Book Haven discussion

Individual. I think Harry Potter is the only successful series I've enjoyed.

I like series because I like to see the story grow. Readers get to know the characters, and things just get much more interesting. My only qualms is that I hate waiting for the next installment to come out, as the author usually publish them a year after. By then, I've probably forgotten little things that are important to the story. I don't really like rereading books, unless they're my favourites.

I like both, so long as the series character interests me. For instance, I love the John Sandford "prey" series, but I don't like his other series and don't read them. I like most of Michael Connolly's Harry Bosch series, but I also like his standalones. Don't like his Lincoln Lawyer series at all, just don't care for the character.

It really depends on what mood I'm in and how will I fall in love with the characters. Some series can be dry and bet more boring as they progress, but books with well-devolped characters and plots are much more of a joy to read when there is more than one because I can't get enough of the characters. But some books, no matter how much you love the characters, would be slaughtered with a sequal. So like I said, it depends.

I love Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series. Her main characters, Jamie and Clair, are like old friends. Can't wait for he rnext book!

I'm also writing a series titled Texas Druids.

I like series also cos they keep me entertained and all for longer time, and a sort of really firm attachment comes up from it, an experience impossible to forget :)

like ASOIAF, cant wait for its completion btw... reading Erikson's saga and so far it is great, just awesome how he is slowly unveiling the secrets :)

Forgive me if this is out of place here, but the first book in my New Orleans crime thriller series will be free for the next two days (Kindle edition)
For more information see
http://susanfleet.com/fleet-absolutio...

I prefer series...but also get frustrated when they aren't finished. I do realize that it hurts authors if I wait to buy until they are all done. So when I find a series I like I'll buy the subsequent books as they come out but then read them all when the series completes.

well, I quarry the books for nice ideas to think about, so as long as even one book has some memorable things in there, I like it :)

Razmatus--way to go, brother. After all, what is one good idea or memorable thing worth? I got one good idea from a $40 book (on carpentry) and it was worth every penny!
Michael--It takes me (for one) over a year of hard work to produce another in my series, and then readers read it in a day or two. No fair, man! On the other hand, my series is about a growing family, and families take time to grow. You just can't hurry them up!

Obviously either can be good depending on the author and how well written the book(s) is/are, but I would lean towards series as well. The amount of character development, and story complexity that can be achieved in a series as opposed to an individual book can really absorb a reader into it far greater than can be said with an individual book in my humble opinion.

That being said, a series is definitely a commitment in time and energy (albeit mental energy)so sometimes a nice individual book can be a nice change of pace and certainly there are some great ones out there.

Like Michael above though, I am not the most patient reader so when I get into a series I really don't want to wait months or even years for the next one. I lost interest in Stephen King's Dark Tower for that very reason. So I generally won't even consider reading one unless all the volumes in it have been released. Although I do like the idea of buying them and saving them to support the author's sales which ultimately decides whether further books in the series are even published so I'll have to keep that in mind in the future!

Now that I think of it, I read Patrick O'Brian's splendid 20 volume Aubrey/Maturin series over quite a few years, waiting for him to write the next. Sure it'd have been nice to have them all at once, but I enjoyed the repeated thrill of getting the next one every couple of years. And then when the series was complete, I reread the whole thing. Fun!

Al, you are the kind of reader authors love. When I labor over a book to make it as good as I possibly can, it's nice to know I have followers out there who are eager for my next book, and willing to wait for it.

Lyn wrote: "Al, you are the kind of reader authors love.
I know I am. I should be! I taught college English for 30 years and I was a reader for 30 years before that!

I also have, among my other books, a series going about a woman who returns to Earth and starts a family. Her story becomes a large canvas, and I don't churn these out every couple of months. I'd rather create them than market them, actually. (I know her, in fact....)

In fairness,I was more referring to a series that is the continuation of a story arc rather than a series of recurring characters but each with it's own self contained story when I was referring to my impatience. I would wholeheartedly agree with Al's comment when you're referring to the latter.

It all depends. I agree with Ellenfp that sometimes the first book is fantastic (Twilight) and then the rest should be burned. It all depends on the author I think.

I like series the best, I think. But I find myself going in search of stand-alones because I can't afford to buy a bunch of books, or don't have the time to go looking for the others. At that point, it aggravates me to find a good book and discover it's book one of who knows how many.

This is a subject which seems to have come up on several of the groups. Enough so, that I've felt inclined to assemble my thoughts in detail. Any comments on my blog post would be appreciated.

I much prefer stand-alones ... I usually find that the first book in a series is THE book to read, those that follow seem to be "the author making money off of the first book". There are so many books to read and so little time ...

Maybe this is because I'm older ... I do remember devouring Nancy Drew, Little Women, Five Little Peppers, Robert Parker, Mary Higgins Clark, Ludlum, etc.

For me, it depends. I love Robert Crais' stand alones, but also like some of the books in his Elvis Cole series, generally those without Joe Pike. On the other hand, I almost always enjoy Lee Child's Jack Reacher series, with one big exception: 61 Hours.

I have to say I like individual books better. While I love Harry Potter, I haven't gone back and re-read any of them. With that said, I need to add that I love re-reading my favorite books. So when I find a series that I love, I try to let myself read them a little slower, because I know I won't be coming back to them.

I enjoy getting involved with characters, learning about them and attaching to them, I love to see them develop and change. I think it started for me when I was given my step dads copies of Narnia when I was a child. What heightened that love for series I think, was "growing up" with Harry Potter. I was in the 7th grade I think when the book was first released. I got so caught up with that world, I couldn't wait to see what happens next.

Yeah,that's the bad part about reading series,but the characters develop more, and the plot is more complicated than just a stand alone book. The thing that I hate about reading a series is when the author just adds books on after a perfectly good ending, or the series drags on and on and on,like, for 15 books,than it gets VERY boring.

I like series where the world stays the same and some of the characters repeat throughout, but you don't have to have read all of the books to know what's going on. The Discworld series comes to mind for that. Each book is fully complete, and yet each owes something to all of the other books.

Since I am a follower of Game of Thrones, I won't even begin with the frustrations of waiting for the book that will finally let you know how it all comes out in the end (but I love it anyway!)

Kathy, I am there with you on the books that end on cliffhangers. Some first books just seem to be advertisements for the next book. I won't even bother with the second in the series if there isn't some kind of resolution to the story in the first one.

I can't recall reading a series where each was constructed as a hook for the next one. I don't think I'd like that.

I've found my readers often read one or more of mine out of sequence, with no complaints about being left hanging...except for one reader of the first volume, which leaves the heroine pregnant. The truth is, when I finished that book I had no idea of following it with another, but I listened to the readership (they were right, I decided) and I relented.

Now the children are 17 (they're twins) and as you said, Emily, the canvas has enlarged considerably. But each book stands alone, even though those who enjoy the sequence probably appreciate them a little more, particularly if they've raised a family.

I don't mind series, but I try to wait where I can, to read the whole series one after another. I hate waiting, especially if the series is goooooodddd :)

Years ago I learned to love the Butch Karp lawyer/thriller books by Robert Tanenbaum, himself a lawyer. Like mine, they were set around a growing family and each one stood by itself. The writing and plotting were terrific. But you know, after a dozen or so the plots started going crazy, way too improbable and ridiculous. I tried two more (after maybe ten) and gave up in disgust.

Guess what I learned later? Tanenbaum changed editors--his original editor went on to write books on his own. The replacement, evidently, was not up to polishing Tanenbaum's manuscripts into decent stories. Or so it seemed.

So yes, as Emily commented above, sometimes series peter out. I worry about that. I hope I'll know when mine has run its course. I expect the readers will tell me. I don't make my living at it, so I hope I'm not so invested in stringing them, and me, along.

Al, Tanenbaum didn't exactly change editors -- he changed ghost writers. His cousin, Michael Gruber, finally got tired of the role, or some other friction developed. Gruber has written some good books on his own, while his successor(s) with the Karp series have mangled it horrifically. I wish characters could sue for libel! Several of the characters in that series would have the grounds to do so.

Al wrote: "Years ago I learned to love the Butch Karp lawyer/thriller books by Robert Tanenbaum, himself a lawyer. Like mine, they were set around a growing family and each one stood by itself. The writing an..."

Gruber, yes, I remember that name now. Ghost writer, eh?

Let's not name his successor; what a train wreck. I mean really: an armed army of hobos fighting a war in the tunnels under New York City? That's when I quit.

If I ever put anything that ridiculous in my stories, it'll not be by a ghost writer. It'll be by my descendants.

I don't just like them, I love them, and it's because of the way each story in an immersion experience--whether or not I understand all the nautical lingo (and me a former Naval officer and officer of the deck).

It bothers some readers not to know how a large sailing vessel is being maneuvered, but that's not what the stories are fundamentally about. I think they're about friendship, friendship and love, and given that, each book can easily stand on its own and yet be a part of the larger whole. That took time to dawn on me.

After I'd stumbled onto and read several of the later books in the series, I went back and read the earlier ones in no particular order. One summer I reread them all in order, one after another. I think my wife must have been put out with me, because it was an "out of mind" experience. I was lost in another world for two or three weeks.

That influenced my own series. Each book is different and separate, yet they're all about the same family, at different points through the years.

Like O'Brian, I can see the end ahead. And like Mark Twain (with Huckleberry Finn), it's very hard to face. Unlike O'Brian, Twain never did face it. I don't yet know what I'll do. I always remember what Hemingway said: "There's no such thing as a love story with a happy ending."

Series are far better. The stories are much more detailed, because instead of squeezing everything into one book, or writing a story that could fill 400-500 pages and no more, the authors can outpour the contents of their imagination.

Plus, they're far less anticlimactic. Reading an individual fantasy novel, my thought at the end is always "That's all?". A series, even if you read the series after it's finished, has no such indifference because the plot(S) and characters have been carried through multiple books and whatever ending they come to is a big deal.

I don't read individual fantasy books. It's all or nothing.

I think it mostly depends on the story....but I prefer series to individual books. I think the impact of the story, the concept, character development....it is felt best in series.

Reading a series is like being on a long adventure. It would be like you're in a different world. And the characters would be like your friends. You'll feel like you've known them for a long time since the series took years to complete. There are also more mini-stories in a series.

I also read individual books but I'm always like "That's it? It's finished already?" whenever I finish them. I guess I am used to reading series. Though there are some individual books that I really, really like.

I'm a series junkie. Yes, I read one-off novels but I do enjoy the development that a good writer can créate with a series of books. Saying that, my cut-off point is around 4 volumes anything more and I tend to switch off. There are exceptions - Game of Thrones being the one which comes to mind...

I love series but I also love stand alones for example I love Something Witchy This Way Comes but I also love The Shapes Of Autumn series by the same author, it depends on how it's written. I also hate waiting for the next book in a series so stand alones are always good.

I tend to read nothing but series, but occasionally, there will be an individual book that will catch my attention. Even then I wish that book was a series.

I agree, Natasha. Once you get attached to a character it's tough to let go. Even if it's not the series protagonist. I've read quite a few by John Lescroart, started with Guilt, and fell in love with the Abe Glitsky character (not the protagonist). Since then JL has included him in some of his other novels but not all.

I enjoyed Patricia Cornwell's Scarpetta series and read most of it. I thought her characters and their situations were so well drawn they would have been comfortably familiar if encountered in real life.

I prefer stand alones or no more than trilogies,because rarely are sequels any good past the second or third one,yet the series may have several more books.

Some series are 30 books long; i want to try trilogies first.