Series, series and more damned series!

[DiapDealer]

And that is always good, because it seems the reread is always richer, than the first time around.

I wouldn't say that's always good. I rarely re-read... and rarely enjoy it when I try. Perhaps that's why a lot of series annoy me: re-reading is almost a requirement sometimes and I don't care for the re-reading experience.

[afa]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I love the way Rothfuss writes... but I absolutely hate the format he's chosen (that's quite often my dilemma these days).

Hmmm... Interesting. That's a good point.

Any (recent) examples of trilogies or series that fit the bill? (If you mention Sword of Shannara again, I will hurt you.)

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Or at least says "no," when the publisher waves cash under their nose and says; "are you absolutely sure you don't have a sequel in you?"

Come on. That's a complaint which I absolutely don't buy. Like when people complain about certain NBA players making more money than they should, as if they expect athletes to turn down money.

We shouldn't hold others' to standards that we ourselves are not able to meet. When was the last time you turned down money (significant money) for something you knew you could do, based on purely on 'principles'?

I try to do my best at my job, and think I do alright. But if someone offered me triple my salary to do the exact same thing, I certainly wouldn't hesitate to accept. And I don't think you would, either.

[afa]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

I never did try The Dark Tower (non)Trilogy. I am also very surprised that there have been add'l books.

My Stephen King phase was very short lived. I read It, The Shining, The Stand and The Dark Half (my favorite of the lot), but I gave up after not being able to complete Gerald's Game, The Tommyknockers, or Dolores Claiborne. I just couldn't get into any of them.

Was The Dark Tower supposed to be a trilogy? I only got into the books once all of them were out, so I guess I didn't experience the excruciating wait that some did. Annoyingly enough, though, King is now writing more books in the series.

And Dolores Claiborne! Oh my God! I remember that. One of the worst books I have ever had the misfortune of reading. That book alone soured me off trying King for several years.

[afa]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I wouldn't say that's always good. I rarely re-read... and rarely enjoy it when I try. Perhaps that's why a lot of series annoy me: re-reading is almost a requirement sometimes and I don't care for the re-reading experience.

I haven't re-read a novel in a long time. Basically since I got into Fantasy; I suppose the very fact that most Fantasy seems to come in big, fat series made it unlikely. (Technically, I have read The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter multiple times, but for various reasons I don't count that period as my being a Fantasy reader.)

I remember a time I used to do so. I've read all my old books (mostly thrillers like Grisham, Koontz, Crichton, etc.) several times. Each. I used to enjoy it.

One of these days, I will do my first Fantasy re-read. I'll probably start with The First Law.

[DustyDisks]

Originally Posted by afa

I haven't re-read a novel in a long time. Basically since I got into Fantasy; I suppose the very fact that most Fantasy seems to come in big, fat series made it unlikely. (Technically, I have read The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter multiple times, but for various reasons I don't count that period as my being a Fantasy reader.)

I remember a time I used to do so. I've read all my old books (mostly thrillers like Grisham, Koontz, Crichton, etc.) several times. Each. I used to enjoy it.

One of these days, I will do my first Fantasy re-read. I'll probably start with The First Law.

If a book that is good and you liked it the first time, sets on your self long enough, for most people, rereading it maybe better than the first time. Almost always you will find stuff you missed on the first read. That is why in my earlier post on this thread, that rereading can be richer than the first go around.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by afa

Any (recent) examples of trilogies or series that fit the bill? (If you mention Sword of Shannara again, I will hurt you.)

That wasn't meant to be a recommendation for or against... just used as an illustration. But no, no true (recent) trilogies (SF/F) come immediately to mind. They're more rare than a blue-speckled pup nowadays. But I'll get back to you when I think of any.

When was the last time you turned down money (significant money) for something you knew you could do, based on purely on 'principles'?

Seriously? Two days ago. I didn't like the guy that was offering me the job. And again a couple of months before that. It's quite a regular habit of mine... but so is being broke, so there you go. I've quit multiple jobs on principle alone, too. I believe everyone should do it at least once.

But no, I don't EXPECT authors to turn down money for "extending" their story. It would just be refreshing to occasionally hear of one that was willing to say; "No. That story is complete. I'm writing a new story, though. Hopefully my previous successes will convince you to publish it." That's all.

[DuskyRose]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But no, I don't EXPECT authors to turn down money for "extending" their story. It would just be refreshing to occasionally hear of one that was willing to say; "No. That story is complete. I'm writing a new story, though. Hopefully my previous successes will convince you to publish it." That's all.

If they did, why would you expect to hear about it? How do you know it doesn't happen all the time?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DuskyRose

If they did, why would you expect to hear about it? How do you know it doesn't happen all the time?

Simple. The dearth of true stand-alone novels in the Speculative genre makes it highly unlikely that it's happening "all the time."

[DuskyRose]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Simple. The dearth of true stand-alone novels in the Speculative genre makes it highly unlikely that it's happening "all the time."

Maybe I'm not catching what you mean by 'Speculative'. My understanding of it includes just about all the fiction there is...

"Speculative literature is a catch-all term meant to inclusively span the breadth of fantastic literature, encompassing literature ranging from hard science fiction to epic fantasy to ghost stories to horror to folk and fairy tales to slipstream to magical realism to modern myth-making -- and more."
Speculative Literature Foundation

So unless you're really meaning something more specific, I guess I'm just not seeing it.

[Pinecone]

I like series. I like serials. I like stand alone books.

As long as they are well written and have good characters and plots.

And there are series and there are series. There are series that each book is a stand alone story, that just happens to have the same main character(s). Then there is the series in which time really passes and each story builds on the previous books, but each book is a complete plot. And finally, there is the series that is more like an extended serial, where the books cover a sequence of events and events carry over from one book to another.

[BenG]

There are series and series. I don't mind the ones that use the same characters and setting but wrap up the story by the end of the book. You can stop reading them any time you become bored with them and not miss out on the conclusion of a story. The Discworld books are like this as well as the Xanth books and many detective novels.

Tolkien had it right. He had a vast store of tales, legends and history set in Middle Earth but didn't feel compelled to tell us everything that he knew about his world in The Lord of the Rings. The hints and allusions made his world seem vaster than a detailed explanation of everything would have.

It could have easily gone on and on for several volumes.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DuskyRose

Maybe I'm not catching what you mean by 'Speculative'. My understanding of it includes just about all the fiction there is...

"Speculative literature is a catch-all term meant to inclusively span the breadth of fantastic literature, encompassing literature ranging from hard science fiction to epic fantasy to ghost stories to horror to folk and fairy tales to slipstream to magical realism to modern myth-making -- and more."
Speculative Literature Foundation

So unless you're really meaning something more specific, I guess I'm just not seeing it.

It doesn't include 'non-genre', 'mainstream', 'literary' fiction: Fiction set in the real world, with events and characters that could have existed but didn't. Kidnapped by Robert Louis Stevenson, for example, isn't speculative fiction, and nor is Kim by Rudyard Kipling.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DuskyRose

Maybe I'm not catching what you mean by 'Speculative'. My understanding of it includes just about all the fiction there is...

"Speculative literature is a catch-all term meant to inclusively span the breadth of fantastic literature, encompassing literature ranging from hard science fiction to epic fantasy to ghost stories to horror to folk and fairy tales to slipstream to magical realism to modern myth-making -- and more."
Speculative Literature Foundation

So unless you're really meaning something more specific, I guess I'm just not seeing it.

That definition works pretty well for me. But I'd say it leaves out quite a bit of fiction: romance, mysteries, thrillers, westerns (traditional), historical fiction, action-adventure, inspirational... etc.

But for the sake of this discussion, let's just limit it to scifi/fantasy. The reason I know that most authors are caving to publisher pressure to turn something into a series is because there's almost no true stand-alone books being published in the scifi/fantasy genres. If the authors were left to their own devices, I would expect more of a balance between series and stand-alone... as exists in the other less "speculative" genres.

[DuskyRose]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

It doesn't include 'non-genre', 'mainstream', 'literary' fiction: Fiction set in the real world, with events and characters that could have existed but didn't. Kidnapped by Robert Louis Stevenson, for example, isn't speculative fiction, and nor is Kim by Rudyard Kipling.

Well, now I'm more confused as to what it is. I'll have to look up "Kidnapped" and "Kim" since I'm not familiar with them.

Also, another question. If a book tells a story, and it's complete in itself, (Not an 'installment' type where you have to read the next book -or more- to finish the story.) is anything taken away from it from having other stories?

Couldn't you just take the first in a series as a stand-alone if you wanted to? After all, I don't think any book can include the whole story of a person, planet or universe anyway. There can certainly be a lot of story-arc in a universe that can be hinted at in a first book that won't make the first story any less complete than a stand-alone.

For example, the first Harry Dresden book. Sure, it's the beginning of a long story-arc, but I think you could certainly have read the first book and just stopped there. You don't need the rest of it to complete the story in the first.

[DuskyRose]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That definition works pretty well for me. But I'd say it leaves out quite a bit of fiction: romance, mysteries, thrillers, westerns (traditional), historical fiction, action-adventure, inspirational... etc.

See, maybe this is why I don't have my head around the idea of what 'Speculative' means.

Basically, it's already covered for me under the term 'Fiction'. I've never needed another term to encompass it all.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But for the sake of this discussion, let's just limit it to scifi/fantasy. The reason I know that most authors are caving to publisher pressure to turn something into a series is because there's almost no true stand-alone books being published in the scifi/fantasy genres. If the authors were left to their own devices, I would expect more of a balance between series and stand-alone... as exists in the other less "speculative" genres.

But as I asked in the post above. Why couldn't the first book in a series be taken as a stand-alone if you chose, as long as it's a complete story? Can't you just pick up the first, read it and walk away?