Anyone dislike series?

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

Back then we didn't have the Internet so unless the people we actually knew in real life weren't using a term like "chapter books" we didn't know about it, or care - we were too busy walking 10 miles to school in the snow, uphill both ways

Hey, I remember walking to school in shorts and a t-shirt while the temperature was hovering around -30° and the snow was being piled up against the school to the second story roof. We also referred to the residents of Yellowknife as southerners.

[haertig]

My apologies if this has already been posted in this thread - I skimmed all posts and didn't see it, but I was indeed "skimming" and could have missed it.

Here's an interesting article regarding series by an author (Jeremy Robinson):

http://bewareofmonsters.com/the-end-...series-novels/

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by haertig

My apologies if this has already been posted in this thread - I skimmed all posts and didn't see it, but I was indeed "skimming" and could have missed it.

Here's an interesting article regarding series by an author (Jeremy Robinson):

http://bewareofmonsters.com/the-end-...series-novels/

I'd be happy to see more authors abandon series. I haven't read Jeremy Robinson in part because looking through his catalog, with his many series, was just more trouble than it was worth.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I'd be happy to see more authors abandon series. I haven't read Jeremy Robinson in part because looking through his catalog, with his many series, was just more trouble than it was worth.

My first experience with an abandoned series was Roland Green's Wandor series. That series was abandoned in the middle of things with book 4. I never bought another Roland Green book. There is the difference between a series where each book is more or less a stand alone (Bond and Hornblower, for example) and a series where the plot line is one continuous book (Wheel of Time).

When I told Jim Baen some years later why I refused to buy books written by Roland Green, he called me harsh. Me, I look at it from the stand point of if you aren't willing to see the series through, then learn how to write self contained books. I started this series when I was in high school and spent my lunch money to buy some of them. Would it really have been difficult to look at the numbers and figure out that you needed to wrap the series up early because it wasn't earning enough to continue? It's not like they dropped the series because only book 4 didn't do well and the rest did great. This is also the reason that many refuse to buy a book from a series until it's been completed.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

My first experience with an abandoned series was Roland Green's Wandor series. That series was abandoned in the middle of things with book 4. I never bought another Roland Green book. There is the difference between a series where each book is more or less a stand alone (Bond and Hornblower, for example) and a series where the plot line is one continuous book (Wheel of Time).

When I told Jim Baen some years later why I refused to buy books written by Roland Green, he called me harsh. Me, I look at it from the stand point of if you aren't willing to see the series through, then learn how to write self contained books. I started this series when I was in high school and spent my lunch money to buy some of them. Would it really have been difficult to look at the numbers and figure out that you needed to wrap the series up early because it wasn't earning enough to continue? It's not like they dropped the series because only book 4 didn't do well and the rest did great. This is also the reason that many refuse to buy a book from a series until it's been completed.

Sorry. Please allow me to rephrase: I'd be happy to see more authors avoid writing series altogether.

I didn't mean authors should abandon a series mid-stream.

Stephen King is my go-to on this. He mostly writes stand alone books. He'll drop Easter Eggs in them calling back to other stories in an offhand way. But you don't have to have read The Shining to enjoy Misery, for instance.

He has one series, The Dark Tower, that acts as a sort of spine to his universe, but skipping them won't impact any of his other books (except maybe for Insomnia. I remember not liking that because it relied too heavily on Dark Tower mythos).

[Cinisajoy]

Abandoned series was the Anita Blake series by Laurell K Hamilton.
The later books belonged in a specialty bookstore not in Walmart. You know those bookstores that won't let kids in.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Abandoned series was the Anita Blake series by Laurell K Hamilton.
The later books belonged in a specialty bookstore not in Walmart. You know those bookstores that won't let kids in.

Yea, I stopped reading those when they became more porn than action. The first four or so were pretty good, IMPO. I think that #10 was what pushed me over the edge of not buying anymore. I was kind of surprised to see that there are some 20 or so in the series.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Abandoned series was the Anita Blake series by Laurell K Hamilton.
The later books belonged in a specialty bookstore not in Walmart. You know those bookstores that won't let kids in.

Just as a follow up, the Anita Blake series, at least as far as I read, were mostly what I would consider stand alone books. I never really got the impress that they as a series were working up to, if you will forgive the word, climax. I would even argue that a series like Weber's Honor Harrington series were mostly stand alone. With the exception of a couple, they were much like the Hornblower series, each book reaches a definitive end. It's very different than, say LOTR or Harry Potter (after say book 3, the first two were more stand alone). Most long running series like that tend to be abandoned over time rather than be brought to a true conclusion.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Just as a follow up, the Anita Blake series, at least as far as I read, were mostly what I would consider stand alone books. I never really got the impress that they as a series were working up to, if you will forgive the word, climax. I would even argue that a series like Weber's Honor Harrington series were mostly stand alone. With the exception of a couple, they were much like the Hornblower series, each book reaches a definitive end. It's very different than, say LOTR or Harry Potter (after say book 3, the first two were more stand alone). Most long running series like that tend to be abandoned over time rather than be brought to a true conclusion.

Up till about 13, you are correct. After that, I don't even think there was a plot, much less a climax (intended).

[Dr. Drib]

I find much of those later Anita Blake books disgusting reads, especially if I want to read porn.

I once stood in line for her autograph, for two hours, all of us under close scrutiny from her bodyguard, bully, snotboy, ex-husband. What a distasteful piece of garbage he was, basking in her 'glory' like a fly buzzing around an elephant's ass.

She's a horrible writer.

Horrible, I say!

---ADDED: Remind me to throw those 4-5 hardback, inscribed, First Editions in the bonfire come next December. Someone PM me to remind me, please. I want to cook some s'mores in the backyard.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

-ADDED: Remind me to throw those 4-5 hardback, inscribed, First Editions in the bonfire come next December. Someone PM me to remind me, please. I want to cook some s'mores in the backyard.

I'll trade you some actual firewood for them.

I reread the early ones at one point, I think I figured out you can get to #8 before they get derailed into bad erotica.

I wonder how many people this conversation has convinced to START reading them.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Abandoned series was the Anita Blake series by Laurell K Hamilton.
The later books belonged in a specialty bookstore not in Walmart. You know those bookstores that won't let kids in.

The Anita Blake series has not been abandoned.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Just as a follow up, the Anita Blake series, at least as far as I read, were mostly what I would consider stand alone books. I never really got the impress that they as a series were working up to, if you will forgive the word, climax. I would even argue that a series like Weber's Honor Harrington series were mostly stand alone. With the exception of a couple, they were much like the Hornblower series, each book reaches a definitive end. It's very different than, say LOTR or Harry Potter (after say book 3, the first two were more stand alone). Most long running series like that tend to be abandoned over time rather than be brought to a true conclusion.

The Anita Blake series is not stand alone. Honor Harrington is not stand alone. The first two books in the Harry Potter series are not stand alone. Please stop saying this as it's not true. You obviously don't get what a series really is. You also don't get what stand alone means. It takes just one line that references anything that happened previously and it's not stand alone. All it takes is something in an earlier book that you know how it turned out in a later book and it's not stand alone.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The Anita Blake series is not stand alone. Honor Harrington is not stand alone. The first two books in the Harry Potter series are not stand alone. Please stop saying this as it's not true. You obviously don't get what a series really is. You also don't get what stand alone means. It takes just one line that references anything that happened previously and it's not stand alone. All it takes is something in an earlier book that you know how it turned out in a later book and it's not stand alone.

You do understand that your opinion is not the one absolute truth and absolute definition, don't you? If you are unwilling to consider the differences in types of series, that's your prerogative, but don't expect everyone to accept your views.

I will point out that just because a book uses the line "The face that launched a thousand ships" doesn't imply that it's part of a long running series with Doctor Faustus, nor was Doctor Faustus a sequel to the Iliad. Many works reference previous works.

My definition of stand alone is a work that is self contained, i.e. has a beginning and reaches a conclusion. You are welcome to define it however you wish. If you can make a good argument as to why your definition is correct, others may accept it.

[haertig]

My idea of "stand alone" is much looser. If I can read a book and understand what's going one, and not be left wondering what the heck they are talking about/referring to, then for me it's close enough to stand alone to be considered stand alone - for my purposes (reading enjoyment). Now if they start heavily referring to a character from a previous book that wasn't mentioned in the current book, then that's a problem for understanding the current book if you haven't read the previous book. That's not stand alone.

But if they mention in the current book, as an aside, that a specific character has an artificial leg, then that mention is probably good enough to keep the current books plot moving along. You don't necessarily need to know the circumstances that led to the loss of the leg from a previous book (unless it's integral to the plot of the current book). I would consider a simple back-reference like this to keep the current book classified as stand alone, although in the strictest sense it is not. I would not worry about arguing over a definition of "stand alone", I just want to understand and enjoy the current book. If I can do that, then it's stand alone enough for me.