SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

There are generally two types of series:

1. The series that's actually one long story in several volumes. The plot isn't resolved until the last book. Each book often ends in a "cliff-hanger" to keep you buying.

2. The series that consists of several complete stories in the same "world". Each book ends with most of the threads wrapped up. If the next book never gets published, the reader doesn't feel cheated.

Example of #1: Lord of the Rings (originally one huge book that was broken up by the publisher).

Example of #2: Anne McCaffry's Pern series.

Which ones do you prefer to read -- enough to actually plunk down money to buy the next book?

You're talking about series vs serial. Example 1 is a serial, example 2 is a series.

Kim wrote: "You're talking about series vs serial. Example 1 is a serial, example 2 is a series."

Yeah, but most people would just call them 'series'.

I prefer series.

There is a third - mostly seen in American TV epics - the series that never end. They just go on and on and on until some producer pulls the plug realising there are no viewers anymore.

Al wrote: "There are generally two types of series:

1. The series that's actually one long story in several volumes. The plot isn't resolved until the last book. Each book often ends in a "cliff-hanger" to k..."

I'd go with #2. If the book ends on a cliffhanger...I'm likely to not read the next.

This has been discussed a few times, including one thread going right now with the originator saying "I'm never going to buy another incomplete series." I believe that was a reference to the Type One series (cliffhangers), and I don't care much for those myself. I hate waiting six months to a year to find out what happens next. I have no such problems with the Type Two series.

Note, however, that what starts as a Type Two series can morph into a Type One. David Weber started the "Honorverse" series with six stand-alone books (Type Two)... but with the seventh book (In Enemy Hands) he left major conflicts unresolved, and that's been the story of the series ever since. As of the latest, we still don't know the resolution of the major conflict that has been going for about six novels now.

I enjoy the series, but I hate waiting for the next book. It's like having an addiction and not knowing when your next "fix" is going to be available.

P.S. David Weber also left readers in the lurch with an unfinished series started with Linda Evans (the Hell's Gate series) -- two books published, everything left hanging in the middle, and no more books. It's been about three years now, and though Toni Weiskopf (Baen Books) promised last year that they were trying to find someone else to finish the series, there has been no more word on it.

I Prefer number one style (lord of the rings for example) but I don't ever start these series until they are all published (I call it the Robert Jordan rule) because I want to know what I'm getting into before I start.

John wrote: " This has been discussed a few times, including one thread going right now with the originator saying "I'm never going to buy another incomplete series." ..."

That's the thread that prompted this discussion. The other one wandered from the original question and although I wasn't participating, I thought a more focused one would clear the air somewhat.

Definitely number two.
I don't mind small cliffhangers, it's a series after all, but I dislike books that are randomly cut in the middle of something huge just so you buy the next.
So if I see the words HUGE cliffhanger, aside from very few exceptions, I won't touch it, even if the whole series is out.

Couldn't Harry Potter be considered both? You've got the unresolved Vuldemort stuff that continues ad nauseum, but then the main plot that originates and ends in each book.

Nathan wrote: "Couldn't Harry Potter be considered both? You've got the unresolved Vuldemort stuff that continues ad nauseum, but then the main plot that originates and ends in each book."

I've been agonizing over Harry. It's similar to a TV series that has a one-hour "problem" that gets solved by the end of the show, plus some ongoing "issues" that span the series. Quite frankly, many of the ongoing issues become boring and I start wishing they'd just stick to the one-hour story that made the series popular. Harry didn't seem to suffer from that problem -- possibly because the main "problem" for each book was so well-written and the ongoing issue didn't get overused.

I think I prefer the "in between" option, like Harry Potter. I don't like having to wait thousands of pages for a resolution, but having a developing thread throughout the series keeps my interest more than pure standalone books.

I think sort of both. For instance, a novel based on a war can feature a complete battle and related plotting and yet leave the final result of the war as a whole to the last volume.

As noted on the other thread, Lord of the Rings doesn't count as a 'type one' because it was the publisher who split it into three volumes. Strictly speaking it's a single work.

I loathe cliff-hanger endings in novels. If it is part of a series with a wider story arc, a reader should still be able to read any one book as a stand-alone story. Or books with cliff-hanger endings should be clearly labelled as such!

I don't think I have a preference, except maybe the combined ones like Harry Potter.

Of course, I think even stand alone series, like Discworld is often considered, for instance, has benefits to being read in order - specifically to see character and relationship developments unfold over time.

I don't love cliffhangers, especially in first-in-a-series, but I've come to accept that many trilogies follow the pattern of:

1) "Stand alone" story, but setting up world and situation of larger arc
2) Continuation of arc, usually with some sort of cliffhanger
3) Direct continuation of second book, resolute of story/series

Even with Harry Potter, Half-Blood always felt less like a complete story to itself and more of a set-up for Deathly Hallows.

V.W. wrote: "I think sort of both. For instance, a novel based on a war can feature a complete battle and related plotting and yet leave the final result of the war as a whole to the last volume."

That description reminds me of John Bowers' Fighter Queen Saga.

Robert Heinlein wrote a number of stories within a defined timeline and published the timeline in each book so you could see where the book fell within that "history".

I'm currently working something similar. A timeline with individual, complete stories within it.

Overall, I think I prefer to read complete stories, even if they fall within a series (such as Asprin's Phule's Company series). If I didn't like the first book enough to purchase the follow-ons, I still knew how the first problem was solved. I wasn't forced to buy another book to find out how a sub-prime story ends. Using the Phule's Company example, I'm currently reading the 3rd book because I liked the writing, characters, and plots well enough to continue -- not because I had to.

I was going to say both but the more I typed the more I realized I like #2 much more. Minor cliffhangers are fine and expected but major ones irritate more than entice.

I like type 1 but I also like it to end in a reasonable time frame, I define reasonable as before the author dies of old age.

Aaron wrote: "I like type 1 but I also like it to end in a reasonable time frame, I define reasonable as before the author dies of old age."

That can be annoying. On another, similar thread, some people said they'd never start a series such as that until it was completed. I tend to agree.

Remember that sometimes it's not the author who did it in three volumes. In the case of Tolkien, the post-war paper shortage meant that the publisher couldn't publish one 1000 page book. They had to split it into three volumes that came out over several years. Tolkien would have far preferred it to be in one book, but it just couldn't be done.

And the publication of vols. 2 and 3 are controlled by how vol. 1 sells. If nobody buys vol. 1, the publisher (who is not in this for his health, you know) will refuse to throw good money after bad.

Brenda wrote: "Remember that sometimes it's not the author who did it in three volumes. In the case of Tolkien, the post-war paper shortage meant that the publisher couldn't publish one 1000 page book. They had t..."

True story. I have a friend who used to be in the publishing business and he saw several books that got published, flunked, and nothing after that. Usually, if an author's first book fails, a publisher isn't interested in him/her after that.

As a general rule, I've given up reading series. Of course, it depends on how one wants to define "series" in the first place. I'm ok with trilogies or maybe quartets - but anything longer becomes dubious. Very few (if any) books need the 10 plus volumes, so I skip those.

When I was younger I was more into series, but too many had a problems with books too similar to earlier books. For example, did I read five books in the David Weber series, or did I just read the same book five times? It can be hard to tell.

But I prefer the "cliffhanger" to "wrap up the story each book" approach. I'm fine with incomplete stories.

I save a special bile for authors who write the episodic reoccurring character series that can be read in any order the reader likes just as if it were a TV show.

Definitely type 2 unless it is a completed series.

I have to say that the first 'unfinished' series I started pretty much established two things for me ... I am very reluctant to start an unfinished series and will almost never start an unfinished series if the author doesn't have a 'track record' of completed series and relatively fast writing.

Sterling Lanier started a series with "Heiro's Journey" (1975) which was great, a traditional post-apocalypse search plotline and although there was/ could be more written about the characters, the first book had a satisfactory wrap up of that particular storyline. Second book came out in 1983. Delighted to see it, but it definitely ended with a cliffhanger.

Author died in 2007, having never written the third book (if he indeed intended it to be a trilogy) and I still have very unpleasant words to say about that author.

I can manage series where each book does, in fact, have a beginning, middle and end, a storyline that is complete within that book, although more can obviously be said about the characters. What really pushes my hot button is the cliffhanger endings.

I do much better with a series where the characters continue but the setting and background usually remains the same but each book does have a complete story.

The earlier Honor Harrington books are like that, with each book a 'separate' battle. I quit when the politics got to the point of overwhelming the story. Lois Bujold did a very good job with the Vorkosigan series, each book a separate story, with the characters lives the glue that held the series together. Several of the detective/mystery series I read follow the same pattern, new case, same characters.

I don't really have a preference as the world of the book needs to grab me first. I do tend to read Trilogies a lot, which have that habit of ending on cliff hangars which I'm not the biggest fan of.

I generally prefer type 2, the stand alone types, unless the author is really good. In that category I'd put Anne Bishop's new series of The Others. They're not really cliffhangers but the story continues book to book, sort of like Harry Potter.

I'd put that in the #2 category.

One notes that the type 2s tend to mutate into type 1s as subplots start to pick up threads from book to book.

I like it when the changes of one book are picked up in the next, but also when the story is complete. Dragged out series don't work well.

One of the best series ive read in a long time is the Hyperion Cantos by Dan Simmons. Not sure which catergory I would put it in as books 1 and 2 act as a complete story and books 3 and 4 are a seperate story set 300 years later. But put all together they do sort of form one big story

Like a few others, I prefer #3 (or would that be #1.5?). Each book has its own, clear cut plot line but there is an overarching plot line that runs through the whole series and isn't resolved until the end.

Michael wrote: "Like a few others, I prefer #3 (or would that be #1.5?). Each book has its own, clear cut plot line but there is an overarching plot line that runs through the whole series and isn't resolved u..."

Of course, for that to work the author has to put his foot down and end things.

Stories have, as Aristotle observed, a beginning, middle, and end:

A beginning is that which does not itself follow anything by causal necessity, but after which something naturally is or comes to be. An end, on the contrary, is that which itself naturally follows some other thing, either by necessity, or as a rule, but has nothing following it. A middle is that which follows something as some other thing follows it. A well constructed plot, therefore, must neither begin nor end at haphazard, but conform to these principles.

An unlimited series can't have a story precisely because it lacks structure.

I think for me it depends what mood I'm in as to which I like better, but if I had to pick I would probably say type 1. I enjoy the cliffhangers because it does make me want to come back for more. And I don't mind waiting for a book to come out. It gives me something to look forward to. Although I will say the George R. R. Martin is a little bit ridiculous with the gaps between books. I will say I hate it when people complain about cliffhanger endings. If you know you don't want to wait then just freaking don't read the series until it's done. Simple solution.

Well I reckon I prefer the first option, 'cause I often get sentimential when it comes to some characters and I want to know what's going to happen with them next. But sometimes, the second option is awesome too. For example These Broken Stars and This shattered world. So, well... I think it depends.

It depends on what you mean by series. I don't necessarily consider books in the same universe even featuring some of the same primary characters always a series. If the book can be read and enjoyed without reference to previous or subsequent volumes then it's not a series for me. Story resolution is important. I want to read a book to the end and feel as if something important has been resolved. These days it seems like it's a rare thing.

I'll say I prefer choice #1 because I like a series that comes to an end. I'm not particularly interested in reading a series that takes 20 years to write and runs over a dozen volumes. I might not live long enough to see the ending and as we have seen sometimes authors don't live long enough either.

What bothers me about genre publishing these days is that practically everything seems to be a series and poor guys like Clifford D. Simak wouldn't stand a chance. The inability of major publishing houses to publish a standalone book is something I particularly dislike.

I suspect the preponderance of Type #1 is because authors or their publishers want to hook readers into a never-ending series because it's easier to sell them than stand-alone works.

One of my favorite TV series was Babylon 5. Each episode was a complete story, but the overall Shadow War was a thread that ran through them all.

Best part was that it was a planned 5-year project that actually came to an end.

Marketing has become too influential. Yes, a series is easier to brand or market or whatever you call it, but as a reader I still prefer the stand alone.

It's kind of sad how few stand alone titles are published.

I actually like both. But I think I may prefer the stand alone type.

Greg wrote: "Marketing has become too influential. Yes, a series is easier to brand or market or whatever you call it, but as a reader I still prefer the stand alone.

It's kind of sad how few stand alone titl..."

yeah. I have read old essays lamenting how they didn't used to have the term "singleton" to contrast with "trilogy." Nowadays keeping to the form of a trilogy is restraint.

Definitely Type 2, like Pratchett's Discworld books. I won't even consider reading Type 1 if it's longer than 3-4 books. (I might give the "in between" option a chance, though.)

I throw myself willy-nilly into series, regardless of type. I love authors that let me spend significant time in their world. That's not to say I dislike standalone stories, but seeing a #1 on a title has never dissuaded me. Waiting for the next book just means I have more time to read theories/essays from other fans. But then, I'm a veteran of WoT, and I read comics, so.

I like both. I enjoy a story with familiar char and places. I feel there is not as much into if you already are familar

Kim wrote: "You're talking about series vs serial. Example 1 is a serial, example 2 is a series."

I'm a serial reader. Give me one huge arching story. I don't mind cliffhangers and unfinished threads, so long as the whole is cohesive and not a patchwork.

I found this threat very interesting to read.

I do like type 2, but I really love type 1! For me, there's nothing better than a story that's so long that it takes up several books - and I don't mind if it's unifinished. That just means I'll have to live with the excitement, and frankly, I like that thrill. (The exception here being if the author suddenly dies - George R.R. Martin, I'm looking at you, take care of yourself!)

I agree with what a lot of you guys have said about Harry Potter though. It's nice that each books has its own plot in a longer serial, so you can tell the books apart. I'm having trouble telling the Game of Thrones-books apart, because it seems to be totally random when one book ends and another one starts. (Which it probably isn't.)

I'd go with 1

I've read and enjoyed a combination of both.
but I have read more of type one. these are usually trilogies,quadrilogies and pentalogies.