papers was the original serialized in a cheap form novel.

I read quite a few science fiction novels that were originally serialized in Astounding/Analog, Worlds of If, etc. Now most of the serialized stories I read are in the Grantville Gazette. As long as the break is at a reasonable point, it's not bad.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

A chapter book is a book released in parts with those parts being each chapter.

In the US at least, you are incorrect. Chapter books are books for young readers.

The books you are referring to (like The Green Mile or the way Dickens was originally published) are referred to as serial novels.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by DNSB

For some reason, I was under the impression that Dicken's Pickwick Papers was the original serialized in a cheap form novel.

I read quite a few science fiction novels that were originally serialized in Astounding/Analog, Worlds of If, etc. Now most of the serialized stories I read are in the Grantville Gazette. As long as the break is at a reasonable point, it's not bad.

I was not referring to magazine books.

I was referring to the tie the girl to the railroad track so the reader has to pay $2.99 to find out if Dudley Do Right saved the day only to discover that Polly Purebred is now trapped in the pound. Spend $2.99 to see if Underdog shows up, then at the end of that book, Bull Winkle is lost while Rocky fools around with Lola of Kinks fame.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I was not referring to magazine books.

I was referring to the tie the girl to the railroad track so the reader has to pay $2.99 to find out if Dudley Do Right saved the day only to discover that Polly Purebred is now trapped in the pound. Spend $2.99 to see if Underdog shows up, then at the end of that book, Bull Winkle is lost while Rocky fools around with Lola of Kinks fame.

You don't love cliffhangers? <horrified look!!!>

Sadly I'm old enough to remember the fuss when Lola was first released. Not to mention the fuss a bit earlier when Spanky & Our Gang released Give A Damn -- that word is going to lead the youth of the nation straight into Satan's hands.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by ekbell

And some of us don't care or might even :gasp: enjoy spoilers! IMO there is no one true way to read for pure enjoyment, there is simply knowing yourself well enough to know what and how you best enjoy reading (and realizing that other people will be different)

My enjoyment for reading books without having the expected level of knowledge may be perverse by some standards but I've greatly enjoyed reading and re-reading different series in order, out-of-order and backwards depending on my mood and availabity and I'm not going to change my reading habits based on someone's preferences. When it comes to matters of enjoyment there is no one true way!

I do agree that while series books can have independent plots (and be stand-alone in that sense) calling them standalones without qualification would only be accurate if each book was a reset with no long term series development.

I agree there is no right or wrong way to read a series - in order or out of order, whatever you like.

In the case of mystery series such as the Harry Bosch series mentioned upthread, I could see that one person might want to read the series in order, seeing the character age and evolve over time However, another person might just enjoy reading about a policeman solving a mystery and as long as the mystery in each book stands alone, such a reader might not care about the character's personal life.