Anyone dislike series?

[Greg Anos]

I've just read this thread, front to back, and have a few comments.

First, I look at stories, not books. They can be short, long, or in between, but a short story series is just as much a series as series of novels.

Second, there is another category that seems to have been glossed over. I call it the mosaic story pattern. A series of stories with a common milieu, with no other obvious connection. I'll give a couple of examples. Ray Bradbury's Mars yarns. A mosaic of short short stories, with very little interconnection, against a common background. You could read virtually any one as an independent story, or you could read the whole mosaic. Another aspect is the S/F "future history" milieus. First started by Heinlein, where totally different stories all map upon a common background, occurring over a long "historical" timespan. You can pick and choose among the time points to read inside that milieu, and not be dependent on reading another other part of the "series".

Finally, what to do about a true sequel? Some stories end up spawning a sequel. Often those books are not dependent on the first book that spawned them. For example, does Huckleberry Finn require reading Tom Sawyer to be enjoyed? Or from the Heinlein Future History, does Time Enough For Love require reading Methuselah's Children ? I don't think so.

Anyway, just another perspective.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'd be happy if only people would stop using "stand alone" when they clearly mean "it's not 100% stand alone, but I really want you to consider reading it anyway, so I'm going to stretch the definition further than it should be stretched."

I can see how that could be annoying.

Ah well, I gave up "recommending" - in the sense of trying to evangelise a book/movie/song/album - a long time ago. If I love a book I really don't care if anyone else does. These days I often have conversations that start "What are you reading at the moment?" but I never "recommend" a book as such.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by latepaul

I can see how that could be annoying.

Ah well, I gave up "recommending" - in the sense of trying to evangelise a book/movie/song/album - a long time ago. If I love a book I really don't care if anyone else does. These days I often have conversations that start "What are you reading at the moment?" but I never "recommend" a book as such.

I'm the same way--except that I haven't given up on recommending. I enjoy trying to match someone up with books that fit their requirements/expectations. I take pride in being able to do it well. I do that by listening to what their likes and dislikes are, and by forgetting about trying to evangelize my favorites. That's not the point for me.

It's not about me. I've read lots of books. Many of them I've not loved. But of the ones that I've not loved, I find that others sometimes do. For me, recommending isn't about "spreading the love" for my favorite books or authors. It's about matching someone else up with a book that's a good fit for them. Sometimes that's books that I've loved, sometimes it's books that I've appreciated (but not loved), and sometimes it's books that I've heard others talk about, but have not read myself.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I've just read this thread, front to back, and have a few comments.

First, I look at stories, not books. They can be short, long, or in between, but a short story series is just as much a series as series of novels.

Second, there is another category that seems to have been glossed over. I call it the mosaic story pattern. A series of stories with a common milieu, with no other obvious connection. I'll give a couple of examples. Ray Bradbury's Mars yarns. A mosaic of short short stories, with very little interconnection, against a common background. You could read virtually any one as an independent story, or you could read the whole mosaic. Another aspect is the S/F "future history" milieus. First started by Heinlein, where totally different stories all map upon a common background, occurring over a long "historical" timespan. You can pick and choose among the time points to read inside that milieu, and not be dependent on reading another other part of the "series".

Finally, what to do about a true sequel? Some stories end up spawning a sequel. Often those books are not dependent on the first book that spawned them. For example, does Huckleberry Finn require reading Tom Sawyer to be enjoyed? Or from the Heinlein Future History, does Time Enough For Love require reading Methuselah's Children ? I don't think so.

Anyway, just another perspective.

I've never read Tom Sawyer. I have read Huckleberry Finn and knowing the year it was published won me a rain gauge. Even better than that was the dingbat I was with told me I didn't know the answer while I was dialing the phone. The look on her face was priceless when the TV station said I won.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I understand there are extremes, overlaps, and subjectivity--even with my suggested terms. I'm not foolish enough to expect everyone to be as nitpicky as me with their application. I'd be happy if only people would stop using "stand alone" when they clearly mean "it's not 100% stand alone, but I really want you to consider reading it anyway, so I'm going to stretch the definition further than it should be stretched."

To be fair, it could be more about their assumptions about what you want in a stand-alone book than try to sucker you into reading a series.

For example, this thread is "Anyone dislike series?" So if someone I knew didn't like to read series, I might recommend a book in a series as one that stands on its own - no previous knowledge required, no dangling threads. If they're just looking for a good story, but don't want to get bogged down in a long series - that book would still suit their needs.

In your comments on this thread, though, it sounds more like you do read series, but don't want to pick up a book in the middle of the series, in case you might later want to read that series.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

To be fair, it could be more about their assumptions about what you want in a stand-alone book than try to sucker you into reading a series.

It's not even that I think they're trying to "sucker" me. It's that they're not really thinking about me at all. They're just bound on pimping their favorite stuff even when they know it doesn't fit my requested criteria. The minute I mention I'm looking for a stand alone book, is when I start getting, "well this one's part of a series, but ... " , or "it's mostly self-contained, so...", or "this one CAN be read without the prior installments if you ...." It can be quite maddening, really.

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

In your comments on this thread, though, it sounds more like you do read series, but don't want to pick up a book in the middle of the series, in case you might later want to read that series.

I've read a lot of series in the past. I still read a few here and there (mostly after they've been completed), but I shy away from them more and more all the time. I think they tend to be a crutch for readers and authors alike. But yes, I would never knowingly pick up a book in the middle of a series. Not because I might want to later read the series, but because I can't stand the idea of starting in the middle of something--anything. Period.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It'not even that I think they're trying to "sucker" me. It's that they're not really thinking about me at all. They're just bound on pimping their favorite stuff even when they know it doesn't fit my requested criteria. The minute I mention I'm looking for a stand alone book, is when I start getting, "well this one's part of a series, but ... " , or "it's mostly self-contained, so...", or "this one CAN be read without the prior installments if you ...." It can be quite maddening, really.


I've read a lot of series in the past. I still read a few here and there (mostly after they've been completed), but I shy away from them more and more all the time. I think they tend to be a crutch for readers and authors alike. But yes, I would never knowingly pick up a book in the middle of a series. Not because I might want to later read the series, but because I can't stand the idea of starting in the middle of something--anything. Period.

In that case I won't recommend my all time favorite books.
Cheaper by the dozen and Belles on their toes.
The first is about an efficiency expert that had 12 kids.
Goes from early 1900's to 1924. The second runs from 1924 to WW2.
Fun books.

[kyteflyer]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

In that case I won't recommend my all time favorite books.
Cheaper by the dozen and Belles on their toes.
The first is about an efficiency expert that had 12 kids.
Goes from early 1900's to 1924. The second runs from 1924 to WW2.
Fun books.

I havent read Belles on their Toes, but Cheaper by the Dozen is worth recommending. Its hilarious. I read it when I was 12 or so, Mum had a copy and I was getting bored with kid books. Loved it.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by kyteflyer

I havent read Belles on their Toes, but Cheaper by the Dozen is worth recommending. Its hilarious. I read it when I was 12 or so, Mum had a copy and I was getting bored with kid books. Loved it.

If you thought Cheaper was hilarious, Belles is even funnier. It starts where Cheaper leaves off.

*Both are available as ebooks.

[Alohamora]

What about Connie Willis's time travel series? Are Doomsday Book, To say nothing of the Dog, Blackout and All Clear really a series? Blackout and All Clear together, of course, are. But does as sharing a setting and time travel device make the others into a series?
I read them in publication order, but I'd tell someone it's OK to read any of them stand-alone, treating Blackout/All Clear as one. But my memory is hazy on whether there are any real spoilers if read out of order.

Even If you start at the beginning (publication order), she seems to like dropping the reader into the middle of something already going on.

Is starting in the middle as bad when the author does it themselves? Considering series-wise (Star Wars, Asimov's Foundation) or just the middle of a story for a single book?

[JSWolf]

In order to get the full benefit of Stephen King's Dark Tower series, here is the reading order.

The Stand
The Eyes of the Dragon
The Dark Tower I: The Gunslinger
“The Little Sisters of Eluria”
The Dark Tower II: The Drawing of the Three
The Dark Tower III: The Waste Lands
The Dark Tower IV: Wizard and Glass
‘Salem’s Lot
Hearts in Atlantis
Insomnia
“Everything’s Eventual”
The Dark Tower: The Wind Through the Keyhole
The Dark Tower V: Wolves of the Calla
The Dark Tower VI: Song of Susannah
Black House
The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower

https://geekunchained.wordpress.com/...-reading-list/

That URL explains this reading order in more detail.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It'not even that I think they're trying to "sucker" me. It's that they're not really thinking about me at all. They're just bound on pimping their favorite stuff even when they know it doesn't fit my requested criteria. The minute I mention I'm looking for a stand alone book, is when I start getting, "well this one's part of a series, but ... " , or "it's mostly self-contained, so...", or "this one CAN be read without the prior installments if you ...." It can be quite maddening, really.


I've read a lot of series in the past. I still read a few here and there (mostly after they've been completed), but I shy away from them more and more all the time. I think they tend to be a crutch for readers and authors alike. But yes, I would never knowingly pick up a book in the middle of a series. Not because I might want to later read the series, but because I can't stand the idea of starting in the middle of something--anything. Period.

It sounds like you're dealing with a person who just doesn't listen to what you are saying. I think if that person tried to recommend a book to me, I'd just say "thanks for the recommendation" and try to change the subject!

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

It sounds like you're dealing with a person who just doesn't listen to what you are saying. I think if that person tried to recommend a book to me, I'd just say "thanks for the recommendation" and try to change the subject!

Substitute "internet" for "person" and you're spot on!

[ametzler]

Originally Posted by Alohamora

What about Connie Willis's time travel series? Are Doomsday Book, To say nothing of the Dog, Blackout and All Clear really a series? Blackout and All Clear together, of course, are. But does as sharing a setting and time travel device make the others into a series?
[...]

Yes, type 4. ;-) Jo Walton has nicely categorized the different type of series https://www.tor.com/2009/04/06/so-wh...s-do-you-like/ and https://www.tor.com/2012/04/25/heres...ls-and-chunks/, in short like this:

Style One, The Lord of the Rings, one book with extra pieces of cardboard.

Style Two, Doctrine of Labyrinths, where you have some volume closure but need to read the books in order.

Style Three, Vlad and Vorkosigan, where the cumulative effect of reading all of them is to give you a story arc and more investment in the characters, but it doesn’t really matter where you start and whether you read them in order.

Style Four, Union Alliance, where the volumes are completely independent of each other though they may reflect interestingly on each other.

[HLS]

I like series novels if they are good and nomore than a few books. If a series has like 20 books I will not start it for there is no way I will be caught up.

One series I hated was The Dark Tower and the ending is so maddening you want to burn the series LOL. it is like 4,500 pages of insanity