Anyone dislike series?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by issybird

That's easy. "No."

You'd have nary a second thought about telling someone that Rhett and Scarlett don't appear in any other novels?

[issybird]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You'd have nary a second thought about telling someone that Rhett and Scarlett don't appear in any other novels?

None whatsoever. It ain't canon.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Maybe not. But if someone asked you if Gone with the Wind was part of a series, would you say "no," or "yes, but ..." ?

I would say 'No.'

Of course, this being the real world where conversations flow, I would probably tell them there were follow-ons, written by others. Though I'd be more likely to do that after they finished the book and we'd probably have an interesting conversation about the merits of sequels with or without the creator's involvement and so on.

But back to being succinct, Gone with the Wind isn't the first book in a series.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I would say 'No.'

Of course, this being the real world where conversations flow, I would probably tell them there were follow-ons, written by others. Though I'd be more likely to do that after they finished the book and we'd probably have an interesting conversation about the merits of sequels with or without the creator's involvement and so on.

But back to being succinct, Gone with the Wind isn't the first book in a series.

Did Margaret Mitchell write anymore books about Rhett and Scarlett?
If not, then no series.
Did someone else later take advantage of Rhett and Scarlett?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Did Margaret Mitchell write anymore books about Rhett and Scarlett?
If not, then no series.
Did someone else later take advantage of Rhett and Scarlett?

I only know of Rhett taking advantage of Scarlett

There were a couple of 'authorized continuations' - Scarlett by Alexandra Ripley and Rhett Butler's People by Donald McCraig. McCraig also wrote a prequel called Ruth's Journey.

The one that I would actually have an interest in reading is the parody The Wind Done Gone by Alice Randall, a parody of the book that tells the same story from the perspective of a slave.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I would say 'No.'

Of course, this being the real world where conversations flow, I would probably tell them there were follow-ons, written by others. Though I'd be more likely to do that after they finished the book and we'd probably have an interesting conversation about the merits of sequels with or without the creator's involvement and so on.

But back to being succinct, Gone with the Wind isn't the first book in a series.

I like your response.

Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is a longtime favorite of mine. I really don't think books written 200 years later (with zombies!) are part of a series with the original.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I only know of Rhett taking advantage of Scarlett

There were a couple of 'authorized continuations' - Scarlett by Alexandra Ripley and Rhett Butler's People by Donald McCraig. McCraig also wrote a prequel called Ruth's Journey.

The one that I would actually have an interest in reading is the parody The Wind Done Gone by Alice Randall, a parody of the book that tells the same story from the perspective of a slave.

I thought someone wrote a "sequel" years later.
Did MM authorize those continuations?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I thought someone wrote a "sequel" years later.
Did MM authorize those continuations?

Did you read my post?

There were a couple of 'authorized continuations':
Scarlett by Alexandra Ripley
Rhett Butler's People by Donald McCraig
McCraig also wrote a prequel called Ruth's Journey.

[ekbell]

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'm not sure if this would work. The Thrush Green series by 'Miss Read' as a whole are not written with a single point of view character but there is a strong sense of time and change throughout the series with plenty of references to previous events. Any one who cared about spoilers or catching references would want to read the books in the proper order.

Personally, I consider it a good idea to note if a book is part of a common universe/setting, a series, multi-book epic and otherwise it's reasonable to assume none of the above.

The common universe/setting includes things like Star Trek, follow-on Sherlock Holmes books, Nancy Drew or any other group of books sharing a setting and/or characters without necessarily influencing each other (I do realize that there are series within a larger common setting - I'd expect both to be noted). A series will have references to events in other books although the degree to which past events influences the characters or setting will vary (past events have only a minimal effect in many detective series). A multi-book epic is when the main plot covers the entire series such that the series can be described as as complete or incomplete.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I really don't get why people think "could be read alone" is somehow synonymous with "should (or was intended to) be read alone!" Or that "could be read alone" is even in any way objectively defined for all readers.

No two readers' coulds are the same. So such a statement is fairly unhelpful.

I hope I haven't given the impression that I equate "should be read alone" with anything else. But I do think it is possible - for many (most?) books - to objectively say that they were "intended to be able to be read alone" (a bit of a mouthful but you need to whole thing to see what I'm getting at).

Take Pratchett's Discworld novels as an example. There have been lengthy arguments here about what order they should be read in (that we don't need to repeat), but it is apparent that Pratchett intended that it would be possible for someone to just pick up any one of these novels and read it, without having read anything else. (At the start of Lords and Ladies he adds a note starting "By and large, most Discworld books have stood by themselves, as complete books." and then proceeds to tell you what you need to know so this book, too, could be read on its own.)

Pratchett wasn't trying to tell anyone that they should read them alone, only that they could read them alone.

And this is largely my point: "stand-alone" and "self-contained" both indicate that a book could be read alone. How is that not objective? It in no way tries to tell people who prefer some other other reading order that they must obey the directive, it only tells them that it could be this way ... if that's okay with them.

Those of us that prefer to read books in some particular order (for me it's publication order), will do additional research. Like you, I would prefer to know if a book is totally unrelated to anything else the author has written, but I'm never going to accept another person's "stand-alone" description as meaning that, they will have to be more explicit.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by gmw

Like you, I would prefer to know if a book is totally unrelated to anything else the author has written, but I'm never going to accept another person's "stand-alone" description as meaning that, they will have to be more explicit.

You're right, of course. I'm more than likely going to do my own research into a book's stand-alone nature. But not all authors are as forthcoming as I'd like them to be concerning their intent. So I sometimes wish that the rest of the world would help me to reduce my workload a bit. Primarily by understanding that even the most tenuous of connections might be relevant to some of us when considering the order in which we might choose to tackle an author's repertoire. Or when considering if we want to tackle it right now (or at all).

[gmw]

DiapDealer, here's a little contribution to the database of unexpected connections:

I recently read Lamb by Christopher Moore. It turns out that there is a connection between that and his first published book Practical Demonkeeping. It's not something that - in my opinion - would warrant recommending that you should read Practical Demonkeeping first (which is an amusing story but not much more, whereas Lamb impressed me very much). The only other book of his that I've read so far is Fool, which I also enjoyed very much. No connections in Fool (that I noticed) but given the nature of the connection in Lamb I would not be surprised to find more as I read more of his books. Beware!

[Apache]

Originally Posted by gmw

DiapDealer, here's a little contribution to the database of unexpected connections:

I recently read Lamb by Christopher Moore. It turns out that there is a connection between that and his first published book Practical Demonkeeping. It's not something that - in my opinion - would warrant recommending that you should read Practical Demonkeeping first (which is an amusing story but not much more, whereas Lamb impressed me very much). The only other book of his that I've read so far is Fool, which I also enjoyed very much. No connections in Fool (that I noticed) but given the nature of the connection in Lamb I would not be surprised to find more as I read more of his books. Beware!

The Serpent of Venice, published in 2014, is a sequel to Fool.
My favorite book of Moore's is Bloodsucking Fiends.
Apache

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by gmw

DiapDealer, here's a little contribution to the database of unexpected connections:

I recently read Lamb by Christopher Moore. It turns out that there is a connection between that and his first published book Practical Demonkeeping. It's not something that - in my opinion - would warrant recommending that you should read Practical Demonkeeping first (which is an amusing story but not much more, whereas Lamb impressed me very much). The only other book of his that I've read so far is Fool, which I also enjoyed very much. No connections in Fool (that I noticed) but given the nature of the connection in Lamb I would not be surprised to find more as I read more of his books. Beware!

According to Wikipedia and Book Series Inorder (which seems to swipe from Wikipedia), all Christopher Moore books except for Fool, Sacre Bleu and The Serpent of Venice take place in the same universe. They didn't have an attribution and I didn't dig further, because I really don't care. But I would say that if his books do all take place in the same fictional universe, that doesn't necessarily make them all a single series.

I think there's a difference between an author writing books that require a reader to have read previous books to understand various plot points and an author dropping winking references for fans into their work.

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.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I think there's a difference between an author writing books that require a reader to have read previous books to understand various plot points and an author dropping winking references for fans into their work.

I think there's a difference, too. But unfortunately, one reader's "winking reference" might often be another's "requirement." The problem lies in the fact that people use their own sense of "you don't really need to read X before Y" when conversing with others. It's understandable to do so, but ultimately not all that helpful (or transferable) to another reader. A more helpful statement would be something like, "I read Y without reading X. And while I didn't feel I was missing out on anything relevant by doing so, both books are part of a shared universe, so your mileage may vary."

I absolutely love Easter Eggs, inside jokes, winking references, and all the subtle things that can occur with even the most tenuous of connections between an author's various books (when read in such an order that those things reveal themselves in a chronologically "correct" manner). I would be saddened to find out that I missed out on any of those things by not knowing that the books were loosely connected (or part of a shared universe) in the first place, and starting with the wrong (wrong for me) book.