SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Everynow and then, I wish more one volume, standalone books were written. There are so many trilogies. Yes, some are very, very good. But some take a story and stretch it out--just so it can have three volumes and it weakiens the story.

I enjoy a tightly wirtten compact story that gets to the point. Perhaps that is why I like much classic Sf. Usually most of the novels were short--under 300 pages. I know this is partly a marketing issue.

I absolutely agree - but then I'm biased, because that's what I myself write - single volume, 300 or so pages.

To be honest, sometimes it is refreshing to see a story that is told in only three books. More often than not, the series will sprawl over a dozen books or so. And while that's not a bad thing if the story is good, it's nice to be able to sit down and actually finish something without taking years.

So that being said, I'll answer the original question. Yes, it would be nice to see more stand alone books. Especially for a group like this, where we pick a different book each month to discuss. After several months of reading the first of a series, we now have started a whole bunch of series and either have to stop after one, or commit ourselves to more and more books over time.

As a reader who often uses the library, I'm of two minds about the trilogy (or more) thing. On the plus side, I get to spend more time in a place that I like (the fantasy world created by the author). On the minus side: Just try to find all three books at the same time at the library... Or even at bookstores sometimes. And its never the third book that's missing. Its usually the middle book, occasionally the first.

Levity aside, I really prefer any more a story that can be told in a single volume. Some of the authors who feel the need to fill up three (or more) books to tell a story end up doing just that: filling up three (or more) books. Unfortunately, a lot of that is just plain fill and does nothing to advance a story.

I guess the idea of "trilogy" came because of the way "Lord of the Rings" was split up. I would have thought by now that everyone knew that was a publisher decision, not an author decision....

I like both. Shorter stand-a-lone novels that are well written with great stories and at least 1 well developed character.

But I also love large book series, including one story written in multiple volumes, though I would rather have one 900 page book, than three 300 page books, and long series like Dune, Cherryh's Foreigner series or Company wars series. Pern is a good exanple for Fantasy of what I like. There are many others. Some series, some trilogies. A real favorite is reading all the Pip and Flinx books as a single book.

I think the trilogy effect is more prominent in Fantasy than SF. What I do not like are common derivative series and what I call the Robt Jordan effect. Numerous volumes, not going anywhere, written only as money makers without regard to art.

Dawn: YOu are SO right. It is never the thrid book that is missing.

I like to wait until I have the complete trilogy. Otherwise, I might not find the third volume for a year or so. Then, I must re-read parts 1 and 2 to refresh my memory.

Dawn: YOu are SO right. It is never the thrid book that is missing.

I like to wait until I have the complete trilogy. Otherwise, I might not find the third volume for a year or so. Then, I must re-read parts 1 and 2 to refresh my memory.

I wrote my first book with plans to write a sequel but the publisher wanted me to trim back the 2nd book and write a series, which became the Martian Symbiont series. The third novel came out early this year and the fourth will probably be out late next year. I don't write 'filler,' but I do feel the story line ends with the 4th book.

I could see spin-offs but I'm not planning a fifth title for the series. However, the general discussion here seems to be in agreement with what some of my readers have been telling me...they want to see the whole canon in one book. I'm willing to do that after the 4th title is out, partly because it addresses the 'missing book' question but mostly because readers are requesting it. I don't think it would be well received to only release the fourth book as part of a larger volume. People who have bought the first three books might feel cheated.

I think it depends on the storyline itself, the entire concept. Sometimes a story can only hold itself together for a shorter time period necessitating the short 300 page novels. When these type of stories are stretched into a trilogy or more it becomes too thin to truly maintain the type of interest that it could when concentrated. I myself have always preferred a story that could at least fill out 900 pages.

I personally prefer to keep the book all in one binding as this keeps me from having to wait on a new release or purchase 3 books just to get one. I do understand the flip side of it though, that some people are daunted by a book that is too large, too thick. For alot of people, especially younger readers, a trilogy seems more achievable than a 900 page book that fills an entire back pack.

I agree that many of the novels seem to be broken into 3 or more books simply for marketing. For the reasons I listed above, and for one other, even more important reason - Interest.

Publishers feel the need to break any book that is potentially part of a series into as many smaller books as possible. This allows for more sales, but more than that, for more time. More time for the author to work on the next installment of the book before we the reader lose interest and move on. I know that some people, myself included, never do lose interest, no matter the time. I do become very annoyed waiting for the next installment to come out. So by breaking a book into 3, releasing them a year apart. This maintains that interest level for up to 3 years while the author works on the next installment which might be broken into several more installments. Time for us to stay interested, time for the author to write, and more money for the publisher.

Lets just hope that our favorite authors can just keep putting out the material that is good enough to hold up to the dismemberment that it can and probably will receive.

This thread immediately threw me into reminiscing about the The Importance of Being Earnest.

My problem with shorter novels is they barely skim the surface of the world. I love detail in a world and a true understanding of why a character thinks and acts they way they do. If I feel like I've never actually gotten into the character's head and am merely observing them from the outside, the book is a failure with me. The writer just needs to find the right balance between giving us a lush, detailed world with truly understandable characters and making sure we don't get lost in tertiary storylines and characters.

Overall, I think it depends on the story and whether or not it really is a one-book story which is needlessly extended into three (or more) books, or whether it's actually deserving of a more expansive treatment. Sometimes there's a lot of breadth in a story, but not an awful lot of depth. Without the depth, the details are just filler, imo.

That said, I don't generally mind trilogies. The thing that turns me off most of the endlessly sprawling series which have no end in sight. But I wouldn't say no to a few more stand-alones, either, especially since sci-fi isn't my primary genre and I do balk at the thought of having to commit myself to the long haul.

Perhaps part of the motivation for creating a series or trilogy is the emotional connection people tend to make with fictional characters. My readers tend to ask if the next book will have their favorite character. Part of the editorial evaluation also asks whether people will care about your characters.

When a book has impressive sales a series must seem like a guaranteed selling point to publishers, ie, 'they liked this book so well the next few will also perform.' It might be the closest thing to a sure bet in publishing.

I actually do not mind series books, if each can stand alone. For example, Agatha Christie wrote dozen of Hercule Poirot mysteries; you can read them in any order and still enjoy the character.

If you go into a store and find book one and book three of a trilogy, you must wait and/or search for volume 2.

But my main objection to too many trilogies is some stories really do not have enough "story" that three books are needed. They are stretched out with filler as the publisher wants three books.

Certain I have read some trilogies that I really did enjoy--I just feel sometimes they are overdone.

I agree. "Ellis Peters" wrote twenty Cadfael stories, each a stand alone. Read in order they reveal rich and subtle back stories, but it's not necessary.

My gripe is with tales which start as trilogies and then get stretched just--apparently--for marketing purposes. A prime example being Jordan's Wheel of Time series.

Mary JL wrote: "I actually do not mind series books, if each can stand alone. For example, Agatha Christie wrote dozen of Hercule Poirot mysteries; you can read them in any order and still enjoy the character.
..."

I think the mystery genre does that much better than the SF&F genre. I think that's why I like the Dresden Files series. Each book is a complete story. My attention span is too short for a 10,000 page story told in 10 volumes.

I'd love to see the Night's Dawn trilogy, which is really just one long story, published in one volume. I'm not sure there are enough trees in the world. :)

I would have to say there realy are not enough trilogies. Most are simply a very long book in three volumes.

My definition of a trilogy is three books that stand on their own can be read independantlyand enjoyed as complete stories but have a story arc across the books.

Better and more complete if read in the correct order but it is not necessary to do so.

These actually are not very common. I would like to see more.

It really depends on the series. I think that part of the desire to make series aside from the money motive is the desire to make it less intimidating. A giant book can be divided into two to make it less scary, especially if this book is YA.

I think a good example is Scott Westerfield's Uglies series. Uglies has 425 pages. Pretties has 370. Specials has 372. Could he have written it all in one book? Maybe, but it would probably be too intimidating for most teen readers. Especially if you count the trilogy's spin-off stand alone book Extras that has 417 pages.

Sandi wrote: I think the mystery genre does that much better than the SF&F genre. I think that's why I like the Dresden Files series. Each book is a complete story. My attention span is too short for a 10,000 page story told in 10 volumes.

I don't think it should be any more difficult in the SF&F genre - some of the first SF I read was Ursula K LeGuin - Her Hainish Cycle novels and short stories are all set in the same universe, and I've never had a problem even though I know I read them "out of order"

I don't mind trilogies that consist of three well-written, stand-alone novels.

Monster books that get arbitrarily chopped into three parts by unscrupulous editors who think people won't read 1500 page books (unless they are written by Neal Stephenson) annoy me.

Give me a self-contained story, and I'll be fine.

John Scalzi's Old Man's War, Ghost Brigades, and The Last Colony is an example of what I consider a good trilogy.

I feel cheated when I read something that leaves me hanging. Still, I enjoy a good series that gives me complete stories while compelling me to read more. I recently read Chalker's The Demons at Rainbow Bridge, and while I was excited by Chalker's prose and plot, I was disappointed with the abrupt ending. Eventually, I will get around to completing the series, but because of the lack of a satisfying "sectional" ending, I am in no hurry,

I am presently completing work on the last book in a science fiction trilogy, so naturally I was interested when I discovered this thread. My trilogy began when the first book turned out to be too long, so I worked to make it stand-alone, but open-ended. I was successful in that endeavor, but then had to come up with a plot structure for the second book that would extend the original. I also wanted to make the second even better than the first. I know "better" is entirely subjective, but I felt that I hit my mark and the second book was "better" in some ways than the first. By then, I had figured out there was a big market for science fiction trilogies, so essentially wrote another open-ended but stand-alone story. Work on the last book has taken a long time because I wanted to complete the trilogy with another stand-alone book while also wrapping up the larger three book story. And again, my personal goal was to make the third "better" than the second -- not just sustain the feel of the first and second, but add to them. I'm happy to say I've recently accomplished my goal with a series of books that will allow me to re-visit the characters in future stories, if I so desire. I also have the satisfaction of a completed trilogy of stand-alone books.

To The Stars
Stolen Worlds
Minerva's Soul (October 2010)

Personally, I think this more of a problem with fantasy than SF. I like series, if I like a world or universe. I often want more than a standalone provides. The best series have books which is each complete in itself.

I love trilogies and series because if I am willing to read more then one book in a series its because I love the story and the characters. Many times I am sad when it comes to the end then I have to find another story to immerse myself in.
I would also prefer lots of books to one giant one. Because if you have multiple books in a series and you are finishing them then you feel like you are making progress. On the other hand... if you have one giant book and have been reading it for a week and still are only halfway done then you really just want to finish it. You do not care as much about the story. In my opinion smaller books encourage you to take your time and allow you to enjoy the story.

Lauren - I definitely agree with you, but only when each book has some sort of resolution. I absolutely despise cliffhangers.

I'm more of a trilogies/series kind of person so I'd tend to agree with Lara and Lauren - single volumes barely dip into the surface of the world/its characters, and at the end of a book, if I like the story and characters, I always want to read more.

"single volumes barely dip into the surface of the world/its characters, and at the end of a book, if I like the story and characters, I always want to read more"

I'm the same way. I've recently been reading all the series by Robin Hobb that are set in her Farseer universe (Farseer, Tawny Man, Liveship, Rain Wilds), and I'm loving it.

It really lets you get into the characters, and I much prefer a long story that 'shows' you how the characters care for each other rather than a shorter story that 'tells' you that the characters care for one another. Take, for instance, Earthsea by Le Guin (which I just finished), in which I'm blatantly told "love between them was strong and steadfast, unshaken by time or chance". Don't tell me that, show me how they cared for each other.

stormhawk wrote: "I don't mind trilogies that consist of three well-written, stand-alone novels.

Monster books that get arbitrarily chopped into three parts by unscrupulous editors who think people won't read 1500..."
John Scalzi's Old Man's War, Ghost Brigades, and The Last Colony is an example of what I consider a good trilogy."

I've just finished The Last Colony and I have to say that I was very glad it worked as a stand alone novel because nowhere obvious does it mention it's the third of a trilogy. As I have to get most of my reading these days from the library I find it hard to want to read series/trilogies just from the sheer frustration at trying to find the whole series to read. It would be nice to have a book that can stand up by itself for a change.

That being said, I do normally like series/trilogies, but I agree with the consensus that it must be well written and interesting.