Anyone dislike series?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by 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.

Using the descriptions in post #125, I would consider almost all Stephen King books to be stand alone. The fact that he hides Easter eggs for fans is not the same as books being a series. Even experiments like Dolores Claiborne/Gerald's Game or Desperation/The Regulators don't count. You can read any of those without reading any other Stephen King and you're fine.

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.

[Catlady]

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?

Linwood Barclay uses the setting and denizens of a fictional town called Promise Falls in all or almost all of this thrillers. He even generally uses the same detective. However, the POV character changes with each book, and the references to previous events are vague--e.g., one book might focus a wife's murder, and a later book might mention in passing that the guy's wife died.

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.

[gmw]

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.

[Bricorn]

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.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by gmw

For this purpose the distinctions made earlier between "stand-alone" and "self-contained" are (or should be) irrelevant.

But they're not irrelevant to me. Nor would I ever agree they "should" be.

People that care about such things will still try to read in publication order (or whatever), but that's a separate argument.

People may not want to read them at all (or at least not yet). In any order. Hence the desire for distinction.

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.

[pwalker8]

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.

works for me. Of course, there are always going to be shades of gray. Is Jules Verne's Mysterious Island a stand alone, or is it a self contained book since Capt. Nemo appears in it? Obviously, it is a personal thing. I suspect that a lot depends on the genre one is talking about, of course.

[Catlady]

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.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by gmw

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.

I get the idea precisely. But:

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".

Using that, all non-Dark Tower Stephen King is stand alone. Just like all Lovecraft is stand alone.

Saying that separate books set in Castle Rock form a series is like saying separate novels set during the Vietnam War are a series.

[JSWolf]

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.

Your descriptions are very good. They fit with the way I think of books in a series or not in a series. Thank you for this!

[JSWolf]

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.

But just remember, that self-contained could have some spoilers if this is not the first book in a series.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Catlady

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.

I take no issue with that. But having no experience with Barclay's works, I have to wonder why--if they share a fictional setting--it's important for you to consider his non-trilogy books as "Stand Alone" rather than Self Contained novels in a shared milieu? Self Contained (but with a shared fictional setting/background) carries no inherent negative connotation and it acknowledges the shared milieu for those to whom it might make a difference (good or bad). I know it's a detail I would like to be made plain.

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).

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Catlady

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.

I have to disagree. Take Discworld for example. There are a lot of different stories with different main characters. But the setting can be the same or not but there are recurring secondary characters that you do see their story arcs. even if the main story is in a different setting or different main characters.

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.

[JSWolf]

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).

[DiapDealer]

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.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I take no issue with that. But having no experience with Barclay's works, I have to wonder why--if they share a fictional setting--it's important for you to consider his non-trilogy books as "Stand Alone" rather than Self Contained novels in a shared milieu? Self Contained (but with a shared fictional setting/background) carries no inherent negative connotation and it acknowledges the shared milieu for those to whom it might make a difference (good or bad). I know it's a detail I would like to be made plain.

Because I would have to consider the trilogy as also self-contained--each book was complete in itself but also part of a larger story. There's a clear distinction between those books and his other thrillers that goes beyond the simple marketing strategy of calling them a trilogy. So I'm simply trying to clarify in my own mind what the distinction is.

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?

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.

Because too many books then morph into series books when they really are stand-alones. When the only connection is a location and a handful of minor characters, there's no logical reason to go by publication date. It's actually BECAUSE I am a stickler for reading series books in order that I would make the distinction.