The open ended series

[theducks]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

In Death is somewhere in my TBR pile and it's among those I really intend to read in my remaining lifetime. Glad to know the series doesn't lose steam after a few books.

I can't say 'Move it up the list', but when, do start with the first few books. It does set some major background (more than just a Spoiler or three ).

J. P. Jance has 2 (main) "Police Procedural's" that are also very good (and should Start at the Start of their series.

Police / Mystery are some of the types that are not really a 'series that has an end'. At least, until they bury the main Law Enforcement character.

What would you call Cherryh's Foreigner? (at one time, I heard they were done in 3 book cycles ??? )

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Luffy

I gave Rothfuss's TNOTW 3 stars and the sequel TWMF 1 star on Goodreads. I fully know I'm in the minority, both in this thread and on Goodreads.

Well, tastes differ. I was bored to tears by Erikson's Gardens of the Moon, which many people rave about. One man's bread is another's poison and all that. Which is a good thing, of course, so everyone can find something to suit their taste.

I wasn't particularly ecstatic about TNOTW either, 3 stars is what I'd give it too. Still haven't read the sequel.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by theducks

I can't say 'Move it up the list', but when, do start with the first few books. It does set some major background (more than just a Spoiler or three ).

J. P. Jance has 2 (main) "Police Procedural's" that are also very good (and should Start at the Start of their series.

Police / Mystery are some of the types that are not really a 'series that has an end'. At least, until they bury the main Law Enforcement character.

What would you call Cherryh's Foreigner? (at one time, I heard they were done in 3 book cycles ??? )

Thanks for the tip about Jance.

As I've only read the first 3 Foreigner books (I liked them, but they're kinda slow going for the most part), I'm not qualified to opine about the whole series, but I'd be interested to hear what others think. I do intend to read more books in it.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I wasn't particularly ecstatic about TNOTW either, 3 stars is what I'd give it too. Still haven't read the sequel.

I thought TNOTW was OK, but it was way longer than it needed to be, with some really heavy-handed foreshadowing in my opinion. I didn't like it enough to be bored by the second book, however. Never mind that it was abundantly clear to me after the first book that his definition of The Kingkiller Chronicles being "finished" in three installments won't be the same as my definition of "finished." It will merely be the final installment in the first trilogy of Kvothe's saga.

I gave up on GRRM's ASOIAF not because of the delays. Well not only the delays, anyway. I gave up because after the long delay in getting A Feast for Crows written/pulblished, it quite frankly, stunk on ice. Ridiculously padded, and utterly devoid of all the characters I wanted to be reading about.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by library addict

Or, as with the already mentioned In Death series, each book works as a stand-alone. The trick with this type of series is that the characters need to grow and change. I will lose interest if the main characters don't evolve as a series continues.

I have to disagree that each book in the In Death series works as a standalone. There are character arcs and referrals to things that happened previously. In a series, if there is any character development or even a single sentence that refers to something from a previous book, then it's not standalone. And if the characters evolve, the books are not standalone. You can have a book in the series where the none of the characters evolve and nothing in the past is mentioned. But still, how do you write the characters if they've evolved from previous books? You have to write them as they are now (unless the book is one that takes place in the past).

As a side note, the In Death series was originally set to only be a trilogy.

That I did not know. If it was going to be a trilogy, the third book would have to be very much different.

[JSWolf]

I do think Rothfuss is overrated. I read the first book and it was OK, but nothing startling or special.

[Luffy]

I've been surprised here, and also here in the past, that there are fans of the In Death series. On one hand there's too much suffering in Eve's history, on the other I am not attracted to the romance between Eve and Roarke.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I have to disagree that each book in the In Death series works as a standalone. There are character arcs and referrals to things that happened previously. In a series, if there is any character development or even a single sentence that refers to something from a previous book, then it's not standalone. And if the characters evolve, the books are not standalone. You can have a book in the series where the none of the characters evolve and nothing in the past is mentioned. But still, how do you write the characters if they've evolved from previous books? You have to write them as they are now (unless the book is one that takes place in the past).

That's all perfectly true for writing the stories in a series (i.e. you need continuity in them), but you don't have to read them that way if each story is written to be standalone. By that, I mean that each standalone novel contains the beginning of a story, the end of that story, and the information that you need to know to make sense of the story. Something may have happened in a previous novel, but if the necessary information is given in the current novel, then you don't need to read the previous one to get it. Lots of series are written that way (especially police/detective series as someone else mentioned).

Our brains are good at making connections and filling in holes. Reviewing new information against old ideas is what we do, so reading stories out of order isn't bad if each one is written to be standalone.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Luffy

I've been surprised here, and also here in the past, that there are fans of the In Death series. On one hand there's too much suffering in Eve's history, on the other I am not attracted to the romance between Eve and Roarke.

The romance is very short and easily ignored.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rkomar

That's all perfectly true for writing the stories in a series (i.e. you need continuity in them), but you don't have to read them that way if each story is written to be standalone. By that, I mean that each standalone novel contains the beginning of a story, the end of that story, and the information that you need to know to make sense of the story. Something may have happened in a previous novel, but if the necessary information is given in the current novel, then you don't need to read the previous one to get it. Lots of series are written that way (especially police/detective series as someone else mentioned).

Our brains are good at making connections and filling in holes. Reviewing new information against old ideas is what we do, so reading stories out of order isn't bad if each one is written to be standalone.

The only novel of a series that is truly standalone is the first one as long as it has a proper ending.

Our brains want to know what happened before and not just get snippets that spoil a previous book.We don't want to read a previous book and find we know too much ahead of time.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Luffy

I've been surprised here, and also here in the past, that there are fans of the In Death series. On one hand there's too much suffering in Eve's history, on the other I am not attracted to the romance between Eve and Roarke.

I'm sure many people are attracted especially to the romance. Romance is one of the most popular genres, at least among women. You may not like romance, but there are hordes of people who do. Why is that surprising?

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The only novel of a series that is truly standalone is the first one as long as it has a proper ending.

Our brains want to know what happened before and not just get snippets that spoil a previous book.We don't want to read a previous book and find we know too much ahead of time.

Personally I never read any series out of order, not even mysteries. I just can't. But I'm aware there are many who don't particularly care about exact continuity.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I'm sure many people are attracted especially to the romance. Romance is one of the most popular genres, at least among women. You may not like romance, but there are hordes of people who do. Why is that surprising?

I've been surprised by the likes of JSWolf, who don't like erotica yet read this series. I'm simply surprised by the fact that fans of fantasy like this very mainstream series. I didn't expect commitment towards this 50 book franchise.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Luffy

I've been surprised by the likes of JSWolf, who don't like erotica yet read this series. I'm simply surprised by the fact that fans of fantasy like this very mainstream series. I didn't expect commitment towards this 50 book franchise.

Well, many fantasy fans also read other genres - mysteries, thrillers, police procedurals, and yes, romances. For me romance is not my go-to genre, but I've been known to read a romance novel in between other genres every now and then. And I'm not particularly averse to a romance subplot in a fantasy or a mystery novel, if it's not too cheesy (no insta-love, please).

[library addict]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I have to disagree that each book in the In Death series works as a standalone. There are character arcs and referrals to things that happened previously. In a series, if there is any character development or even a single sentence that refers to something from a previous book, then it's not standalone. And if the characters evolve, the books are not standalone. You can have a book in the series where the none of the characters evolve and nothing in the past is mentioned. But still, how do you write the characters if they've evolved from previous books? You have to write them as they are now (unless the book is one that takes place in the past).

There is development in Eve's relationships from book to book (not just the romance, but her friendships and with co-workers). But each mystery is contained within one book. So they do work as stand-alones. The reader doesn't need to know all of Eve's personal history to enjoy the murder mystery.

For the first half or more of the series previous cases were very rarely even mentioned (for me that is one of the reasons Indulgence in Death seemed odd as there was no mention of the similarity in motives to the case in Seduction in Death).

I know a number of people who have read a later book in the series first with no issues. Some went back and read the entire series, other did not.

Authors need to provide just enough background information so new readers don't feel lost, but not much that the story is bogged down in info-dumping. Some authors do this well, others not so much.

If the characters in a series have been through 5 or 10 books worth of stuff and their relationships and outlook have not developed then what is the point? Relationships grow or dissolve over time. Outside events affect things. People learn and become better at their jobs. If you can take the characters as they are in book one and plunk them down in book ten with no changes than what was the point of books two through nine? I don't want to read about such stagnant people. I have read other series like this which is the main reason why I stopped reading them.