Series, series and more damned series! - Page 3

Fbone · 12-02-2011, 10:22 PM

I would rather have a series than one 1300 page book.

laughingdragons · 12-02-2011, 10:26 PM

What I don't like about a series is when the author doesn't know when to end one and keeps going.

xg4bx · 12-03-2011, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laughingdragons

What I don't like about a series is when the author doesn't know when to end one and keeps going.

or just milks the series to the point of ridiculousness, i.e. Dune.

Todd Young · 12-03-2011, 02:08 AM

I'm not a big fan of series, although I did recently enjoy Cassandra Clare's Mortal Instruments, probably because I had all of them to read at once.

I was recently loaned "The Name of the Wind" as a pbook. I'm not a big fantasy fan, but was assured it was a great book. There was nothing anywhere on the cover to indicate that it was the first in a series. You had to wait till the last page, after which there was an advertisement for the next book - not published at the time. After having put so much time and effort into a book that didn't resolve the major plot lines, I was annoyed. I know the book is popular, but it just didn't do it for me, and I won't be looking for the next in the series.

Somewhat better was Justin Cronin's "The Passage," but honestly, I really don't think I'd start on any series unless the whole thing was finished. If I do continue with Cronin's trilogy, I really can't believe I'm going to remember what the whole thing was about.

Samantha Cain · 12-03-2011, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afa

I love series...

I enjoy series because it not only allows me to revisit the characters and the world I like, but revisit them in a new setting, rather than exactly the same thing again and again.

I agree with this 10000%

I find it difficult to become so vested in characters and a world and then never hear from them/it again.

I do also agree that it shouldn't be used as an excuse to drag out the author's creativity for more money. If the storyline warrants extra novels, so be it and I look forward to it. But it is definitely a turn-off when the series continues with no new ideas or twists or challenges for the characters.

____________________________

[Unauthorized self-promotion - MODERATOR]

Nyssa · 12-03-2011, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

I always assumed publishers preferred series to hook readers into buying that elusive "more".

Quote:

Originally Posted by xg4bx

or just milks the series to the point of ridiculousness, i.e. Dune.

That's exactly right!

Its not always the authors who push for a series but the publishers.
A teacher with whom I volunteer went to a writer's workshop for children's books and the leader of the workshop said : Be prepared to be asked for a series. One of the first things an interested publisher asks is "Can this be a series?" what they mean is "Can this be a huge money maker and can we exploit it for all its worth". The difference with children's books, however, is that story-arcs aren't usually necessary.

I personally love series, but I do appreciate a good solid stand alone novel as well.

tothepoint · 12-03-2011, 05:09 AM

I like it that you quoted Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. This was of course a series of short stories and novelllas. It was Mr Conan Doyle that got me excited about books. Personally, I think the shorter forms are better for series. And I agree though with what you said about many books being driven by marketing these days. I guess it's about where you draw the line between wanting to write stories that you hope people will enjoy and cynically chasing readers.

pdurrant · 12-03-2011, 05:27 AM

I like series. But I like series of novels, where each book is, in some way, complete in itself.

I'm not so fond of series that are one long story that happens to have been split into several books because of physical publishing requirements.

I especially dislike such series when all the books in it haven't been published (or written!) yet.

Nyssa · 12-03-2011, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I like series. But I like series of novels, where each book is, in some way, complete in itself.

I'm not so fond of series that are one long story that happens to have been split into several books because of physical publishing requirements.

I especially dislike such series when all the books in it haven't been published (or written!) yet.

Loosheesh · 12-03-2011, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I like series. But I like series of novels, where each book is, in some way, complete in itself.

I'm not so fond of series that are one long story that happens to have been split into several books because of physical publishing requirements.

I especially dislike such series when all the books in it haven't been published (or written!) yet.

^This = my love/hate relationship with series.

I think I'd try more fantasy and PNR if so much of it wasn't tied up in series; I'm just afraid of getting burnt. I can get compulsive about books and I'm afraid of getting stuck in a series I don't really care for anymore but feel obliged to continue to the bitter end. I'm strange that way

Nyssa · 12-03-2011, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loosheesh

^This = my love/hate relationship with series.

I think I'd try more fantasy and PNR if so much of it wasn't tied up in series; I'm just afraid of getting burnt. I can get compulsive about books and I'm afraid of getting stuck in a series I don't really care for anymore but feel obliged to continue to the bitter end. I'm strange that way

You're not as strange as you think!

wallcraft · 12-03-2011, 09:05 AM

There is a distinction between a series and a trilogy. In a series, each book should stand on its own although reading in series order may be a good idea. In a trilogy, the three books really need to be read together and each book might not stand on its own. The Name of the Wind, by Patrick Rothfuss, is the first of a trilogy. It, and The Wise Man's Fear, are worth reading on their own but some things won't be clear until (presumably) the 3rd book comes out. It is a particular problem with trilogies that readers have to wait for the 3rd book. In the case of Patrick Rothfuss, we had to wait 4 years for the 2nd book in the trilogy (it was worth the wait).

Recently, publishers have been turning long novels into trilogies. This has the advantage that you know the 3rd book will happen (since it is already written) but the disadvantage that the publisher is charging you for 3 books and making you wait 2 years to read the entire thing.

Also recently, some series seem to be shading into trilogy territory (no story arc for each book), without the advantage of a known ending point.

carpetmojo · 12-03-2011, 09:36 AM

Ummmm....

I love a good series.
Oddly enough, I can't bear one that's rubbish....

I also love a good series that's, ideally, no more than three books - don't mind how long they are. With three, even if it starts from a successful solo book, there's less danger of the author losing track of things !
This, for me, is what happened with George Martin, and why I've given up on him.
Naturally, there will always be exceptions, but the series of three does fit into the classic playwriting "beginning, middle, and an end" guidelines.

And, along with others, I do get bored with inknown writers announcing the first part of what will be a 29 book series......anything less likely to make me want to start Bk 1 .........

I also object to investing time and effort into a series, with a good starting premise, that I then start to lose interest in early on - but kind of feel I ought to give it a chance 'cos it might recover.....
It rarely does.

I think I was spoilt by discovering Tolkein at the tender age of 9/10, well before it became a cult.
I must have, on reflection, looked slightly odd lugging a vast tome with me everywhere, at that age - which lasted a long time, as it wasn't an easy read I remember.......
Nobody'd know now, with me PRS squirelled away

DiapDealer · 12-03-2011, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wallcraft

There is a distinction between a series and a trilogy. In a series, each book should stand on its own although reading in series order may be a good idea. In a trilogy, the three books really need to be read together and each book might not stand on its own. The Name of the Wind, by Patrick Rothfuss, is the first of a trilogy. It, and The Wise Man's Fear, are worth reading on their own but some things won't be clear until (presumably) the 3rd book comes out. It is a particular problem with trilogies that readers have to wait for the 3rd book. In the case of Patrick Rothfuss, we had to wait 4 years for the 2nd book in the trilogy (it was worth the wait).

Actually the term Trilogy is supposed to be reserved for three books that can stand individually on their own, but are tied loosely together (by either characters or setting). They can be experienced individually OR as a whole. That's why Lord of the Rings is NOT technically a trilogy. Tolkien wrote them as one big volume in three parts—and wanted them published in one big volume, but his publishers nixed that idea and split the volume into three individual books. None of which can really be read independently of the others. Same goes for Rothfuss's Kingkiller Chronicles. Neither of the first two books in that series can possibly stand on its own. It's not a trilogy. It's a 4000 page book chopped into three sections (with little regard for a natural story-arc in each section). I love the way Rothfuss writes... but I absolutely hate the format he's chosen (that's quite often my dilemma these days).

An example of a Trilogy (as it was conceived) is Terry Brooks first three Shannara novels (Sword of Shannara, Elfstones of Shannara, and Wishsong of Shannara). Each book is complete unto itself, but are tied together by familiar families (though generations removed) and setting. Brooks has written several three part series since then, but not a single one has been a trilogy. They've been one story spread across three books. All three must be read to experience the satisfaction of reading an entire natural story-arc.

I have no problem with true trilogies and tetralogies. In fact, if more of them were being written in the speculative genre, I'd have no beef (OK, no big beef).

CWatkinsNash · 12-03-2011, 01:00 PM

For me, it depends. One of my favorite new authors busted right out of the gate with a series - The Iron Druid Chronicles by Kevin Hearne. I've read the first two, the third is available (and I'm salivating for it) and the 4th comes out in April. Normally this would annoy me, I think, but I just adore Kevin and the characters he's created so I can't complain one bit. It helps that the first three books were released very close together.

I'm also rather enmeshed in The Dresden Files. I'm on book #7 of the 13 already completed. Butcher's planning like 23 or 24, I can't recall the exact number. I just started the series this year, and I didn't know I'd get hooked, but I am and, again, I can't complain because I get a lot of enjoyment out of reading them.

But there seems to be a theme for me - I'm fine with series in certain genres. In these two cases, urban fantasy. Also in these two cases, written by men, but I'm not sure if that has anything to do with it. I do know I prefer their approach over LKH's fang-porn.

Outside of urban fantasy, I tend to avoid series. However, one of my goals for 2012 is to try a couple of scifi series and some older fantasy series. I decided to make it as painless as possible and went to Baen & Fifth Imperium to get some that were fully available, and free. Getting hooked on the Dresden files turned out to be a bit of an investment and I don't want the next series I get hooked on to break me.

12-03-2011, 05:09 AM	#37
tothepoint Writer Posts: 42 Karma: 122944 Join Date: Sep 2011 Device: Kindle	I like it that you quoted Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. This was of course a series of short stories and novelllas. It was Mr Conan Doyle that got me excited about books. Personally, I think the shorter forms are better for series. And I agree though with what you said about many books being driven by marketing these days. I guess it's about where you draw the line between wanting to write stories that you hope people will enjoy and cynically chasing readers. Last edited by tothepoint; 12-03-2011 at 05:12 AM.

12-03-2011, 09:36 AM	#43
carpetmojo Wizard Posts: 3,117 Karma: 9269999 Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: UK Device: Sony- T3, PRS650, 350, T1/2/3, Paperwhite, Fire 8.9,Samsung Tab S 10.5	It all rather depends, dunnit.... Ummmm.... I love a good series. Oddly enough, I can't bear one that's rubbish.... I also love a good series that's, ideally, no more than three books - don't mind how long they are. With three, even if it starts from a successful solo book, there's less danger of the author losing track of things ! This, for me, is what happened with George Martin, and why I've given up on him. Naturally, there will always be exceptions, but the series of three does fit into the classic playwriting "beginning, middle, and an end" guidelines. And, along with others, I do get bored with inknown writers announcing the first part of what will be a 29 book series......anything less likely to make me want to start Bk 1 ......... I also object to investing time and effort into a series, with a good starting premise, that I then start to lose interest in early on - but kind of feel I ought to give it a chance 'cos it might recover..... It rarely does. I think I was spoilt by discovering Tolkein at the tender age of 9/10, well before it became a cult. I must have, on reflection, looked slightly odd lugging a vast tome with me everywhere, at that age - which lasted a long time, as it wasn't an easy read I remember....... Nobody'd know now, with me PRS squirelled away

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Show series number but not if they aren't in a series?	M4cc45	Library Management	10	09-03-2011 07:35 PM
Command Line problems: ebook-convert, ebook-meta with tags: --series, --series-index	omnivorous	Calibre	4	11-07-2010 02:42 PM
Different export filenames for series / non-series books?	HarryT	Calibre	3	08-18-2010 12:30 PM
Author, Series, Series #, Books	diokdin	Calibre	19	05-14-2010 05:36 AM
Pet peeve: series authors who introduce things in non-series books!	ficbot	Reading Recommendations	12	02-06-2010 02:14 AM

12-02-2011, 10:22 PM	#31
Fbone Is that a sandwich? Posts: 8,292 Karma: 101697116 Join Date: Jun 2010 Device: Nook Glowlight Plus	I would rather have a series than one 1300 page book.

12-02-2011, 10:26 PM	#32
laughingdragons Groupie Posts: 189 Karma: 1125536 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: CA Device: Sony PRS-350 1 Pink 1 Silver Paperwhite Kindle	What I don't like about a series is when the author doesn't know when to end one and keeps going.

12-03-2011, 02:08 AM	#34
Todd Young Addict Posts: 243 Karma: 1004164 Join Date: May 2011 Device: Kindle 2	I'm not a big fan of series, although I did recently enjoy Cassandra Clare's Mortal Instruments, probably because I had all of them to read at once. I was recently loaned "The Name of the Wind" as a pbook. I'm not a big fantasy fan, but was assured it was a great book. There was nothing anywhere on the cover to indicate that it was the first in a series. You had to wait till the last page, after which there was an advertisement for the next book - not published at the time. After having put so much time and effort into a book that didn't resolve the major plot lines, I was annoyed. I know the book is popular, but it just didn't do it for me, and I won't be looking for the next in the series. Somewhat better was Justin Cronin's "The Passage," but honestly, I really don't think I'd start on any series unless the whole thing was finished. If I do continue with Cronin's trilogy, I really can't believe I'm going to remember what the whole thing was about.

12-03-2011, 05:27 AM	#38
pdurrant The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠 Posts: 73,955 Karma: 315160596 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Norfolk, England Device: Kindle Oasis	I like series. But I like series of novels, where each book is, in some way, complete in itself. I'm not so fond of series that are one long story that happens to have been split into several books because of physical publishing requirements. I especially dislike such series when all the books in it haven't been published (or written!) yet.

12-03-2011, 09:05 AM	#42
wallcraft reader Posts: 6,977 Karma: 5183568 Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Mississippi, USA Device: Kindle 3, Kobo Glo HD	There is a distinction between a series and a trilogy. In a series, each book should stand on its own although reading in series order may be a good idea. In a trilogy, the three books really need to be read together and each book might not stand on its own. The Name of the Wind, by Patrick Rothfuss, is the first of a trilogy. It, and The Wise Man's Fear, are worth reading on their own but some things won't be clear until (presumably) the 3rd book comes out. It is a particular problem with trilogies that readers have to wait for the 3rd book. In the case of Patrick Rothfuss, we had to wait 4 years for the 2nd book in the trilogy (it was worth the wait). Recently, publishers have been turning long novels into trilogies. This has the advantage that you know the 3rd book will happen (since it is already written) but the disadvantage that the publisher is charging you for 3 books and making you wait 2 years to read the entire thing. Also recently, some series seem to be shading into trilogy territory (no story arc for each book), without the advantage of a known ending point.

12-03-2011, 01:00 PM	#45
CWatkinsNash IOC Chief Archivist Posts: 3,950 Karma: 53868218 Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Fruitland Park, FL, USA Device: Meebook M7, Paperwhite 2021, Fire HD 8+, Fire HD 10+, Lenovo Tab P12	For me, it depends. One of my favorite new authors busted right out of the gate with a series - The Iron Druid Chronicles by Kevin Hearne. I've read the first two, the third is available (and I'm salivating for it) and the 4th comes out in April. Normally this would annoy me, I think, but I just adore Kevin and the characters he's created so I can't complain one bit. It helps that the first three books were released very close together. I'm also rather enmeshed in The Dresden Files. I'm on book #7 of the 13 already completed. Butcher's planning like 23 or 24, I can't recall the exact number. I just started the series this year, and I didn't know I'd get hooked, but I am and, again, I can't complain because I get a lot of enjoyment out of reading them. But there seems to be a theme for me - I'm fine with series in certain genres. In these two cases, urban fantasy. Also in these two cases, written by men, but I'm not sure if that has anything to do with it. I do know I prefer their approach over LKH's fang-porn. Outside of urban fantasy, I tend to avoid series. However, one of my goals for 2012 is to try a couple of scifi series and some older fantasy series. I decided to make it as painless as possible and went to Baen & Fifth Imperium to get some that were fully available, and free. Getting hooked on the Dresden files turned out to be a bit of an investment and I don't want the next series I get hooked on to break me.

Advert

Advert