Quote:
Originally Posted by 4691mls
I like DiapDealer's use of the word "self-contained". This is a good way to describe a book where the story in the individual book can be read on its own and would make sense, but the book is part of a series.
|
Thanks.
And like I said, I have no problem with others defining their own terms, but when I ask for a stand alone reading recommendation, I personally don't want people mentioning books that are part of a series.
So if I can't use the term "stand alone" to filter out books that are part of a series, then what simple term
should I be using to filter out books that are part of a series--no matter the kind of series? Surely my particular
notion of what "stand alone" should mean deserves its own short, self-explanatory term that leaves no doubt that series installments are not to be included, no?
To me, "Stand alone" is hands-down the most apt term that I know of to describe such books (
this book has no ties of any kind to other books--IT STANDS ALONE!!), but it seems that others want to usurp it to describe different books that can be more accurately labeled using other terms.
