Quote:
Originally Posted by 4691mls
Some people define "stand-alone" to mean "you could read this book, not having read anything else in this series or by this author, and it would make sense as a complete story".
Others define "stand-alone" to mean "this book has nothing to do with any other book".
I think we need a new label for one of these definitions!
|
What series is there that has at least one book that has nothing to do with any other book in the same series. This does not mean books in the same universe.
I disagree that the first definition fits for standalone. I think it's the second definition.
Take the Dresden Files series. Most of the books have a complete story with an ending. But are they standalone? Not at all. There are references sometimes to the past and some references may not make sense without knowing what went before. You can pick a book and read it and then pick a different book and find that things have changed a lot.
The only thing I find that can be a problem is when the author writes the series out of timeline order. The question then becomes should the series be read in chronological order or in order written.
But as for standalone, can anyone take a book in the middle of a series and find it has no references to anything from a previous book and there is no noticeable change in any of the characters from any of the previous books. In other words, is the series so dull that you can pick a random book and it is stand alone?