Series from the Perspective of Readers and Authors

[xendula]

The advantage for an author, who needs to make a living, is that a tried and true series will have readers pre-order amd order the new installment. From my point of view as a reader, I know I will meet "old friends" again, and see how their lives and relationships progress. I know that last sentence I read in the latest installment is not the last one forever, and that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling

That said, I find it irritating that trilogies are the preferred form of publishing in the dystopian genre. Is it because The Hundergames trilogy was so successful? What's so magical about the number 3?! Every time I pick up a new dystopian that appears to be a stand-alone novel (thanks to Amazon's way of NOT showing you series names and installment numbers), it turns out to be the first in a trilogy. Ugh.

[Turtle91]

Originally Posted by xendula

Every time I pick up a new dystopian that appears to be a stand-alone novel (thanks to Amazon's way of NOT showing you series names and installment numbers), it turns out to be the first in a trilogy. Ugh.

Or even worse....the 2nd!

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

Recurring characters can become a lazy man's way of cranking out novels.

So then TV series should be one episode only. They have recurring characters.

[Turtle91]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So then TV series should be one episode only. They have recurring characters.

Maybe we should get rid of marriage/family as well....I mean...you don't want to get too comfortable with the same people over and over again....

:edit: see Jon, I can agree with you sometimes!

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

Maybe we should get rid of marriage/family as well....I mean...you don't want to get too comfortable with the same people over and over again....

And we can only post on this forum once. We can't become recurring characters.

[Turtle91]

[applesauce]

I love them, they are like a comfy pair of pjs. Something to snuggle into like coming home. I love them when I do not know what to read, I love them after a tombstone.
My favourites are Deathworld and Blade. Simple easy reads. If I find another set of books in this setting I would add them in a heart beat. Any suggestions jumped on.
Now Game of Thrones, well drool, but I am not sure anything else could come close. I hate being made to wait. I have to include him in my prayers so he doesnt drop off the pearch before finishing. I would actually be devastated of he did. Not sure I like being that invested. It is kind of creepy.

applesauce

[Yolina]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So then TV series should be one episode only. They have recurring characters.

No but people are free to watch or not watch TV series - I choose not to , actually I don't watch TV very often.

[Turtle91]

Originally Posted by Yolina

No but people are free to watch or not watch TV series - I choose not to , actually I don't watch TV very often.

I'm not sure what your point is? Are they MANDATED to read sequels???

[Yolina]

Eh? My point was that it's personal choice - I'm no fan of series so mostly tend to avoid them, however that doesn't mean that they shouldn't exist. And by the same token, it's not because some people (maybe the majority?) like series that there should be only that.

[Turtle91]

OK...I don't think anyone is saying there should ONLY be series. The point was that some professor was saying that it was bad, or a crutch, for an author to have a series. If that argument was applied to TV, we couldn't have a series, only single episodes/movies.

I like both - where it makes sense. I really enjoy going back to a known setting and reading different stories, like Bradley's "Darkover" or Anthony's "Xanth". I also really like reading about a single character when that character/storyline is actually progressing, like Ayla in the Earthchildren series. I like single books/stories, like Raymond Feist's "Faerie Tale"...although sometimes I really wish there would be a sequel when I think the story isn't quite finished, like Dave Duncan's "The Cursed". I really did NOT like Edgar Rice Burroughs' "Tarzan" series because it was 20+ books of the same character without a logical tie between the stories...He was a baby in the late 1700's (early 1800's??) and then he was in his mid thirties fighting in WW1??!! Wut? I mean, Tarzan is cool and all, but he's no Captain America!

Cheers,

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by Corkobo

I think writers write series for the simple reason that readers read (and thus demand) series.

Hmmm, that's a very down to earth point of view to it -- and most probably quite true

I do like to imagine, however, that writers write what they think is important for them to write (any sales being a fortunate coincidence). From that point of view authors write series because they want to do so. I think the Updike Rabbit novels are a nice example, I don't imagine Updike writing the later books in the series are there just because they'd likely sell.

[Yolina]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

some professor was saying that it was bad, or a crutch, for an author to have a series.

Even though I don't really like them, I don't think it's "bad" or "wrong" to have series - people are free to write and read what they wish and enjoy I would never criticise anyone's reading preferences.

I remember an office I used to work in many years ago where a few people decided that I was some kind of "book snob" because I mostly read I guess what is labelled as literary fiction (I don't like neatly defined labels btw) rather than the type of books that they liked reading. When I explained that no, I didn't think "my" books were better than "their" books and we just liked different things, they then thought that I was weird

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

I really did NOT like Edgar Rice Burroughs' "Tarzan" series because it was 20+ books of the same character without a logical tie between the stories...He was a baby in the late 1700's (early 1800's??) and then he was in his mid thirties fighting in WW1??!! Wut? I mean, Tarzan is cool and all, but he's no Captain America!

Cheers,

Actually, Tarzan was born in the 1880's and his stories ran pretty much in real-time until the 30's when it became clear that the witch doctor that had rewarded him for saving his life wasn't just blowing smoke. Around that time, he came into possession of a life extension formula which is why Jane and his near relatives no longer age. (The monkey Nkima is also getting regular doses of the little pills.)
So no, he's no time-lost Steve Rogers but he is pretty much immortal.

Oh, and while about half of the Tarzan books are in fact potboiler fan-service, there actually is an extended narrative arc (and a cross-over!) that spans the other half the titles. And even in the potboilers, Burroughs took care to keep his continuity straight. Unlike 60's-70's TV shows that were designed to be watched in any random order, there is a general progression to the Tarzan books.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So then TV series should be one episode only. They have recurring characters.

there is fine distinction between TV Serial and Series.
Some are equivalent to Short stories (eg CSI). Others are closer to Serials.

I have read a lot of Analog published Serials over the years
Remember the Story where the White Dragon was Born Hatched? (And how long we had to WAIT for the sequel )