|
If there was just post #125, then yes, King's would fit as "stand-alone", but DiapDealer then extends that in #127 and #129 in ways that start to try to exclude the those works.
The problem is that it's a continuum. From books that have no fictional overlap; to books that share minor characters and/or incidental settings (most of King's early stuff); to books that share major characters and/or significant settings but remain separate stories whose order/history is mostly irrelevant (most of Christie's); to books that clearly form an overarching history but are nonetheless independent stories (most of Pratchett's*); to collections where some must be read in order and some don't (often the first book of a series is able to be read on it's own); then books that tell a whole story in each book but clearly form a single larger story where the reader is expected to start at the start and work all the way through (the Harry Potter series); to a book series that is really just one huge story (Donaldson's Gap series).
I haven't really covered all the possible permutations, but you should get the idea.
What most readers really want to know is: "can I pick up this book and get a complete, understandable story without having read anything else first".
For this purpose the distinctions made earlier between "stand-alone" and "self-contained" are (or should be) irrelevant. People that care about such things will still try to read in publication order (or whatever), but that's a separate argument*.
* No, JSWolf, please don't start. I'm not arguing ideals, I'm giving examples.
|