Anyone dislike series?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I believe I'm done here. I'm obviously not going to change your mind (and maybe nobody else's, either), but if this discussion makes even just one other person think twice before they answer another readers question of, "do I need to read author X's books in any particular order?", then my goal has been accomplished.

For the record, if I've read the books and I'm aware of any connections between them whatsoever, my initial answer to that question is going to be, "I don't know. What sort of things are important to you when you read?"

Hey, I hope you aren't mad. It's true that neither of us will change the others opinions, but I've liked the talk.

For the record, if I'm talking about Stephen King to someone who hasn't read any of his books, I will mention that he will occasionally reference characters/incidents from other works as Easter eggs (but I'd be hard pressed to tell you what references occur in which books except for The Overlook in Misery). It's just that to my mind that doesn't constitute a series and I don't think there is a 'reading order.' Some of his books are better than others and I don't think it's necessary to work your way through his oeuvre in publication order (though you're welcome to, of course).

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I'll take that

Oh wait, you said surgery. You should have recommended Night Shift.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Hey, I hope you aren't mad. It's true that neither of us will change the others opinions, but I've liked the talk..

Not even a little bit mad.

I just meant that I've reached the end of my salient points on the subject. No point in starting all over again!

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Oh wait, you said surgery. You should have recommended Night Shift.

Surgery = Night Shift? Did you maybe mean Survivor Type in Skeleton Crew?

I could have recommended Gerald's Game

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Not even a little bit mad.

I just meant that I've reached the end of my salient points on the subject. No point in starting all over again!

Right on. I'm kind of a plodding thinker. Sometimes going over the same points from different angles can change my mind.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I believe I'm done here. I'm obviously not going to change your mind (and maybe nobody else's, either), but if this discussion makes even just one other person think twice before they answer another readers question of, "do I need to read author X's books in any particular order?", then my goal has been accomplished.

For the record, if I've read the books and I'm aware of any connections between them whatsoever, my initial answer to that question is going to be, "I don't know. What sort of things are important to you when you read?"

I would always tell someone if a book I was recommending was part of a series. I know someone IRL who happily reads series books at random, but even with that person I would make clear that it was a series, just in case this is the one time they would decide they want to read in order.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Surgery = Night Shift? Did you maybe mean Survivor Type in Skeleton Crew?

I could have recommended Gerald's Game

IIRC they worked in a Morgue.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

[...] As for Christopher Moore, I have several of his early books. I read Bloodsucking Fiends and I just didn't get much out of it. Maybe I'm just too dour.

We can't all like the same things, what would we were argue about on here?

I've only recently started with Christopher Moore. My early assessment (having, so far, read only the three I mentioned before) is that he improved dramatically. While his writing and stories are nothing like Pratchett's, I find that I like them for the much the same reason: I love the blend of humour with serious (seriously funny?). Humour on its own doesn't cut it for me, there must be something more, and both Lamb and Fool show that a lot of effort went into their creation.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

[...] (Incidentally, the coworker mentioned is going in for surgery and will be bed-ridden for six weeks. That's what made me think of Misery. She hasn't read any King and she's young enough she's never seen the movie. She has no clue what the book is about.

I told her just pick it up and read it. My recommendation is either inspired or cruel.)

Another vote for cruel. You picked one of the few books of King's that I have no interest in picking up again, and would be quite content to have never read. ... The Shining wasn't one of his shining moments either (for my tastes).

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I would always tell someone if a book I was recommending was part of a series. I know someone IRL who happily reads series books at random, but even with that person I would make clear that it was a series, just in case this is the one time they would decide they want to read in order.

To be clear, I would of course tell someone if a book I was recommending was part of a series. I just don't think Stephen King's books constitute a series (aside from The Dark Tower and the Mr. Mercedes trilogy).

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

IIRC they worked in a Morgue.

Not sure about that. Night Shift is a short story collection. I don't remember one about people in a morgue. But then, I don't remember everything.

Edit: Oh! I think you're mixing Stephen King's Night Shift with the Michael Keaton/Henry Winkler movie about two guys who run a brothel out of the morgue. I've never seen the movie, but it's a cult classic. And very in-Stephen King-y.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by gmw

Another vote for cruel. You picked one of the few books of King's that I have no interest in picking up again, and would be quite content to have never read. ... The Shining wasn't one of his shining moments either (for my tastes).

Wowie! If you disliked Misery and The Shining, which ones did you like?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Wowie! If you disliked Misery and The Shining, which ones did you like?

Among my favourites are The Stand (probably predictable), but also The Dead Zone, The Body and Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption both from Different Seasons, and It. Quite a few more are on my "re-read" list (which how I rate books, a 4/5 gets you on my re-read list).

While Stephen King ranks among my favourite authors, he is by far the most variable in my reactions to his work. He's never quite made it down 1 (waste of space), but he's got quite a few at 2 (just barely, won't re-read) and several at 3 (okay, but I won't re-read unless I'm hard up or especially in the mood). ... Now I look at my list I see that Misery actually made it to a 3, which is higher than I remembered it (The Shining only made a 2).

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Not sure about that. Night Shift is a short story collection. I don't remember one about people in a morgue. But then, I don't remember everything.

Edit: Oh! I think you're mixing Stephen King's Night Shift with the Michael Keaton/Henry Winkler movie about two guys who run a brothel out of the morgue. I've never seen the movie, but it's a cult classic. And very in-Stephen King-y.

The only thing I remember is I had to turn the book over at night. All those eyes in the bandaged hand.
*Eyes still creep me out on book covers and magazines.

[latepaul]

The first book I read by Stephen King was his "On Writing" which obviously is stand-alone as it's non-fiction. I had also seen several movies based on his books and stories.

The second King book I read, first fiction, was Under the Dome. I enjoyed it, enjoyed the premise, found it page-turnery but a tad too long. I wasn't aware of any references or easter eggs. If there were any I was able to enjoy the book without them and without realising they were there.

The third book was 11/22/63. This mixes fiction with fact in that it's about the assasination of JFK but it's also about a time-traveller and his attempts to stop it. There's a short section in it where the main character is in a small town walking around and has this sense of a terrible evil. Nothing happens and he doesn't really see anything - IIRC he looks into the opening of a large pipe and it feels off and wrong to him. He ignores it, walks away and the story continues. I mentioned this to a friend who has read more King than I and she said it was a reference to other books. "He likes to do that," she said. She thought it was probably a reference to "It" but wasn't sure.

I mentally shrugged and finished the book which I enjoyed (but again felt was over-long).

As a reader I consider both stand-alone but with the caveat that 11/22/63 contains an easter egg. I read 11/22/63 because I saw a discussion of it on a TV review show and it sounded interesting. They didn't mention the easter egg bit. Would it have changed anything if they had?

Well it might have been nice if I'd known because then I wouldn't have stumbled over this passage and wondered why it was there and whether I was missing something important. OTOH I wouldn't have felt the need to go back and read It first. But I can't fault a reviewer for not mentioning a short passage in a long book. I more fault King for putting something there that raises these questions. If he's going to do that he'd be better making them less obvious so those of us not in the know can slide over them without noticing.

As for shared definition of terms and recommendations - a noble goal but hard to implement in practice. Also depends on context. I'm more likely to point out "it's self-contained but not really stand-alone" if I'm talking to my mate down the pub who I know cares about the distinction, than I am in a Goodreads review where I am speaking to a kind of "generic reader".

I'm reminded very much of a discussion on Goodreads which rumbles on (at least did back when I used to read the forums there) about what a star rating means. You quickly discover that everyone has their own rating system and sometimes it doesn't even refer to the "quality" of the book at all but can be a kind of filing system (some people 1-star books they intend to read for e.g.)

And of course there's the subjectivity issue. Even if I accept DiapDealer's definitions - and they are eminently sensible - how different people apply those definitions in practice may differ.

Is 11/22/63 standalone? Not by the letter of that defintion, no. What about Under the Dome? Well assume for a second that there were references in there that I just didn't spot. That would mean it's not standalone but in practice it hasn't harmed me because I was able to read the book without recognising them or bumping on something odd. In that case I can easily imagine it's self-contained by one person's interpretation but not another.

That's where we come back to context and knowing the person you're recommending to.

[DiapDealer]

I understand there are extremes, overlaps, and subjectivity--even with my suggested terms. I'm not foolish enough to expect everyone to be as nitpicky as me with their application. I'd be happy if only people would stop using "stand alone" when they clearly mean "it's not 100% stand alone, but I really want you to consider reading it anyway, so I'm going to stretch the definition further than it should be stretched."