Quote:
Originally Posted by 4691mls
We've been through this before in some other thread about series. Some people think "stand-alone" means you can read this book and it will make sense to you even if you've never read anything else by this author, and there's no cliffhanger requiring you to buy another book.
Others, like Jon, think "stand-alone" should mean only a book that has nothing at all to do with any other book.
I think besides series or stand-alone we need a 3rd term to describe the type of book that makes sense on its own, but has connections to or could spoil other books if you read it first.
|
Even if you think some Discworld books work on their own, not every Discworld book would b e stand-alone. But even if you think that some are stand-alone, you may find more enjoyment from having read previous books. For example, the first book gives you a good in depth look at the main city in the series and it's good to get this knowledge as other books reference tyhis city even if they don't take lace there.