Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
It's really quite simple, in my opinion. If the author wrote/published the book as part of some greater whole, then it cannot possibly--by any stretch of the imagination--be considered a "stand alone" work. That some are willing to ignore the connections, or pretend the connections are not relevant (or important) does not enter into it. That you believe someone else (not you) should be able to safely read a book with no knowledge of the other works it's connected to does not change the fact that its creator chose to release it to the world as PART OF SOMETHING ELSE.
The bottom line is that the reader does not have a say in whether or a book is a stand-alone or not. Only the author does. And they say that by writing books that are not written and/or marketed as PART OF SOMETHING ELSE. I don't even grant authors the right to retroactively designate something they released as part of something else as a "standalone." It was written with previous and/or future installments of "the whole" in mind. That bell cannot be unrung.
...
|
How do you define "part of something else"?
Take Stephen King for example, a lot of his books have characters from other books, but I believe most people would consider them standalone (The Stand, Salem's Lot).