Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Catlady
Suppose a writer sets several novels in, say, Hollywood, and various actual celebrities appear repeatedly as background characters, to lend a sense of place and verisimilitude. But the books are otherwise unrelated and tell independent stories with different protagonists. Wouldn't those be stand-alones despite having the same backdrop?
If so, why would the backdrop being fictional land those same books in your self-contained category?
|
It wouldn't. The actual celebrities aren't fictional. Neither is Hollywood. So the backdrop isn't fictional.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Catlady
Because too many books then morph into series books when they really are stand-alones. When the only connection is a location and a handful of minor characters, there's no logical reason to go by publication date. It's actually BECAUSE I am a stickler for reading series books in order that I would make the distinction.
|
Though publication order is important to me (with regard to connected books), it's actually the least of my concerns for this particular exercise. I'm perfectly capable of deciding when I can read books by the same author in any order I want. But that's predicated on ME actually KNOWING that books are connected in a way that would be likely to influence my decision. Authors and other readers playing fast and loose with the term "stand-alone" make it much more difficult for me to know how I should tackle an author's works in such a way to best appease my personal sense of "order."