![]() |
#136 | |
Gentleman and scholar
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 11,479
Karma: 111164374
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Space City, Texas
Device: Clara BW; Nook ST w/Glowlight, Paperwhite 3
|
Quote:
There are the Dark Tower books and recently his Bill Hodges trilogy, but those are exceptions rather than rule. King is like H. P. Lovecraft who wrote stand alone short stories based on his own invented mythology. I don't consider those to be a series because they don't really rely on each other in any way. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#137 | |
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 7,418
Karma: 52613881
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: Kindle Fire, Kindle Paperwhite, AGPTek Bluetooth Clip
|
Quote:
But then Barclay went and wrote a "Promise Falls" trilogy--in which each book was basically self-contained but part of a larger story arc. These are different from the other books that merely use the same town and people. It feels inaccurate and misleading to categorize the trilogy in the same way as the other books that are only loosely connected. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Advert | |
|
![]() |
#138 |
cacoethes scribendi
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 5,818
Karma: 137770742
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650
|
If there was just post #125, then yes, King's would fit as "stand-alone", but DiapDealer then extends that in #127 and #129 in ways that start to try to exclude the those works.
The problem is that it's a continuum. From books that have no fictional overlap; to books that share minor characters and/or incidental settings (most of King's early stuff); to books that share major characters and/or significant settings but remain separate stories whose order/history is mostly irrelevant (most of Christie's); to books that clearly form an overarching history but are nonetheless independent stories (most of Pratchett's*); to collections where some must be read in order and some don't (often the first book of a series is able to be read on it's own); then books that tell a whole story in each book but clearly form a single larger story where the reader is expected to start at the start and work all the way through (the Harry Potter series); to a book series that is really just one huge story (Donaldson's Gap series). I haven't really covered all the possible permutations, but you should get the idea. What most readers really want to know is: "can I pick up this book and get a complete, understandable story without having read anything else first". For this purpose the distinctions made earlier between "stand-alone" and "self-contained" are (or should be) irrelevant. People that care about such things will still try to read in publication order (or whatever), but that's a separate argument*. * No, JSWolf, please don't start. I'm not arguing ideals, I'm giving examples. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#139 |
Addict
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 289
Karma: 7788748
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fun Town, Thailand
Device: Kindle DXG
|
Unless I've been reading a series already, I don't start a new one these days unless it's finished. Some of them just drag on, with the author doing other things, and it being years between books.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#140 | ||
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 28,577
Karma: 204127028
Join Date: Jan 2010
Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD
|
Quote:
Quote:
There's always going to be fringe/borderline/overlap cases where the connections are tenuous at best. One size rarely fits all. But that doesn't mean the general distinction between stand-alone and not-stand-alone (self-contained, but part of something else) is (or should be) irrelevant. The fact is: one person's "can be read as a stand-alone" is another person's "why on earth did you mislead me so badly!?". When it comes to making/getting recommendations, the recommender's desire to promote a book that's clearly part of a series should never override the asker's request for a stand-alone. There's no need to try and pound a clearly square peg into a round hole. But that's exactly what so often happens. Last edited by DiapDealer; 11-16-2017 at 06:41 AM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
Advert | |
|
![]() |
#141 | |
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 7,196
Karma: 70314280
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Device: iPad Pro, iPad mini, Kobo Aura, Amazon paperwhite, Sony PRS-T2
|
Quote:
Last edited by pwalker8; 11-16-2017 at 06:10 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#142 |
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 7,418
Karma: 52613881
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: Kindle Fire, Kindle Paperwhite, AGPTek Bluetooth Clip
|
Maybe it's the POV character that should be the most important factor in distinguishing whether a book is a stand-alone or part of some form of series. So the Miss Marple books are a series, even though they're self-contained and need not be read in order. But Linwood Barclay's non-trilogy books are stand-alones despite the fact that they inhabit the same fictional world.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#143 | ||
Gentleman and scholar
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 11,479
Karma: 111164374
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Space City, Texas
Device: Clara BW; Nook ST w/Glowlight, Paperwhite 3
|
Quote:
Quote:
Saying that separate books set in Castle Rock form a series is like saying separate novels set during the Vietnam War are a series. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#144 | |
Resident Curmudgeon
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 79,786
Karma: 146391129
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts
Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#145 |
Resident Curmudgeon
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 79,786
Karma: 146391129
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts
Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3
|
But just remember, that self-contained could have some spoilers if this is not the first book in a series.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#146 | |
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 28,577
Karma: 204127028
Join Date: Jan 2010
Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD
|
Quote:
There have been countless authors over the years who wrote multiple books which shared no fictional components. So why the desire to make books that have clear connections (read "author intent") to other books seem like they don't? That question is not being directed at anyone in particular, by the way. it's almost like some feel that a book is being slighted in some way if its connection (however esoteric) to other books is noticed and/or considered relevant. As if being denied the stand-alone label is punishment or a "strike against" a work. Guy Gavriel Kay's works are all tied (however tenuously) to his fictional Fionavar universe, for example. But with the exception of one trilogy, all of his novels are very-much self-contained. One might have to work hard to notice the connections, but they are there. Even so, I would never dream of trying to hide the fact (from prospective readers) that Kay expressly wrote his novels with a unifying subcurrent in mind (much like Sanderson's Cosmere) by using a term that implies no such interplay exists. "Self-Contained, but ...." is much more apt, in my opinion. It gives people for whom it matters, the knowledge they need to determine for themselves which of an author's "self-contained, but ..." novels they might want to begin with and/or the order in which they wish to proceed (or skip altogether). Last edited by DiapDealer; 11-16-2017 at 11:03 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#147 | |
Resident Curmudgeon
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 79,786
Karma: 146391129
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts
Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3
|
Quote:
As for Agatha Christie, I'm listening (not at this exact moment) to the audiobook of Murder on the Orient Express. Things are mentioned that happened before. I'm not sure if these things are part of a previous book. But if they are, it would make the references more understandable. If it is the case that these prior evens are part of a previous book, then it would make your theory incorrect. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#148 |
Resident Curmudgeon
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 79,786
Karma: 146391129
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts
Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3
|
When someone says a book in the middle of a series is stand-alone, I don't believe it. Using DiapDealer's definition of stand-alone, if the book does not fit that definition, then it is not stand-alone. For those reading this thread, stop trying to mislead others by saying books in a series are stand-alone. Say they are self-contained. But, it there is anything referred to from previous books or anything going on (like the main character has a scratch that happened in a previous book), then it's self-contained with a capital BUT (and my statement to go with the BUT is don't read this as it's not 100% self-contained and in that case you could be spoiling something you really don't want spoiled).
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#149 |
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 28,577
Karma: 204127028
Join Date: Jan 2010
Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD
|
It would help Jon, if you didn't take such a combative stance on this. I happen to agree with you (for the most part) on this, but that doesn't mean I can't learn a thing or two from the people who feel differently. "You're incorrect" really isn't all that applicable to opinion.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#150 | ||
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 7,418
Karma: 52613881
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: Kindle Fire, Kindle Paperwhite, AGPTek Bluetooth Clip
|
Quote:
Suppose a writer sets several novels in, say, Hollywood, and various actual celebrities appear repeatedly as background characters, to lend a sense of place and verisimilitude. But the books are otherwise unrelated and tell independent stories with different protagonists. Wouldn't those be stand-alones despite having the same backdrop? If so, why would the backdrop being fictional land those same books in your self-contained category? Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Oasis: What I Like and Dislike About It | lllusion | Amazon Kindle | 24 | 04-14-2017 04:34 PM |
DR1000 What on earth makes DR1000S like/dislike a pdf??? | sarikan | iRex | 10 | 01-19-2011 04:23 PM |
Why would anyone dislike Calibre.... | jrustyw | Calibre | 70 | 10-02-2010 06:13 AM |
My one dislike about ereaders | edbro | General Discussions | 16 | 06-18-2010 01:20 PM |
PRS-600 Dislike Backpanel | Mike_73 | Sony Reader | 15 | 02-04-2010 10:14 PM |