series quality decreasing?

[JJ Johnson]

If we're also we also talking about "Inspector _______" or "Detective _______" types of series, then yes. The uniqueness of the main character wears off, the plots often become repetitious. After a while, it feels like the author is just churning them out to pay the bills.

[wildhoney66]

it does feel that way sometimes i agree, i love the Alex Cross books but not all of the ones that i've read this far i would say are fantastic books some of them are medicore but on how i look at books not every book an author writes, or movie put out by a director i happen to like, or an album are going to be good.

i love Stephen King and consider him my favorite author but even i have books that i've read of his that i think are just plain terrible. Carrie being one of them for example,

now i loved The Bone Collector by Jeffery Deaver and consider one of the best books ever written, that said i've only read 2 of them thus far and the 2nd one Coffin Dancer is a good book but compared to the first book it's a miss

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Tomk2

Did you read Altered Carbon? I found the series to be excellent, but I also found the book to be excellent. Book then series was a great way to experience them both. I have also thought a follow up book would be awesome, but I liked the original so much I cant bring myself to read a sequel.

I haven't read the books or watched the series yet. Just finished Locke and Key and I'm trying to decide now if I should watch Altered Carbon or Hell On Wheels.

The Man in the High Castle was on my list to read, but it was the series first season that finally made me read it. P.K. Dick had so many concepts that were before the times that the film adaptation, years later and usually updated, work really well. I would recommend you watch some of the series first then read the book.

I'm so used to Dick's movie adaptations only being tangentially related to the source, I'd assumed Man In The High Castle was the same.

Have you watched Philip K. Dick's Electric Dreams on Amazon?

[Tomk2]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I haven't read the books or watched the series yet. Just finished Locke and Key and I'm trying to decide now if I should watch Altered Carbon or Hell On Wheels.







I'm so used to Dick's movie adaptations only being tangentially related to the source, I'd assumed Man In The High Castle was the same.



Have you watched Philip K. Dick's Electric Dreams on Amazon?

Yes. I liked that mini series.

I have a few books of PKD short stories and novellas around somewhere, I havent found it since I moved. The thing about The Man in the High Castle was that the TV version was a very good update on the concept. When I looked at the publication date of the book, I thought that very few people would have understood quantum theories at the time, and I figure PKD might be the first author to exploit it. I was surprised at how PKD went about it, it was nowhere as straightforward as the TV series. In fact, until the TV series I thought High Castle was just an alternate history, a genre I avoid. For the time it was written, alternate realities/universes were not the standard fare they are today.

But you are correct, the TV update is only similar to the book. I still enjoyed them both.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[JSWolf]

One thing to note is that the first book in a series can be slow going because of all the setup. Nothing may really happen for a good part of the book because of this. Then in the second book, there is no need for the setup so the book can take off from the start.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

One thing to note is that the first book in a series can be slow going because of all the setup. Nothing may really happen for a good part of the book because of this. Then in the second book, there is no need for the setup so the book can take off from the start.

I'd agree to an extent but the author also has to think of the readers who did not read the previous book(s) in the series. There's a narrow path between boring those who have read the previous books and leaving those who have not feeling lost.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I'd agree to an extent but the author also has to think of the readers who did not read the previous book(s) in the series. There's a narrow path between boring those who have read the previous books and leaving those who have not feeling lost.

I find that even when someone says a book can be read out of order it's usually wrong. If there is even one sentence that mentions anything in a previous book or a character acts in a way not like previously, then it's not stand alone. Most books are not stand alone and if they are at the moment, the author will change that in a future book.

I don't want the author to cater to those who read out of order I want those books to be spoilers for the ones that came before.

[wildhoney66]

well if you look at The extended version of The dark tower the 1st book it's slow as hell in most of it but if you than go to the 2nd book it's a much faster paced book

[hobnail]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I find that even when someone says a book can be read out of order it's usually wrong. If there is even one sentence that mentions anything in a previous book or a character acts in a way not like previously, then it's not stand alone. Most books are not stand alone and if they are at the moment, the author will change that in a future book.

I don't want the author to cater to those who read out of order I want those books to be spoilers for the ones that came before.

While I agree I suspect that the publishers force the authors to try and make the books appear to be standalone; a lot of these types of books are being sold in the bookstores in airports where people are looking for something to read on their flight. And the covers are unlikely to give any clue that the book is part of a series.

[wildhoney66]

it isn't always clear that it's part of a series, there is a paperback i have i forget the name of the book but i think the author is Michael White i bought it years ago in the early 2000's at work and i was gonna finally pick up the book to read it as it sounds like a good mystery and it was part of a series! i went WTF?

i had no idea at all and it was a later book so why read it if i haven't read the 1st one ya know?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by hobnail

While I agree I suspect that the publishers force the authors to try and make the books appear to be standalone; a lot of these types of books are being sold in the bookstores in airports where people are looking for something to read on their flight. And the covers are unlikely to give any clue that the book is part of a series.

For example, on the cover of the book Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett, it says A Novel of Discworld. In reading that, I would know that the book is part of a series and that I had not read it yet and look up what the first book was to see if the shop had it.

[theducks]

One reason the publishers downplay Reading Order, is the early work is:
1) Out of print
2) Printed by a different Publisher (including the Author, after the rights reverted)

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I find that even when someone says a book can be read out of order it's usually wrong. If there is even one sentence that mentions anything in a previous book or a character acts in a way not like previously, then it's not stand alone.

I think that's a little ridiculous. Most Stephen King books are standalone. But he has fun dropping references to previous work: In Misery, Annie Wilkes lives miles down the road from the burned remains of the Overlook Hotel. In The Tommyknockers, a couple of hallucinating characters drive through Derry and know they are hallucinating because they see a clown's face staring at them from a storm drain. In each case (and there's others) it boils down to, literally, a sentence. Does that make Misery and The Tommyknockers part of a series? I'd say no.

I've not read Discworld, just not interested. But if I understand right, there are subseries withink the series, with different characters and actions not directly tied to previous books. I'd say that makes them stand alone (or at least a standalone subseries).

Do you have to watch all nine Star Wars 'main' movies to watch The Mandalorian or Rogue One?

[4691mls]

We've been through this before in some other thread about series. Some people think "stand-alone" means you can read this book and it will make sense to you even if you've never read anything else by this author, and there's no cliffhanger requiring you to buy another book.

Others, like Jon, think "stand-alone" should mean only a book that has nothing at all to do with any other book.

I think besides series or stand-alone we need a 3rd term to describe the type of book that makes sense on its own, but has connections to or could spoil other books if you read it first.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

We've been through this before in some other thread about series. Some people think "stand-alone" means you can read this book and it will make sense to you even if you've never read anything else by this author, and there's no cliffhanger requiring you to buy another book.

Others, like Jon, think "stand-alone" should mean only a book that has nothing at all to do with any other book.

I think besides series or stand-alone we need a 3rd term to describe the type of book that makes sense on its own, but has connections to or could spoil other books if you read it first.

Even if you think some Discworld books work on their own, not every Discworld book would b e stand-alone. But even if you think that some are stand-alone, you may find more enjoyment from having read previous books. For example, the first book gives you a good in depth look at the main city in the series and it's good to get this knowledge as other books reference tyhis city even if they don't take lace there.