SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Why are so many great stories stretched out into a trilogy nowadays? This is why I only read standalones. I'm reading The Atlantis Gene (book one in the origin series by A.G. Riddle) and I am enjoying the high points of the story despite being written so poorly and despite the filler chapters. Anyone read this series yet? Is it worth continuing to read this book, and even continuing to book 2, or should I just skip to book 3?

Life is too short, to read bad books.

Because it makes for good marketing. Much easier to sell the next volume than a new work.

Brenda wrote: "Life is too short, to read bad books."

It took me a while to realise that. If I'm not enjoying a book I shouldn't force myself to continue.

It's hard to get a book deal these days without a series. If a publisher is going to spend money to market your book, that investment will pay greater dividends if there will be multiple books for readers to buy rather than just one. Why spend the money to market just one book when you can spend the same amount to hook readers on three or even ten books?

I'm fine with trilogies or longer if there really is that much story to tell.

Some of the newer not-traditionally-published authors cherry pick what advice to take to heart (particularly if they think it equals book sales or discoverability). So when more successful/experienced self-publishing authors and a myriad of promotional "experts" say your books see more success when you have more books — that they listen to and pad out one work into three or more.

Or worse, chop a 500 page book into three shorter novellas adding up price-wise to way more than the single book would have sold for. I'm not convinced indie books are getting shorter because of attention spans or needing cheaper book prices -- I'm convinced it's the perception you need a trilogy/series. There have always been readers enjoying shorter works and readers enjoying longer works.

All the readers and other members of book industry telling them to get an editor (who is often going to try to tighten the story not want more filler material added) = ignored. Make more books = taken to heart to drag in some of the worst ever ramblings. *sigh*

Sometimes a first book in series was okay or even good without completing hooking me on a series. One too many have had "first book-itis" where they spent so much time setting up worlds, characters and story they ended right as you were starting to get interested. A few series I have been very glad I took goodreads' friends advice and read past the first on-the-fence/ordinary book because they have turned out to be favorite series.

I have never, however, in almost five decades of reading had a bad book get any better by reading further into the series. It's going to be the same author/writing the further you read so how are you going to like it any better? If hoping that author got better as they wrote the sequel that's not likely to happen, particularly if books were published close together. Definitely not if the trilogy was just really one book that got s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d.

Absolutely if you don't like the writing in the excerpt/sample of a book — go no further; if anything author's will perfect just the sample pages or pay to edit just the sample pages ( been burnt by that before, where either only the sample had paid editing or where an author sleazily made the free pages an editor edited — as a sample of their editing services —the book sample used without paying).

Bad read = stop. There are just a helluva lot more books to enjoy in your reading hours.

I'm positive easier technology, publishing and distribution have made it possible for authors to be way more prolific than the days they might put out just 1-5 books in their lifetime (hey, we're not mixing ink, scraping parchment, and sharpening quills any more— or using carbon paper plus ebooks don't even have to have a printing press). Doesn't mean some of them should or that one book's worth of story should be split or stretched into many.

These days I steer clear of the traditional series as authors seem to not know when to give a series a proper burial. On the rare occasion that a series does capture my attention I never read more than the first three books in a series, then it's time to move on. With the wide array and diversity available to a reader, I don't think anything can be gained by not exploring the possibilities.

I also miss the stand alone books. I REALLY miss them. I absolutely hate waiting for a sequel. Don't even get me started on the "partial" books that end on a cliffhanger. *side eyeing the soapbox* Give me a solid story 700 or even 1000+ pages any day. Let the author take 3-5 years to write it and to perfect it. Then price it anywhere you like. Hell, put a leather binding on it, and I'll buy it and treasure it always (as well as buy the next work the author puts out).

There are a whole lot more standalone fantasies than people realize. This is because there are a whole lot of reasons why a standalone title is less visible/tends to fall into the margins or off the radar.

A person will read a standalone and move on. No matter how good - it's the rare book that sticks in memory year after year. And when a book is not constantly mentioned, or kept on the shelf - it becomes invisible. New readers don't find it. Past readers don't recall it as readily. Given that chain bookshops don't keep titles on the shelf that are 'older' unless they are making huge numbers - and even then, they must compete with all the new releases - many of which are 'co paid' - where the publisher pays a kickback fee to have them shelved.

A series has a much longer shelf life, and a longer memory life, since sequels cause a rejuvenation of the back titles, they take up more eye space on the shelf, and the publisher is invested in keeping them in print. New readers have years, even, to discover them, where the standalone tends to vanish. And every new book creates new buzz for that longterm project.

I can speak from career experience - I've done three standalones, two trilogies, and a long series. The long series and the trilogies lead in sales.

The standalones had successful runs - two of them extremely long runs. But they went out of print - and stayed out of print for years. Now, yes, e books have resurrected them. But even though one of them sold well over 100 thousand copies, new readers have little way to know they exist. The e sales lag for no reason except there is nothing in the frontlist (as with a new release in a series) to push them out of obscurity.

I have seen lists of standalone titles that run to hundreds of books. I've read many of them, many of them extraordinary reads - tor.com did two blogs on them, r/fantasy at Reddit is now taking a vote on standalones, I've seen thread after thread on LibraryThing listing heaps of fantasy standalones.

The problem is knowing they are there.

I would suggest if you check your favorite author's page right here, you will find the standalones they've written - but they may not be on the first page of listed titles because series will outstrip the numbers. If you switch the list preference to chronological, that might make it easier.

The lack of available standalones isn't their scarcity, it's a marketing fail and a flaw in the system and just plain the erosion of human memory.

Janny wrote: "I would suggest if you check your favorite author's page right here, you will find the standalones they've written - but they may not be on the first page of listed titles because series will outstrip the numbers. If you switch the list preference to chronological, that might make it easier.
The lack of available standalones isn't their scarcity, it's a marketing fail and a flaw in the system and just plain the erosion of human memory..."

Absolutely true. I rarely read series. The last series I started was Ender's Game, and I went no further than the second book.

Alisha wrote: "These days I steer clear of the traditional series as authors seem to not know when to give a series a proper burial. On the rare occasion that a series does capture my attention I never read more ..."

I think that the authors of these traditionally published series are bored and definitely know that they have nothing more to say, but their agents and editors are saying that writing something else won't get enough readers. They are prisoners of their series.

I agree Shomeret. And Ken, the 2nd book in Ender's Game was said to be better than the 1st, but that's rare in literature today. Most series today are stretched out to be cash grabs. That is why you see so many of them and few standalones. At least this is the case with traditional publishers.

Anton wrote: "I agree Shomeret. And Ken, the 2nd book in Ender's Game was said to be better than the 1st, but that's rare in literature today. Most series today are stretched out to be cash grabs. That is why yo..."

Depends on what you like, I guess. I thought the first was great, the second one tedious.

Janny, I agree. The largest factor is probably simply a form of logistics. Series stay in our memory longer, and thus we converse about them more, simply because we spend more time with them.

Also, on GR, series get their own section on an author's page. I would *love* to be able to look at the page of a new-to-me author and be able to see, at a glance, which of her books are *not* part of series! (Bookstore shelves' real estate worked much the same way....)

(In case it's not obvious from what I say above, I prefer stand-alones. Maybe a world is wonderful and I wouldn't mind spending more time there, but I'd prefer that each story says its stuff and we can both move along.)

Cliffhangers clearly intended to make you buy the next book *ack*.

That can totally turn me away from a series and an author.

Oh, not the endings where it's clear there is more to come or with a lot of plot points still unsettled. But each book should be an attempted story arc. Even if story arc finishes then at very end there's a start to or glimpse of next arc.

These aren't the same days as when Tolkien published Lord of the Rings and had disagreements with publisher over how many books and where each would end.

Readers will buy books from novella length to over a thousand pages each. I personally usually prefer longer works (series or not) to the under 200 page books — but, books of any length can be published and have made it to the mainstream bestseller lists.

It's usually a cheap, offensive ploy to end a book on an outright cliffhanger not in the least appreciated by the reader. The only time I remember it not bothering me was when the entire book every chapter had been full of cliffhangers so I was expecting it.

Book story arcs do need a beginning, middle and end. Careful of dragging out, skimping or skipping any part. Maybe needs to be a series; maybe needs to be a standalone — but needs the story arc.

I'm getting very tired, too, of middle of book or middle of series where nothing is going on, a fast paced story slows to a crawl, or nothing except endless wandering about an imaginary map, with or without battles. [Ooh...the last in a six-book series did that to me and had me rating a usually favorite author 1-star with the other five books getting 5-star ratings (The Phoenix Transformed). More than 400 pages of nothing but going back and forth across same desert path with nothing happening (sporadically more refugees seen or attached) and no progression in story arc then just ended! Still infuriating.]

Don't even get me started on YA books where the middle of book or series piles on nothing but angst and uncertainty. I have caught myself almost throwing my kindle like I would an infuriating DTB when the middle was all waffling back and forth between points of a love triangle. (I don't allow myself to attempt to read more than one potentially-has-love-triangle YA book every three months.)

I'm writing stand-alone, but then I self publish. It's true traditional book deals may be harder to get. Not sure. I enjoy reading series as well as stand-alone, although series like Song of Ice and Fire can be frustrating when you have to wait for the next book so long.

I'm personally way more likely to read a book if it's part of a series. I don't dislike stand-alones at all, I just enjoy coming back to the world/characters if I like the story. So for a solo book to grab me, it has to, for lack of better phrase, "work harder" than book one of a series.
Also, books 2 and beyond don't have to work at all. If I like book 1, I will read 2. If I like 2, I'll read 3, 4, etc. I'm sure people with my attitude/reading habits are part of the thinning solo book scene, so I apologize haha.

I'm a huge fan of Terry too Matt. He has started writing some standalones again.

What everyone else said: marketing and all that. You're much more likely to hit around book five of a series than a singular title. Traditional publishing has always been a series-lover, to the point of taking a standalone or a duology and having the writer put in more to up the money intake. You can't blame them for that, because they're running a business.

Also (at least in spec fic), ideas are sometimes just so big that they need more than one book. I personally love a good series. I'm not a fan of a serial (splitting up a book into multiple installments), but if I find something I like in the first book, I want more of that world and those characters and all that.

I can't help you on the Atlantis books. Haven't read them yet. Sorry :(

Tommy wrote: "I'm personally way more likely to read a book if it's part of a series. I don't dislike stand-alones at all, I just enjoy coming back to the world/characters if I like the story. So for a solo book..."

I have no trouble abandoning a series if I see that the world and its characters have stopped developing. Another reason for me to abandon a series is that the author has stopped writing about the character that kept me reading and instead is focusing on another character that doesn't interest me at all. I'm willing to come back to the series if the perspective changes again and the viewpoint character sounds interesting.

I have to say that my favorites in SF&F are mostly series books. I tend to be more invested in the characters with a series. Yet I do read standalones, and there are a few standalones among my favorites. I don't agree that standalones have to work harder. All types of books need to work hard to maintain my interest.

Yes Matt I am. I should say I'm writing a standalone, but have plans for a series also. I just released a book of fantasy short stories. It is available on Amazon imprint and kindle only right now (due to the perks of kindle select), although when I hit 90 days I will be using Smashwords to publish on the other digital formats. It's called Dragon Shorts: A Collection of Outlandish Tales. Here is the link, and the print edition is listed under other editions.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U9RK57M

PS Matt - I see you got you picture with Terry. I did too. I met him at comic con.

I much prefer standalone books, or standalone books in a particular universe. The Culture series, Revelation Space series, etc. I'm not opposed to longer works, but the story has to warrant that extra length. It has to feel like one story, planned from the beginning, not just an endless parade of certain characters marching through their lives for no particular overarching reason. I swear some of the stuff out there is like a never ending TV show...milk it until it dies a pitiful, lonely death.

Even though I like both standalones and series equally, I do agree with you Micah. For instance, I very much enjoyed the Inheritance Cycle by Paolini, but at times the story felt unnecessarily dragged out.

To me there is a difference between writing the series and stretching it into a series.

It's been touched on already, but publishers prefer a series because they can sell multiple books off of one marketing campaign.

I also think writers create a series because they can't come up with new characters, so they'd rather rehash old ones.

I say all this and I came out with my series first. I have three standalone books already written, but I came out with a series first hoping I would hook a readership with more ease. I think, psycologically, readers would rather pick up the first of a series because if they like the first then they have a bunch of other books they can pick up and get into. If they like a standalone, well then what? They have to find something completely new.

On the flipside, if you hate a series you can just not read the next one and its all good. If you hate a standalone, same thing.

A problem with most series out there is they're more like soaps than actual complete story arcs. I'm not saying you need to serialize like Dresden, but no the difference between an actual close to a story arc vs delaying an ending.

Charles wrote: "I'm writing stand-alone, but then I self publish."

Me too.

I was just noticing that my reading nowadays that's of current books is heavily loaded toward series.

Micah wrote: "...It has to feel like one story, planned from the beginning, not just an endless parade of certain characters marching through their lives for no particular overarching reason. I swear some of the stuff out there is like a never ending TV show....."

Amen.

Of course, we're spoilt by sites like goodreads and modern book covers displaying series names. Plus author communications letting us know. I can remember sometimes being stationed too far away from book stores (pre-Internet) where all I knew was the back pages of book ads and order forms you sent to Avenue of the Americas ... just knew there were authors (and publishers like Ace and DAW) I wanted more of.

No idea was a series. Big surprise if familiar characters or worlds showed up again.

Probably sometimes authors don't actually plan a series. Then the characters take on a life of their own demanding that more be told ...

I don't really mind sequels as long as each book has some sort of conclusion, even if part of it is left open in a cliffhanger. But these serial novellas that have no ending drive me crazy. I mark authors off my reading list for that sort of thing.

But now there are things like this: Incubus. It's by Big World Network who stated that their goal is to provide a "... way to enjoy both fiction and non-fiction in an episodic format, not unlike a television series... Unlike a traditional novel with a clear endpoint, series on BWN continue for as long as their readers want more and new seasons are renewed. The average series episode is between 4-10 pages..." But several of these episodes are bundled into standard novel length books and not labeled as episodes (though the chapters are).

So, look, now you can even buy books and series that have no definitive end point at all. Nope, nope, nope, not for me.

I'm trying to stick with stand alones only. I absolutely hate the way series multiply my reading list exponentially.

There are a couple of newer series that while I got completely hooked I now wait until a few more books get published. I mean, of course I don't want authors rushing something to publication before ready. But there are a couple I know I get so immersed in that I need the next ready to read.

I blame that mostly on Wheel of Time and on Song of Fire and Ice. How many decades were spent waiting on those? Seriously unreal to me even though I do know I preordered first-edition hardcovers as soon as possible for all of them. I know Martin has had well-deserved success with the HBO Game of Thrones series ... but, how many years did I spend with changing publication dates on what was to be the final book, then the final trilogy and then ... who knows what.

I almost, gave up on the Noble Dead series when it sidetracked to a whiney useless side character I did not like (Wyn) or find interesting—not quite because I did still like the writing and the glimpse of the regular characters, Such a potential because could have been a great exploration of some barely mentioned races and places but concentrated so much in the one character *yuck.* And I'm glad I stuck with it because the main characters are back now -- but I'm also disgusted because I'm on the second to last book and the damn cast of characters are endlessly boarding ships, sailing around, debarking, getting a room in at inn while finding new ship, boarding ship ... ad nauseum.

I took a break to re-read the first in that series with one of the group's here to recapture the magic in between sporadically reading chapters of boarding-sailing-landing crap. It's irritating because I do want to know what happens and the writing keeps sucking me in for a while before I get bad déjà vu almost to the point of seasickness and need a break again.

Eric Flint has an interesting take on the series. It is part of a much larger take on Sad Puppies and Science Fiction in general. He does explain why the genre is the way it is. Well worth reading aside from the politics.

http://www.ericflint.net/index.php/20...

Thanks fir that Eric Flint link.

...What the mass audience wants, first and foremost—and this has been true and invariant since the Sumerians and the epic of Gilgamesh—is a good story. Period.

“Tell me a good story.” Thazzit...

(I actually didn't know that Star Man's Son, 2250 A.D by Andre Norton was first SF&F to sell a million copies.)

Papaphilly wrote: "Eric Flint has an interesting take on the series. It is part of a much larger take on Sad Puppies and Science Fiction in general. He does explain why the genre is the way it is. Well worth readi..."

While I agree with his overall intent, it looks to me like he's doing some cherry-picking of his own. Just because a couple best-selling authors haven't won awards doesn't mean all best-sellers are ignored. Many, perhaps most, of the Hugo awards have gone to best sellers.

And honestly, having a critical elite is often a nice counterbalance to mass appeal. McDonald's sells more food than any other restaurant in the world, but it would be laughable to give them an award in any of the James Beard categories. (Unless there's one for "fastest turnaround time from order to delivery.")

Ah, but do the people who frequent MacDonald's revolt at the award-winning food? Say it's tasteless or bitter?

I enjoy both, the big annoyance is when a series massively outstays it's welcome and you drop it with tons of things still unresolved.

Normally the series that keep it fresh have fairly big casts purges and major direction shifts.

Shomeret wrote: "I have no trouble abandoning a series if I see that the world and its characters have stopped developing. Another reason for me to abandon a series is that the author has stopped writing about the character that kept me reading and instead is focusing on another character that doesn't interest me at all. I'm willing to come back to the series if the perspective changes again and the viewpoint character sounds interesting."

Oh, I have no problem dropping a series either. When I said book 1 will take me to 2, 2 to 3, etc. I meant just that. 1 will take me to 2, 2 to 3, but 3 has to take me to 4. I won't read 4, 5, 6, etc. based on how much I liked book one. Basically, a series that hooks me has to drop the ball to get me to stop, where as a standalone has to re-catch the ball every time.

To explain my "has to work harder" stance, I'll illustrate it like this: Let's say we have two authors, we'll call them Frank and Mary. Each wrote 3 books, Frank, 3 standalones, and Mary, a trilogy. Say I read both those author's earliest published book and liked both nearly equally(let's say 4 star rating). Based on that, Mary has a near guarantee that I will check out book 2 of her trilogy, with potential to leading me into book 3. Frank, on the other hand, has zero assurance I will read either of his other books. I might, but it's gonna depend on that work alone, whereas a sequel in a series is built on the foundation on a book I already read and liked.
Not trying to sway you, mind you. How anyone reads is their own prerogative. Just explaining my statement and how it applies to me(and I'm guessing others).

Tommy, I definitely see your point. But I'm the opposite. I avoid series to the point that if I like the first book I read by Frank, I'm *more* likely to read another by him, than I am to continue Mary's trilogy.

(I know I'm weird, but I doubt I'm unique.)

Cheryl wrote: "Tommy, I definitely see your point. But I'm the opposite. I avoid series to the point that if I like the first book I read by Frank, I'm *more* likely to read another by him, than I am to continu..."

Hey, and I'm glad your different perspective is out there, because Frank deserves just as much love as Mary. Heck, maybe more. I wouldn't know though, I didn't read his other two books :)

There's another trend with series I don't like -- publishers canceling them before finished. That's happened with four I liked; thankfully all four authors went on to self-publish remaining volumes.

One did so even free to their readers.

Another had a helluva time getting rights back from publisher but eventually succeeded and self-published—that's just nasty to me on publisher's part (not legally allowing them to finish the series, that is; I understand about not reverting the backlist books to author). Doesn't sound like good business either because if publisher still had the backlist books they could conceivably make more sales as more in series was published than if books were in a stalled series. Not that us readers always have any more clue what happens between publisher and author than we do what happens between publishers and Amazon.

I once swore that I'd never do a series unless each book in it could stand alone. Then I spoke with a marketing coach to help with my next books and... guess what... she won't even deal with my unless I have a series of at least three books, hopefully more, and if I can't think up new stories to follow the first one, then break that single book into three or more.
So that's what I'm going to do. Kicking and screaming, but I'll do it because I want to sell books.

Tommy, in your example I would add both of Frank's other books to my to-be-read list, but only the next in the series of Mary's. Whether I read any of them would depend completely on other circumstances.

Florence wrote: "I once swore that I'd never do a series unless each book in it could stand alone. Then I spoke with a marketing coach to help with my next books and... guess what... she won't even deal with my unl..."

I'd see what other marketing coaches had to say — unless there's a good breaking point in your story where it logically could break into thirds. Else it's possible readers will dislike the first enough to avoid parts 2 and 3.

Trike wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Eric Flint has an interesting take on the series. It is part of a much larger take on Sad Puppies and Science Fiction in general. He does explain why the genre is the way it is..."

I knew I should have taken only the quotes instead of the whole post. Eric Flint's post on the longer novels and series. Sorry about that, I didn't want anyone to get wrapped around the axle.

Half a century ago, that was reasonable. The average length of an SF novel was between 40,000 and 60,000 words. But today that definition is simply laughable. Every professional author and editor in our field knows perfectly well that no major publisher, outside of the YA market, will accept a “novel” manuscript that’s less than 80,000 words long—and they usually want between 90-120,000 words...

Then, it gets worse. Because the market today isn’t simply a novel market. It’s become predominantly a market that wants long series, not stand-alone novels. And the existing award structure is very poorly designed to handle long series. About the only way it can do it is by—quite artificially, in most cases—cutting one book out of a series and pretending for the moment that it’s a “this year only” quasi-stand alone story...

“Well, dammit, you OUGHTA still be writing lots of short stories—sure, sure, you’d starve but that’s your problem—instead of these godawful endless multi-volume series just because that’s what the mass audience wants to read and it pays your mortgage and medical bills.”

There you have it. The market has decided what is getting published.

One notes that one CAN publish short stories today, in ebook format, as an indie.

Mary wrote: "One notes that one CAN publish short stories today, in ebook format, as an indie."

And there are a ton of magazines online that offer additional opportunities. Online but also echoing out in ebook (and sometimes print) format to usual retailers like amazon.com. Shimmer, Lightspeed, etc.

D.A wrote: "Mary wrote: "One notes that one CAN publish short stories today, in ebook format, as an indie."

And there are a ton of magazines online that offer additional opportunities. Online but also echoin..."

Mary wrote: "One notes that one CAN publish short stories today, in ebook format, as an indie."

Can one do that and still make a living? that was Eric Flints point. I miss the shorter works personally.

You can't rely on making a living regardless of length -- but yes, short is fewer sales.

D.A wrote: "Thanks fir that Eric Flint link.
...What the mass audience wants, first and foremost—and this has been true and invariant since the Sumerians and the epic of Gilgamesh—is a good story. Period.

“..."

I didn't know that Starman's Son was such a huge seller either. I only know that it was the first SF novel I ever read.

There is a good bit of talk about Eric Flint. For those unaware his primary series 1632 and blah blah blah, is more of a proving ground for new authors at Baen. Which is why it changes co-writers near constantly, this does cause fairly dramatic shifts in writing and quality. I think they also have a large number of short stories in the Grantville Gazettes he edits and many of the new Baen authors wrote a few shorts in that first.

Yep, I was amazed to find that today a writer can make a modest living writing short sci-fi. And this after changing from short stories to novels because that was all I thought would actually make money. I do know that it's a recent thing because when my bricks and mortar publishers went bankrupt, I couldn't find any short fiction markets that would provide even a marginal income.

However... sales partly depend on the brand of the author and as far as I can tell that's determined more from sales of novels than short fiction. More publicity, perhaps, or the perception of novels being more writerly?

On another note... yes, D A, I'd love to consult with another marketing coach and see what they say about series but I've yet to find another coach. I was lucky to meet a writer who gave me the name of the one I'm communicating with now. Anyone know of any book marketing coaches out there?