Anyone dislike series?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The Anita Blake series has not been abandoned.

No silly, I abandoned the series. Not the author.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

No silly, I abandoned the series. Not the author.

Now I'm going to have to clean off the coffee I just spit all over my monitor. LOL

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by haertig

Now I'm going to have to clean off the coffee I just spit all over my monitor. LOL

So sorry.

[BenG]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You do understand that your opinion is not the one absolute truth and absolute definition, don't you?

Jon's opinion is only infallable when he puts on his mitre and speaks ex cathedra.

[DiapDealer]

Although everyone is more than welcome to their own definitions, I do find it odd when people want to use the word standalone to describe individual installments of a series--regardless of the type of series it is. In my world there is:

stand alone: reserved for true one-off books that are not a part of any series. It's important to me to reserve this term for the situation described because of the nature of the word itself. It makes no sense to me to have degrees of "standaloneishness." Standalone-standalone; series installment standalone; nearly-standalone; mostly-standalone; sorta-standalone--these are all weird distinctions to me. A bending of a clearly defined word in order to allow it to encompass something it shouldn't be encompassing. There are better words to describe books that don't fall into the standalone archetype. Like ...

Self-contained (or episodic): books that contain a complete arc, but are part of some greater whole, like a series or shared universe. While they may tell a complete story, there are also references from previous books, or setup for future books, or unresolved minor plot-points or teases that will get resolved in other volumes. That some people may be willing to overlook the "grand scheme" (for lack of a better term), or don't care about keeping the grand scheme in strict order has no bearing on the fact that the author has chosen to insert several primarily self-contained books into a larger whole. In other words: you can't turn a self-contained book that's part of a series into a standalone book by not caring that it's not really a standalone book. It's not really about you.

Non-episodic (or serial): books that don't contain a complete arc. They pick up where a previous book left off and often end with major unresolved plotlines and/or cliffhangers.

There's no reason, in my mind, to call a book a "standalone" when said book's author clearly intended it to be a part of a series or collective. There's better words to describe such things.

[4691mls]

I like DiapDealer's use of the word "self-contained". This is a good way to describe a book where the story in the individual book can be read on its own and would make sense, but the book is part of a series.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I like DiapDealer's use of the word "self-contained". This is a good way to describe a book where the story in the individual book can be read on its own and would make sense, but the book is part of a series.

Thanks.

And like I said, I have no problem with others defining their own terms, but when I ask for a stand alone reading recommendation, I personally don't want people mentioning books that are part of a series.

So if I can't use the term "stand alone" to filter out books that are part of a series, then what simple term should I be using to filter out books that are part of a series--no matter the kind of series? Surely my particular notion of what "stand alone" should mean deserves its own short, self-explanatory term that leaves no doubt that series installments are not to be included, no?

To me, "Stand alone" is hands-down the most apt term that I know of to describe such books (this book has no ties of any kind to other books--IT STANDS ALONE!!), but it seems that others want to usurp it to describe different books that can be more accurately labeled using other terms.

[4691mls]

I have often seen on Goodreads in Q&A, or even in reviews, discussion of whether a book "can be read as a standalone" so I have gotten used to that as a term for a book that will make sense even if you haven't read others in the series. However, I definitely see your point about wanting a different term for that kind of book as opposed to a book which has no connection at all to any series.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I have often seen on Goodreads in Q&A, or even in reviews, discussion of whether a book "can be read as a standalone" so I have gotten used to that as a term for a book that will make sense even if you haven't read others in the series.

Oh, I see that sort of thing, too. And it drives me nuts!

It's usually used when a favorite book/series of someone's doesn't actually fit the stand-alone criteria being asked for, but they just can't stand the idea of NOT mentioning it. Hence, "can be read as a standalone." I can't think of anything that more clearly proves that a book is NOT a stand-alone than to need to stipulate "it can be read as a standalone."

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Oh, I see that sort of thing, too. And it drives me nuts!

It's usually used when a favorite book/series of someone's doesn't actually fit the stand-alone criteria being asked for, but they just can't stand the idea of NOT mentioning it. Hence, "can be read as a standalone." I can't think of anything that more clearly proves that a book is NOT a stand-alone than to need to stipulate "it can be read as a standalone."

I try to only recommend the first book in a series in that way. Meaning "try this, it won't leave you hanging (too much) but if you like it there's more."

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

I try to only recommend the first book in a series in that way. Meaning "try this, it won't leave you hanging (too much) but if you like it there's more."

And heaven help the author that puts this book can stand alone when he resolves nothing.
I was confronted by one author after my one star review.
My response was fix your description.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Although everyone is more than welcome to their own definitions, I do find it odd when people want to use the word standalone to describe individual installments of a series--regardless of the type of series it is. In my world there is:

stand alone: reserved for true one-off books that are not a part of any series. It's important to me to reserve this term for the situation described because of the nature of the word itself. It makes no sense to me to have degrees of "standaloneishness." Standalone-standalone; series installment standalone; nearly-standalone; mostly-standalone; sorta-standalone--these are all weird distinctions to me. A bending of a clearly defined word in order to allow it to encompass something it shouldn't be encompassing. There are better words to describe books that don't fall into the standalone archetype. Like ...

Self-contained (or episodic): books that contain a complete arc, but are part of some greater whole, like a series or shared universe. While they may tell a complete story, there are also references from previous books, or setup for future books, or unresolved minor plot-points or teases that will get resolved in other volumes. That some people may be willing to overlook the "grand scheme" (for lack of a better term), or don't care about keeping the grand scheme in strict order has no bearing on the fact that the author has chosen to insert several primarily self-contained books into a larger whole. In other words: you can't turn a self-contained book that's part of a series into a standalone book by not caring that it's not really a standalone book. It's not really about you.

Non-episodic (or serial): books that don't contain a complete arc. They pick up where a previous book left off and often end with major unresolved plotlines and/or cliffhangers.

There's no reason, in my mind, to call a book a "standalone" when said book's author clearly intended it to be a part of a series or collective. There's better words to describe such things.

Both Linwood Barclay and Harlan Coben have written books that have been set in the same fictional milieu and/or have re-used some secondary characters. I would still call them stand-alone books.

They have also written books that would fit in your "self-contained" category, and those are markedly different from the ones that simply share a milieu.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Both Linwood Barclay and Harlan Coben have written books that have been set in the same fictional milieu and/or have re-used some secondary characters. I would still call them stand-alone books.

But why? Especially when Self-Contained is equally accurate (and happily accounts for the shared millieu). If the books have tendrils that connect them, then the author considers them pieces of a greater whole. If not, they wouldn't have reused some of the fictional components.

I'm not saying true stand-alone books are better, or anything like that. I'm merely saying that I need there to be a distinction. If stand-alone gets to be used for multiple books by the same author that share fictional components, then what term do I get to use to ask for recommendations for books that don't contain fictional characters and/or settings that are used in multiple books?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But why? Especially when Self-Contained is equally accurate (and happily accounts for the shared millieu). If the books have tendrils that connect them, then the author considers them pieces of a greater whole. If not, they wouldn't have reused some of the fictional components.

I'm not saying true stand-alone books are better, or anything like that. I'm merely saying that I need there to be a distinction. If stand-alone gets to be used for multiple books by the same author that share fictional components, then what term do I get to use to ask for recommendations for books that don't contain fictional characters and/or settings that are used in multiple books?

A book. A completely solitary book. I like your self-contained better.

[gmw]

I sort of like the idea of "self-contained" vs "stand-alone", but it runs into practical difficulties...

Many of Stephen King's early books were clearly meant to be stand-alone despite sharing some of the same characters and settings. Certain obsessive people might tell you they must be read in publication order so that you fully understand the references to past events - but the truth is that there are references to many past events in these books that never appeared in any previous work, so there's nothing much to be missed in the few references that do.

Sometimes re-used fictional components are merely a cheat on the part of the author. Why invent a whole new town and population when Castle Rock is already there in your head? That it ends up building a bigger over all history is merely a side-effect. Most of King's early books could have taken place anywhere at all, but he happened to have a location already made up, so saved time and effort by re-using it.

The same goes for many Agatha Christie mysteries. These are also stand-alone stories. She cheated and re-used main characters, but almost any investigator would have done ... even better, she had a selection of sleuths so she could direct mysteries to the already-invented sleuth that best suited the story she wanted to tell.


And, whatever else, a book's status is prone to change. It may start out as stand-alone (rather than self-contained) but sits their trembling for all eternity waiting to see if someone else may write a book that shares a character or setting. What this means is: the distinction we might try to make between stand-alone and self-contained is not all that useful. This probably explains why no one bothers, why most of us read "stand-alone" and "self-contained" as meaning the same thing*.

ETA: * Because, on a purely practical level, they do.