The open ended series

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Luffy

I've been surprised by the likes of JSWolf, who don't like erotica yet read this series. I'm simply surprised by the fact that fans of fantasy like this very mainstream series. I didn't expect commitment towards this 50 book franchise.

That's because the sex scenes are short and can be read quickly enough and there is not that many. I like the cases and the characters. The fact that it takes place in the future isn't really all that important.

I wonder if Roarke is related to the Roark of Fantasy Island.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by library addict

There is development in Eve's relationships from book to book (not just the romance, but her friendships and with co-workers). But each mystery is contained within one book. So they do work as stand-alones. The reader doesn't need to know all of Eve's personal history to enjoy the murder mystery.

For the first half or more of the series previous cases were very rarely even mentioned (for me that is one of the reasons Indulgence in Death seemed odd as there was no mention of the similarity in motives to the case in Seduction in Death).

I know a number of people who have read a later book in the series first with no issues. Some went back and read the entire series, other did not.

Authors need to provide just enough background information so new readers don't feel lost, but not much that the story is bogged down in info-dumping. Some authors do this well, others not so much.

If the characters in a series have been through 5 or 10 books worth of stuff and their relationships and outlook have not developed then what is the point? Relationships grow or dissolve over time. Outside events affect things. People learn and become better at their jobs. If you can take the characters as they are in book one and plunk them down in book ten with no changes than what was the point of books two through nine? I don't want to read about such stagnant people. I have read other series like this which is the main reason why I stopped reading them.

We'll have to agree to disagree about In Death having stand alone books (other then book 1).

What I like about the In Death series besides the mysteries is the characters and how they evolve and change.

What other series did you read that had stagnant characters? It would be good to know so I don't bother when them.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

series did you read that had stagnant characters? It would be good to know so I don't bother when them.

Hardy Boys, Famous Five and similar. Infinite number of holidays, characters hardly age and hardly change. Even Biggles and Co seem to hardly change in about 40 years of flying, WWI, WWII and after.

[library addict]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

We'll have to agree to disagree about In Death having stand alone books (other then book 1).

What I like about the In Death series besides the mysteries is the characters and how they evolve and change.

That's one of my favorite parts of the series as well. But what I'm saying is each book provides a beginning, middle, and end for the mystery arc so if you were to only ever read one it works as a stand-alone mystery. By reading the entire series you have a more enriching experience with all of the character development. But that doesn't negate the fact you could easily read just one and not be left wondering who the killer(s) is/are. And not everyone reads the series for the relationships. Many people read it solely for the mysteries.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

What other series did you read that had stagnant characters? It would be good to know so I don't bother when them.

The aforementioned Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew is a good example. Another is the Stephanie Plum series by Janet Evanovich. There are more, but I would have to go back through my old reading lists as I didn't keep the books so they aren't in Calibre for easy access.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by library addict

That's one of my favorite parts of the series as well. But what I'm saying is each book provides a beginning, middle, and end for the mystery arc so if you were to only ever read one it works as a stand-alone mystery. By reading the entire series you have a more enriching experience with all of the character development. But that doesn't negate the fact you could easily read just one and not be left wondering who the killer(s) is/are. And not everyone reads the series for the relationships. Many people read it solely for the mysteries.

Just because a book in a series has a an ending does not make it standalone. The In Death series is not standalone except for the first book.

[jviscosi]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Last there is the never ending series. I call it that because, while usually there is a final book, it tends to be open ended until it finally gets to the point where it's lost steam and the author/publisher realizes enough is enough, time to wrap it up. Wheel of Time is a famous example and I guess Game of Thrones. I would tend to call the Honor Harrington an example of this. The author might have an end in mind, but he or she just rambles along never really wrapping things up.

I think Piers Anthony's "Xanth" series turned into this somewhere along the line. The first several books told a fairly coherent, contained story, then it expanded to include the children of the original characters, then it expanded to include just about anyone who wandered into view. I enjoyed them up through "Night Mare" and "Crewel Lye" ("Dragon on a Pedestal" being so-so) but then things started going downhill and I lost interest.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Just because a book in a series has a an ending does not make it standalone. The In Death series is not standalone except for the first book.

I think you are confusing Serial with Series.

I read many Pern, Miles and other Series, as Serials in the pages of Analog Science Fiction & Science Fact. Those really should be read from Part 1 -> n. (There was always a synopsis at the beginning of later parts. But you will miss subtleties. )

But at The End in the book, 'the tale' has been told.

Almost any 'In Death' book can stand on its own. What is missing, is some of the back story on really, 'Why' some thing 'are'.

[DiapDealer]

It's really quite simple, in my opinion. If the author wrote/published the book as part of some greater whole, then it cannot possibly--by any stretch of the imagination--be considered a "stand alone" work. That some are willing to ignore the connections, or pretend the connections are not relevant (or important) does not enter into it. That you believe someone else (not you) should be able to safely read a book with no knowledge of the other works it's connected to does not change the fact that its creator chose to release it to the world as PART OF SOMETHING ELSE.

The bottom line is that the reader does not have a say in whether or a book is a stand-alone or not. Only the author does. And they say that by writing books that are not written and/or marketed as PART OF SOMETHING ELSE. I don't even grant authors the right to retroactively designate something they released as part of something else as a "standalone." It was written with previous and/or future installments of "the whole" in mind. That bell cannot be unrung.

"Can be read as a standalone" = "Still part of something larger, but some readers might not mind missing out on the subtle connections to the related works as much as others"

"Standalone" = something that was written as a true one-off--with no connection to the author's other works advertised or intended.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by theducks

Almost any 'In Death' book can stand on its own. What is missing, is some of the back story on really, 'Why' some thing 'are'.

Exactly. Something's missing and why is it missing? It's missing because the books are not standalone.

[John F]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It's really quite simple, in my opinion. If the author wrote/published the book as part of some greater whole, then it cannot possibly--by any stretch of the imagination--be considered a "stand alone" work. That some are willing to ignore the connections, or pretend the connections are not relevant (or important) does not enter into it. That you believe someone else (not you) should be able to safely read a book with no knowledge of the other works it's connected to does not change the fact that its creator chose to release it to the world as PART OF SOMETHING ELSE.

The bottom line is that the reader does not have a say in whether or a book is a stand-alone or not. Only the author does. And they say that by writing books that are not written and/or marketed as PART OF SOMETHING ELSE. I don't even grant authors the right to retroactively designate something they released as part of something else as a "standalone." It was written with previous and/or future installments of "the whole" in mind. That bell cannot be unrung.

...

How do you define "part of something else"?

Take Stephen King for example, a lot of his books have characters from other books, but I believe most people would consider them standalone (The Stand, Salem's Lot).

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by John F

How do you define "part of something else"?

It's not at all vague. It's "part of something else" when it's billed/advertised as being "part of something else."

Originally Posted by John F

Take Stephen King for example, a lot of his books have characters from other books, but I believe most people would consider them standalone (The Stand, Salem's Lot).

Was The Stand billed as being a sequel to Salem's Lot? Was there an announcement by Stephen King that Salem's Lot and The Stand were part of a planned series?

[John F]

Thanks for the clarification.

I just find your definitions rather meaningless.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by John F

I just find your definitions rather meaningless.

As I do your opinion of them.

[John F]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

As I do your opinion of them.

Of course, they are all opinions.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Indie or tradpub: I want big, bold words in the description of the first book in a new (planned) series declaring, "THIS BOOK DOES NOT CONTAIN A COMPLETE STORY."

And no... resolving a minor plot arc somewhere toward the end of a book, and then moving on with more tease-ey, cliffhang-ery content clearly intended to sell the next book does not count. I want to read books that have beginnings, middles and comprehensive conclusions. And I want to know before committing if that's what I'm going to get.

I prefer my books to be a complete story as well. But there might be an overarching story that can span several books to finish. That's one problem I had with the GRRM books. I also only read the first 3 books, never read the rest (also didn't watch the series). The books were simply never finished. It was one big story with no end in sight.

Originally Posted by John F

How do you define "part of something else"?

Take Stephen King for example, a lot of his books have characters from other books, but I believe most people would consider them standalone (The Stand, Salem's Lot).

I was thinking of Larry Niven's Known Space. He has made several standalone books and several series of books. Who are mostly connected in some form as they almost all take place in the the same universe.