SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Lately, it seems, nobody writes just one book. It's usually part of a trilogy, and often a longer series. And too many writers(IMHO) are falling victim to Serialization Syndrome.

You know what I mean. You pick up a book, you read it, and somewhere in the middle you realize that there aren't enough pages left to complete the story. There's too much going on, too much action in progress, too many conflicts on too many issues. And sure enough, the book ends with characters left in precarious positions, conflicts unresolved; and you know that you aren't going to find out what happens until you read the next book (or maybe the next one after that, or...).

Not all multi-book offerings are serialized. Some resolve themselves at the end of each book, then pick up, maybe with the same characters in the same "universe" but with new plotlines and conflicts in the next book. Suzanne Collins started her famous trilogy that way -- The Hunger Games was a complete story in its own right. But Catching Fire left you with a "cliffhanger" that didn't get resolved until Mockingjay. David Weber's Honor Harrington series didn't get "serialized" until the seventh book (In Enemy Hands) left Honor and her cohorts stranded on the Peep prison planet, while everyone back home believed she was dead. But that was the way it went from then on -- every book ending with conflicts unresolved, the story unfinished. David's latest novel in the series (Shadow of Freedom) is no exception... it's still an unfinished story.

The point is, a book series doesn't have to be "serialized." It can be written so that each book in the series is a stand-alone, enjoyable read in its own right. As a reader, that's the way I like it. I don't want to have to wait months for the next book in the series to arrive. We're talking about books, not TV "reality" shows (where every season ends with a cliffhanger). Of course, serialization benefits the writer (and the publisher) by pre-qualifying readership for the next book, i.e. most people who bought this book will buy the next one as well. But personally, I don't think much of the practice, and sometimes I feel downright cheated when a book leaves me hanging like that.

But I'm also a writer, and, just coincidentally, in the middle of writing a "series" (i.e. books in the same "universe" in a chronological sequence). So... I'd REALLY like to know what the rest of you think.

To Serialize or not to Serialize... that is the question. Anyone?

I think the free market decided this: people like series. (Which may different from serialization, I'm not sure.)

I tend to not like series and, like you, prefer stand-alone novels. However, "tend" is not an absolute. I'm following a couple series currently, the Taylor Anderson Destroyermen and Peter V. Brett's Demon Cycle, and I'm hoping there's a resolution in these stories soon.

David Weber's Safehold series was one I was also following, but it feels like he's been padding the story the last couple of books, so I dropped it. It's sort of an example of how not to do it.

In a perfect world, the series I'd like would have continuing characters and stories, but each novel would have a beginning-middle-end. There wouldn't be a Big Bad hinted at while the protagonist deals with lesser lieutenants.

It's nice to revisit characters and worlds you enjoy but I prefer books to have an ending that isn't a cliffhanger. I tend to avoid books that say "book one in the whatever series" because I fear it won't be a complete story & book two may not even be published yet.

In the ideal universe each novel in the series can stand alone.

I like a series. I don't care if each individual book stands alone, so long as the author can crank out a sequel every year or so.

For me, spending time in an author's world is an escape from our own, which I tend not to like very much. So if an author wants to keep cranking out books ending in cliffhangers, that's fine with me.

Not every plot can be resolved in a single book.

I'm with Brenda on this. The constant cliffhangers are starting to frustrate me. I like series but I want at least something resolved in each book.

If it's good enough, you get hooked and then you wait and wait. But look at what great wheat you find among the chaff.

Wool
After The Darkness: Episode One
http://www.amazon.com/Pneumadiluvians...
The Disappeared


I know you all know Wool and how Mr. Howey is a hero. But the other 2 are much more obscure and I'm stuck buying the story as they move along.

Seems the stand-alone novel is a dying breed.

Well, there is a difference between a cliff-hanger ending and a plot that ends in a book but the series continues.
I don't know that resolution is always required--it depends on how well sub-plots are managed and completed. The Andrews' Kate Daniels series resolves well in each book (five so far), usually dealing with a particular baddie in each book. There's an overarching plot-in-the-making of dealing with her father that is presumed to be dealt with.

Likewise with Wool--there was an overarching issue that links the first stories but in the first two novellas, those particular plots are 'resolved.'

I often tend to stick to reading single books. series that repeat themselves endlessly or stretch into infinity bother me. I like duologies and trilogies though.

Trike wrote: "In a perfect world, the series I'd like would have continuing characters and stories, but each novel would have a beginning-middle-end."

I guess that's what I was trying to say; but maybe the problem is terminology. To me, it's a series if it follows the same characters or at least is set in the same "universe"; but each book can be a complete story in itself. A serial is a series that doesn't have a complete story in each book, but keeps you waiting until the next book to find out how the storyline in the preceding book will be resolved. The difference is that in a non-serial series, you can pick up a book in the middle of the series, read it, and enjoy it as a story unto itself.

Putting on my "Author Hat" again, yeah... I realize that if you want to write an "epic story of sweeping proportions" you may just have too much to be resolved in one book. Weber's War of Honor was up over 800 pages, whereas 400 is more of a normal number for a novel. Even with the storyline trimmed to the bone, some really good works aren't going to fit in one book, so yeah... I'll grudgingly admit that sometimes, serialization makes sense.

Again, from an author's standpoint, the problem with an every-book-stands-alone series is that you have to spend some time in the beginning of each book re-establishing your "universe" i.e. explaining it to those who haven't read the preceding books; and readers who have read those books may find that boring. The "serial" author doesn't have to do that (or at least not as much of it), because he/she starts with the assumption that you have read all that went before.

Anyway, what I'm hearing so far is that everybody likes a series, but most (around 2/3 of the comments so far) don't like cliffhanger-ending "serials"... unless the story is really good and the author keeps 'em coming.

Special note to Barb: Oops! Guess what it says on the cover of my first book -- "Book I in the Saga of the Lunar Free State" (and the second one says "Book II"). But I promise: So far, at least, it's NOT a serial. Both books are complete stories on their own. I just have to hope that readers like the first one enough to buy the second, since there's no "cliffhanger" to encourage them to do so.

I think the first series I read was Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy (the original ones!) Each was a stand-alone in and of itself, but the world-build was consistant with the evolution of the protagonists in both subsequent stories.

The other series I enjoyed (tho' it has gone on for a ridiculously long time now!) was Piers Anthony' Xanth novels; and the later ones do tend to interconnect more than the earlier ones.

I can stand 'cliff-hangers' if they only go on in a fixed trilogy (no more!), but series which go into double figures usually leave me cold.

Serialsation - which many writers seem to be doing now - drives me crazy, especially when each 'book' is only a novella/short. This is particularly prevalent in e-publications, and appears to be a money-making process primarily.

I can't really complain since I've kept up with
Robert Jordan and Terry Goodkind and a few others :) But, as long as the story/ies are good enough, I can suffer my frustration with the yearly wait!!

If the book is good enough, the cliffhangers are acceptable (even if they are annoying). The worrisome thing is that sometimes the next book is not forthcoming due to the authors personal problems and the situation remains unresolved.

Best recent example is Red Seas Under Red Skies

Jed wrote: "If the book is good enough, the cliffhangers are acceptable (even if they are annoying). The worrisome thing is that sometimes the next book is not forthcoming due to the authors personal problems ..."

(Sigh)... yes, that's true sometimes. I gave up waiting for the third book in the David Weber / Linda Evans Hell's Gate collaboration. First two were published in 2006 and 2007, nothing since, and major conflicts from the first book left unresolved.

what annoys me is when the publisher very carefully hides the phrose "Vol. 1 of the Saga of Angguish" or whatever, in little type on the cover or spine. Even worse is if it's "Vol.2." If it's a series I want to know it.

Rarely does one book or 3 books or 10 books resolve everything. Unless the world ends of course.

I'm trying to make myself wait until trilogies are completed before I buy them. But then I fear that if I don't support my authors, they might not finish their series. A dialemma for sure.

My very favorite long term series, The Predator Cities, is the most conclusive series ever. I love it for that and for being such a great series overall. I still hope for prequels but I've written Mr. Reeve and he said not to hold my breath.

I would also credit The Hunger Games as having a final conclusion.

I've just purchased Light and am hoping for true resolution. This has been a very dependable author. I'm willing to wait a year or so between books.

AGREED!!!!!!!

Brenda wrote: "what annoys me is when the publisher very carefully hides the phrose "Vol. 1 of the Saga of Angguish" or whatever, in little type on the cover or spine. Even worse is if it's "Vol.2." If it's a ser..."

I was considering a cliff hanger ending to my debut hard scifi novel, but then better judgement prevailed.

Someone above mentioned: This is a book...not a reality TV show.
Correct!

I'd certainly like to re-visit familiar characters and learn how everything is NOT ok in their world even if the previous story had a good resolution... or how insta-love backfired...

But I'd really want a complete story in the first book.

**edit**
>>Someone above mentioned: This is a book...not a reality TV show.

Oh wait! that was John, the OP wasn't it ;-)

There are two different sets of expectations here. One is the traditions of the comic book or the movie serial. We all expect The Lone Ranger or Batman to have a more or less complete adventure in one or two episodes/comics. But the character continues on without much change; Sherlock Holmes is never going to die or become a rock musician or wear a loincloth and join an ashram in Tibet (or at least not for more than a couple issues/movies) because Batman doesn't do that -- how would he be a detective? In other words, there are serial characters, who have serial adventures.
The other stream or tradition is that of the series of novels/stories. There are novels or stories about the same character, in which the character actually does grow and change and join ashrams or something. A good example of this would be STAR WARS; Luke and Anakin are evidently different people at the end of their respective trilogies.
So we are talking about two different things, the apple and the orange here. What makes it confusing is that sometimes the apple morphs into an orange. Many of the STAR WARS novels are actually serial in nature; Luke does NOT change and is put back in the box so that the next author can take him out and play with him without having to deal with his rock musician career or whatever. Or, after a series of fairly standard adventures, Miles Vorkosigan suddenly has a midlife crisis, changes careers, and gets married, moving the entire series from space opera into a more mature phase.

I agree with the prevailing attitude here: I like stand-alones. But I also like stand-alones novels belonging to series, where something is happening to the same heroes or in the same world. Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar series comes to mind, as do Bujold's Barrayar series and Patricia Briggs's werewolf series. Some of them have the same protagonists, some don't, but the world uniting those stories become familiar; you want to visit it again and again without a cliffhanger at the end of each novel.
As a writer, I write in the same vein: each story is a finished story, but the world and sometimes the protagonists might unite several novels.

John wrote: "I guess that's what I was trying to say; but maybe the problem is terminology. To me, it's a series if it follows the same characters or at least is set in the same "universe"; but each book can be a complete story in itself. A serial is a series that doesn't have a complete story in each book, but keeps you waiting until the next book to find out how the storyline in the preceding book will be resolved. The difference is that in a non-serial series, you can pick up a book in the middle of the series, read it, and enjoy it as a story unto itself."

Ah, I see what you're saying now. (Not only do I understand your point, I can literally see what you're saying. Ha, text joke.)

So yes, I guess I prefer series over serials, but not strictly. However, to really keep me engaged in a serial, the author really has to bring the awesome every time.

I suppose what you could do is have two or three problems for your protagonists to solve, and they can heroically conquer all but one challenge. Then as they bask in their victory someone asks, "This is all very well, but how do we solve a problem like Maria?"

Tune in next time, gentle reader! Same bat book, same bat publisher!

Olga wrote: "I agree with the prevailing attitude here: I like stand-alones. But I also like stand-alones novels belonging to series, where something is happening to the same heroes or in the same world. Merced..."

'Zackly. As always, Olga, you have crystallized my thoughts exactly.

(Have we met?)

I'm sort of in the middle here. I don't mind books that have something to carry them over to the next one but I don't like the ones that leave you feeling cheated because you've got a year before the next one comes out and there are big gaps to fill in.

I absolutely hate cliff hangers and try very hard to not buy a series until all the books are out. That means the author ends up with lower sales because of people like me.

I'm okay with books that resolve most things, but I can't stand waiting years for a cliff hanger ending. But I do like books that continue an over-arching storyline. I just can't stand waiting to resolve something awful.

Trike wrote: 'Zackly. As always, Olga, you have crystallized my thoughts exactly.

(Have we met?) "

No, Trike, we haven't met, but I just sent you a friend invite. I read a couple of your reviews and want to read more.

Hi, John. This is such a great topic to discuss I'm so glad you wrote this post; just the other day I was involved in a long discussion with a couple of other avid readers (like me) about how series can play out. As you say a book can end with the story complete on the last page. On the other hand, it can leave unresolved elements that aren't resolved, whether by design meaning they will be resolved in later books, or the story is complete with unresolved elements left to the reader to decide. Some prefer one, some the other. As for me?? I simply have no preference.

My favourite books are from those in a series. It's not that I can't enjoy a stand-alone book, quite the opposite, but there is just something that series books and serialised stories have that a stand-alone doesn't. Right now I've got at least 10+ different series going. Sometimes I feel compelled to read the entire series quickly, other times I'm content to draw it out so I can enjoy it over time, slowly, drip feeding myself a bit of joy at a time.

I know some are upset if a story doesn't resolve at the end of the book, at least to some degree, where as I am of a feeling that I just really don't care. If it is a cliffhanger, fine. If it's fully resolved, but the story goes on in the next book, fine. I don't mind. One of the draws for me personally about series books is the familiarity of them, either in the characters, story lines or worlds in which the stories take place. There is just something comfortable and wonderful about reading a book where you have some understanding and attachment to these elements. It's I think especially relevant (though not exclusive to) the genre of fantasy because this genre deals with other worlds, which must be explained, and in future books in a series you, the author, and me, the reader, don't have to spend quite as much time explaining the basics of the world.

Series books are wonderful - if you want to make more money by turning a story into a series, if it's a good read, I won't be upset, I'll simply enjoy reading all the books you write and publish, as long as the story is good, why should I care one way or the other?

I'm generally OK with trilogies or series where the first book could stand alone. The first should always leave me satisfied as a reader. If it leaves me wanting more as a fan then I'll read on. Writing lengthy series where the proverbial carrot is dangled until it rots (I curse the day I began SM Stirling's Dies the Fire) is unacceptable.

Olga wrote: "Trike wrote: 'Zackly. As always, Olga, you have crystallized my thoughts exactly.

(Have we met?) "

No, Trike, we haven't met, but I just sent you a friend invite. I read a couple of your reviews and want to read more. "

In this context, we shall use "as always" to mean "just now." Friend accepted! :)

Todd wrote: "On the other hand, it can leave unresolved elements that aren't resolved, whether by design meaning they will be resolved in later books, or the story is complete with unresolved elements

I know some are upset if a story doesn't resolve at the end of the book, at least to some degree, where as I am of a feeling that I just really don't care. If it is a cliffhanger, fine. If it's fully resolved, but the story goes on in the next book, fine."

I'm on to you, mister. This was a sponsored post, wasn't it?

LOL

John wrote: "Special note to Barb: Oops! Guess what it says on the cover of my first book -- "Book I in the Saga of the Lunar Free State" ..."
OK John, I guess to be honest I don't ALWAYS avoid books that say "book 1" on them. I just wish there was some clear way to know if each book in a series has a complete story or not. I am always grateful for reviews that let you know that (without giving away anything of course).

I did very much enjoy the Matthew Corbett books by Robert McCammon. Each book could stand alone but the later books did mention some things that happened in earlier books. I'm looking forward to reading the next one, but there is no major issue I'm waiting to see "Resolved".

I'm also enjoying The Robot Novels by Asimov. Their is a complete story in each novel but they work together to tell a larger story as well.

On the other end of the spectrum; The Otherland novels by Tad Williams are really just one huge story arbitrarily broken up into 3 (or was it 4) books. But, at least I knew that before I started!

So for that matter is THE LORD OF THE RINGS. That one was broken up into volumes by the publisher.

Trike wrote: "I'm on to you, mister. This was a sponsored post, wasn't it?"

Tee hee hee, you caught me, now let me tell you about this box of brushes here in my pack! ;-)

Wow! Didn't realize this was going to be such a lively topic; but I'm glad I brought it up.

I guess series books (and serial storylines) are here to stay... and yeah, I like a series myself -- I've certainly read enough of them, everything from Harry Potter to Honor Harrington (now there's a sharp contrast for you). All your comments have given me a few more bits of wisdom to put in my writer's toolbox. I particularly liked Travis' metaphor, and I have promised myself (and my readers) that I will never write a "lengthy series where the proverbial carrot is dangled until it rots." ;-)

I do find it that people do enjoy reading a series rather than stand alone, especially if the series has more than one book out.

And there's a reason why authors favor them, as well. It is easier to write in a world already created, that to cook up another one. You can go deeper, do more.

I might be in the minority... but I love series.

I more often find myself getting to the end of a stand alone novel and wondering, "What next!? Where did (character) go? What did they do next? What's their next big adventure?"

I almost feel sad when my favorite books and series end and there's no more. I love getting into a series and seeing that there's 2 more, or 3 more novels. But maybe I'm just a little sick int he head. :-P

I have loved many series, but am now suffereing series fatigue.

My new rule runs the lines of "I won't start reading a series unless every book has already been published and people tell me it's worth it" (take that carrot wielding publishers).

I definately agree with the sentiment that a self contained book (at least the first one) is a better way to go and if that happened more often I'd probably retract the above rule of thumb.

All that said I've just started reading 'Towers of Midnight' from the epic Wheel of Grind series ;-)

I think the secret of writing a good series is to make each book stand on its own. As an example, take John Bowers' Fighter Queen saga. Each book is a story along the timeline. The series is tied together around an interstellar war, but each is a separate story in that timeline. The parts fit together and often mention things that happen in other books of the series, but anyone can pick up any of the books "cold" and enjoy it without being confused.

-The first is about Oliver, stuck in the beginning of the war.
-The second is a resistance fighter on the first conquered planet.
-The third introduces the "Fighter Queen" herself, and one of Oliver's descendants. Oliver is still around, but as a minor character.
-The forth is a side story about 3 different people and how they participate in the war.
-The final story comes back to the "Fighter Queen" and the final days of the war.

Now, here's the fun part: the books weren't written/published in this sequence.

Harry Potter seems similar. Read/viewed in sequence, it makes good sense, but I feel you could pick up any of the books/movies in the series and enjoy it cold with only a bit of confusion.

Series make sense:
1. They rely on a well developed environment.
2. Can draw readers to the next one.
3. Plot can continue or be new.
The problem is when the narrative is interrupted. Two ways out are:
1. Make each book independent by either finishing the plot or
2. Create a new adventure on each.
In my series: living dangerously in utopia, I separated the books in time.
War of the Classes in 2020-2065.
The Preponderant Factor in 2148.
It is all on the Mind in 2162.
In that way each one is independent and related.
Humberto

Good job Humberto. Now, when will you make them ready for Kindle instead of $25 paperbacks? I'd like to check them out but you have to make it possible.

Once you get your imaginary world cobbled together and do one book in it, you want to know what else you can do with this environment.

Or, you have a story you just can't tell in one book. So you come to a stopping place in the story arc, where one episode of the conflict has been resolved, but there is much still to do.

Both are motives for my making sequels out of my books.

Betty wrote: "Once you get your imaginary world cobbled together and do one book in it, you want to know what else you can do with this environment..."

Oh, yeah... do I know THAT feeling. I actually wrote my first book around 20 years ago (I've rewritten it several times since, the latest being just before it was published last November); but I've also written two more in the series (the second one to be published next month), and made a start on three others.

It's easy for a writer to get addicted to his/her own "universe"... ;-)

Each should stand alone. I think this trend is partly laziness on author / publishers parts. The focus is on brand and income stream creation. We are approaching the point where reader fatigue / frustration will have readers resisting this trend. I am already there.

The Preponderant Factor eBook is now available at http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/history... selling for $4.99.
Thank you for checking at Amazon.
Will have the other ebooks of the series ready shortly.
This is the second book - but is the first one I wrote.
H

John has the right of it. It takes an effort of will, something like giving up chocolate or coffee, to quit your current beloved and fascinating universe, and to create anew. It is important to do this, however. You can't chew the same piece of gum for ever. At some point you need something new.

Here are 2 examples of books that had sequels. But they were set in different time periods and stood alone rather well.
Altered Carbon
God's War
They both have great wide open universes to explore.

When you have them Kindelized, please post here and I'll see your post and check them out in proper order.

Humberto wrote: "The Preponderant Factor eBook is now available at http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/history... selling for $4.99.
Thank you for checking at Amazon.
Will have the other ebooks of the series read..."

Brenda wrote: "John has the right of it. It takes an effort of will, something like giving up chocolate or coffee, to quit your current beloved and fascinating univers..."

Of course, this "addiction" can strike READERS as well as WRITERS (in fact, that's probably what the writers are hoping for.

"...hey, kid. Try some of this stuff... bet you never had anything like this..." ;-)

Hmm hmmm... like previous posters, I also like series which can either:
1. stand alone as complete adventures themselves (Harry Potter, LOTR falls into this)
2. Are all done, or almost done. I started reading Game of Thrones because I thought it was almost done .... but it wasn't and in fact the latest book, which didn't really resolve anything and just introduced more people, has almost made me quit reading.

I don't like series when:
1. Each book ends on a cliff hanger
2. The books take too long to wait for, and I forget what happened in the interim. Patrick Rothfuss' "The Name of the Wind" was like that. I remember enjoying it, but I can't remember all the details and when the 2nd book finally came out, the 1st book was so looong that I didn't want to reread it again.

Also, I think sometimes, series just need to end. I'm glad The Hunger Games ended at 3 books because it felt like a natural end. But there are other series which go on and on and on...

I love both. I have never actually sat down and wondered which I read more of. As far as the endings within a series, I don't want an author to telegraph it for me. Wrap most of it up I one. Leave me open mouthed in the next. Keep me guessing and I will keep buying.