The Reading Vent & Rant Thread

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Quoth

There was an analysis of the ‘Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy’ which showed dramatic reduction of new content by the 5th book.

IMO the actual original first series broadcast far better than the book and #4 and #5 were not worth buying and reading. I was working shifts in the BBC then (first job) so had to listen to some episodes on BBC recorded cassette at the time.

The other extreme is the ‘Wheel of Time’ series which has loads of volumes with loads of words, but not much happening / getting resolved.

On the Gripping Hand, there is the Chalet School Series, which unlike many young people series like Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew, or Famous Five (floating time line), goes for 62 books and maybe about 40 years of internal near contemporaneous time (published 1925 -1970*). Gladys Eleanor May Dyer, writing as Elinor Brent-Dyer 1894 - 1969 (aged 75). They are still popular, though reprints have been abridged in some cases.

IMO some series deteriorate, such as Dune (quickly) or Pern (slowly). Or IMO get a bit daft (Asimov revisiting Foundation series over 25 years later).

Also there are series where much stays the same and stories are fairly standalone (many classic mystery, some Fantasy like Recluse) and ones with either overall character development or over-arching plot elements with standalone stories, or both.

[* Some people not content with death of an author so continue series!]

All it takes is one sentence to make a book in a series not stand alobne. If it references any other recurring characters other then the main character(s), then it's not stand alone.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

All it takes is one sentence to make a book in a series not stand alobne. If it references any other recurring characters other then the main character(s), then it's not stand alone.

I don't think that is totally true.

IIRC 'Standalone' does not require you to KNOW any of the backstory for the book to really make sense or hold together.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by theducks

I don't think that is totally true.

IIRC 'Standalone' does not require you to KNOW any of the backstory for the book to really make sense or hold together.

Standalone means it has ZERO to do with any of the other books in the series. That means you cannot have anything referencing anything in the other books. Also, none of the other books can reference anything to do with that book.

Can you find any books in a series like this?

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Standalone means it has ZERO to do with any of the other books in the series. That means you cannot have anything referencing anything in the other books. Also, none of the other books can reference anything to do with that book.

Can you find any books in a series like this?

IN YOUR OPINION.

It's not what most authors and publishers mean. Your definition of Standalone means it has ZERO to do with any of the other books in the series wouldn't be a novel in a series at all.

That means you cannot have anything referencing anything in the other books. Also, none of the other books can reference anything to do with that book
This also is too restrictive. It's like claiming a book can't reference events in real life or mention another book by someone else.

It depends how dependent the story is on the mention.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by theducks

I don't think that is totally true.

IIRC 'Standalone' does not require you to KNOW any of the backstory for the book to really make sense or hold together.

Exactly!

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by Quoth

IN YOUR OPINION.

It's not what most authors and publishers mean. Your definition of Standalone means it has ZERO to do with any of the other books in the series wouldn't be a novel in a series at all.

That means you cannot have anything referencing anything in the other books. Also, none of the other books can reference anything to do with that book
This also is too restrictive. It's like claiming a book can't reference events in real life or mention another book by someone else.

It depends how dependent the story is on the mention.

An example of a standalone story that features elements from other series/books are books/anime in the Bubblegum Crisis Franchise. There have been many manga and anime that are set in the same world but each story is standalone. Among them are A.D. Police (the manga), A.D. Police (the anime), and Parasite Dolls.

Another one is the novelization of Infinite Crisis (the DC Comics crossover event). Even though the event includes elements from a massive number of comic books, the Novelization tells you everything you need to know for the story so you don't have to read anything else.

[nana77]

If I may add one thing (though even I did said this on the reading thread too - but while reading others books, this impression still remains..), imho on older books even the preface, written by a publisher, seems (at least to me) to have more complexity, more references to other's classic literature; sometimes I have to read so slow those pages because not easy too.
In more recent publishing to me it appears more easier (but imho).

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

I suspect, as well, that there may not be enough creative/monetary/reader-feedack reward to bother with continuing a series of 3-5 books to make it 'worth' an author's time.

True. I've talked with several authors who have dropped a series when the sales did not make it fiscally viable. Despite many of the authors I know still depending on their day jobs to survive, a lot of them are still trying to become full time authors though most realize that winning a lottery is more likely.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Standalone means it has ZERO to do with any of the other books in the series. That means you cannot have anything referencing anything in the other books. Also, none of the other books can reference anything to do with that book.

Can you find any books in a series like this?

A rather strange definition of standalone. If I am reading a military SF and it mentions the Luftwaffe as part of history does that mean that a military fantasy book where the Luftwaffe uses Zeppelins is connected to that book? That every book referencing Luna City is automatically connected to every other book? That a book using a trope is automatically related to every other book using the same or similar trope?

Such a black and white view with no allowance for shades of grey. As usual, you come across as believing that you were standing on a mountaintop when your opinion was handed to you on graven stone tablets and so must be the authoritative opinion on any topic.

Quite a few of the shared universe books I have read could be considered as being in a series from the consistent background yet the main characters and stories have very little connection.

[DiapDealer]

People quite regularly confuse "standalone" with "can stand alone". Primarily because people can't resist shoehorning their favorites into lists where they don't really belong.

When I ask for standalone recommendations, I'm asking for one-off books that ARE standalones. Not books that CAN be read as a standalone if I voluntarily ignore the fact that they're actually not.

EDIT: I'll also note that those who posit that books in any particular series can be read as standalones also tend to be people who didn't read them that way themselves. They're usually trying to convince others they can for some reason. Which makes their opinions on the subject less valid (in my opinion).

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

People quite regularly confuse "standalone" with "can stand alone". Primarily because people can't resist shoehorning their favorites into lists where they don't really belong.

When I ask for standalone recommendations, I'm asking for one-off books that ARE standalones. Not books that CAN be read as a standalone if I voluntarily ignore the fact that they're actually not.

EDIT: I'll also note that those who posit that books in any particular series can be read as standalones also tend to be people who didn't read them that way themselves. They're usually trying to convince others they can for some reason. Which makes their opinions on the subject less valid (in my opinion).

Very well said!

[DiapDealer]

Now I feel dirty.

(Sorry, Jon. Couldn't resist!)

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

EDIT: I'll also note that those who posit that books in any particular series can be read as standalones also tend to be people who didn't read them that way themselves. They're usually trying to convince others they can for some reason. Which makes their opinions on the subject less valid (in my opinion).

Ah, now you are guessing. Sometimes that's true, and your opinion on this is also often true, but not always.

I have, and others I know have, read books that are part of series, in the "middle" and found them perfectly stand alone. In such cases the publisher often didn't number the titles.

I agree there are ones that you "can" read standalone and the references might be annoying. There are certainly many that that need read in order.

Also some series have sub-series that work perfectly.

You did rather walk into that with Jon. I was waiting for it

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Ah, now you are guessing. Sometimes that's true, and your opinion on this is also often true, but not always.

Pretty much most of the time. Think about it.

Originally Posted by Quoth

I have, and others I know have, read books that are part of series, in the "middle" and found them perfectly stand alone. In such cases the publisher often didn't number the titles.

If you read them out of order, you have no idea how stand alone they are. You can only attest to to the fact that you didn't notice anything missing. That doesn't mean you weren't missing backstory that would have increased (or decreased) your enjoyment. That doesn't mean there weren't overarching themes you didn't pick up on (that many readers would absolutely WANT to pick up on).

If you went back and filled in gaps later--well that doesn't work either, because you can't unring the bell. You don't know if reading them in a certain order would have affected your opinion because you can never go back in time and experience them in a different order for the first time.

The only thing you can say with any honesty is that you didn't notice anything that would prevent the book from being read AS a standalone. But all readers are different and you can't say with any degree of accuracy whether others would find them as complete unto themselves as you did.

Its just better for all concerned to reserve the term standalone for non-series (or non-subseries) books. That way everyone can decide for themselves if individual installments have enough of a complete arc (with no multibook-spanning threads) to read them out of order their own big selves.

Originally Posted by Quoth

You did rather walk into that with Jon. I was waiting for it

Yeah, I know. I just have to own it sometimes. Jon and I agree entirely on this one particular topic.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Now I feel dirty.

(Sorry, Jon. Couldn't resist!)

That's what you get for not having a shower. in over a week.