View Single Post
Old 11-15-2017, 08:50 PM   #133
DiapDealer
Grand Sorcerer
DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DiapDealer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
DiapDealer's Avatar
 
Posts: 28,661
Karma: 205039118
Join Date: Jan 2010
Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady View Post
Both Linwood Barclay and Harlan Coben have written books that have been set in the same fictional milieu and/or have re-used some secondary characters. I would still call them stand-alone books.
But why? Especially when Self-Contained is equally accurate (and happily accounts for the shared millieu). If the books have tendrils that connect them, then the author considers them pieces of a greater whole. If not, they wouldn't have reused some of the fictional components.

I'm not saying true stand-alone books are better, or anything like that. I'm merely saying that I need there to be a distinction. If stand-alone gets to be used for multiple books by the same author that share fictional components, then what term do I get to use to ask for recommendations for books that don't contain fictional characters and/or settings that are used in multiple books?
DiapDealer is online now   Reply With Quote