The Next Best Book Club discussion

I've noticed a lot of current writers have been doing more series work instead of standalones. I enjoy a series, I kinda like the attachment to the characters...okay, that sounded kinda sad...but I also enjoy a book that I can read and be done.

So, are you are a series reader or a standalone person? And at what point do you think a series has gone too far?

i like books that can stand alone even in series format. that way, i get to decide if i want to go back to the beginning of the series and follow or not...or even read them in order! i have been know to get so po'd at some author who do the 'dangling' thing, that i just quit them entirely!

just picky, i guess.

I like series. I like to get invested into a series or two at a time. The problem is that now almost everything seems to be leaning toward series. So now while I'm sitting around waiting for the next book in one of my favorite series to come out and I want something to read that will hold me over, half of the time I end up beginning yet another series. It is starting to become a problem for me in that my TBR list is growing not by one book at a time, but by 3-20 books at a time. I guess it wouldn't be a huge problem if it were a lot of trilogies, but many of them are a lot more than 3 books. Sometimes you just want to read one book and be done, but it's becoming harder to find standalone books than it used to be.

A friend turn me on the John Jakes' Kent Family Cronicles. I read the first 4 of the series only to find out there was another one due. I called to ask if she was finished with the 5th only to find out it was not out yet! GRRRRR. It was worth it but soooo frustrating. One thing I did like was that they could STAND ALONE! It's the dangling I can't stand. If an author is prolific, I don't have to go back 16 books to catch up on who all everyone is or who this past bad guy is and what he did and why he might be showing up again. Do I read series? Yes. Am I picky about which series I read? Yes.

I usually like stand alone books, but I also like books that are part of a set but can also be read alone. A good example would be the Hainish Cycle by Ursula K. Le Guin. Each of the books is a stand alone book, but they are all set in the same universe and sometimes share characters, so they are great when read together. It's like getting the best of both worlds.

As an author, I really love writing in series. I definitely enjoy stand-alones and have more planned for the future, but series are unique in that I can stay in the world I've created for much longer. I can get to know my characters at much deeper levels. I spend countless hours getting very attached to these "people" and it's sort of sad when it's all over. Writing them into multiple books allows me to spend more time with these friends that I've created.

I prefer stand alone books, but I don't mind series books either. I especially like series books that can also be stand alone books. That way, I can decide if the series is worth reading or not.

I also prefer stand alone books or series books that stand alone. I really don't enjoy series books that have 10 or more books. HOwever the ones that I do like are Julia Spencer-Fleming, Diana Gabaldon, Jeffery Deaver, James Patterson, and Anne Perry World War 1 series.

I'm not terribly picky, although lately I have been leaning more toward stand alone novels, which can be tough to do in fantasy, my preferred genre. Significant amounts of research and digging has led me to build up a decent-sized collection, though.

I also don't mind duets and trilogies too much, and even sets of trilogies and/or duets that go together. It's when a series starts moving towards 10+ books that I get antsy, because I don't have much of an attention span to speak of. Even books I love, like the Harry Potter series, by the time I get to the end, I'm sad it's over, but I'm relieved to be done with that world at last so I can move on to something else.

Part of this also comes from the fact that ever since I got two concussions (both somewhat serious) in under a year my reading has slowed down and my comprehension and memory aren't what they used to be. When I was younger I could get through over 700 pages a day and remember all of it. Now, as a college grad, if I can make it through 700 pages in a week it's a bit of a miracle.

For me, stand alone novels just work better. I don't have to worry about forgetting what happened before I get to read the next book, my attention doesn't wander to some other series after the third or fourth book, causing me to lose everything that happened in that series and have to start over only to have it happen again and again. Trilogies, depending on the length of the books, can even sometimes be too much for me.

Thanks Devon for bringing up this topic! I was thinking the very same thing when I went to Borders recently. I *LOVE* to read stand alones in between a break from a lengthy series. Stand alones give me the warm fuzzies of accomplishment when I'm done. And there's been a good number of stand alones which I'm glad STAYED that way. To me if the story continued into another book, maybe the characters wouldn't be the same and that initial good feeling from Book 1 would flitter away.

Then again, sometimes I could be charmed by Book 2!

I haven't found many fantasy novels these days that are stand alone. Huh.

I guess it's the difference between movies and a television series. Sometimes you want to watch a great flick for two hours and be done. But a series lets you get deeper into the saga. One of the things I've noticed since my husband and I started getting netflix is that we tend to choose long-running television shows like The Wire because we already know that we'll like it, and we know what the mood will be, and we know how we'll react to it. Movies are more of a risk.

I think the same is true of books. When I'm not sure of an author, I will go with a standalone every time. But if I have come to trust that author and am engaged by the authorial voice, I find great satisfaction from a series. I'm currently re-reading John Maddox Roberts's SPQR series simply because his ancient Roman detective has become like an old friend of the family to me, and I wanted to spend more time with him!

I prefer standalones. A lot of series work is simply sloppy, I find- full of overexplanations, points that don't go anywhere anytime soon, and general story laxness. I shouldn't have to commit to reading a whole series to get any payoff- and some writers just don't seem to get that a first book is not simply set up- it has to be good in its own right.

I really have a limited reading time, I want all the bang for my buck, so to speak!

I like both, depending on the author. I've found some series recently that just drag on forever and after the 8th book, I'm ready to be done. A lot of what was said could have been said in one longer book really. So I'm picky. Then there are some stand alones that I'd love to see made into a series.

I read both...and I read simultaneously...such as I finished the Harry Potter and Sookie Stackhouse this year, but I read an HP then an SS...dang library only getting one copy of the series. I do however plan on purchasing both reread!!

What about overlong series? I've noticed some that have stretched into 15 or 20 books!! I understand getting involved in with characters and wanting to spend time with them, but at some point isn't it just time to stop?

DevonAlyse wrote: "What about overlong series? I've noticed some that have stretched into 15 or 20 books!! I understand getting involved in with characters and wanting to spend time with them, but at some point isn't it just time to stop?"

~eyeroll~
When I was a teen, I got involved in two series, that I'm not sure are ever going to end: The Dragonriders of Pern started in 1967, and The Deryni series, started in 1970. Both are still going. I may be very old and grey before they end. :S

That's why I try to avoid any series without a set number of books planned. I want to know if it going to be a trilogy, or seven books, or what ever before I start. I've still managed to get sucked into a few anyway...~sigh~

At this point, I just give them a lower priority. Series with a set end get read first.:)

That's really helpful to know. Thank you guys for sharing your opinions about this. (I know I didn't start this conversation or anything, but I still wanted to thank you!!) It's really invaluable to be able to hear readers' thoughts on things like this. I think reading this thread alone has made me determined to always be up front with my readers about how long I plan on making my series from the beginning.

One thing I hate in regards to series, is when an author writes the first book solely to get to the second book. For example, I read Gone by Michael Grant, a five hundred and plus page book by the way, and that the main purpose of that book seemed to be just to get to the next book. If an author is going to do that, then stick to a less number of pages, especially if nothing is going to be resolved. Gah, I was so frustrated when I finished that book, in contrast to Pretty Little Liars, because it was sooo long. PLL was a shorter page book so I didn't mind being left hanging.

I agree with M, it is good to know as someone who likes to write what it is people seem to prefer in terms of series vs stand-alone, length of series, etc.

I know my major planned story can be done in two books, hopefully about 500-600 pages each. Will it ever get to that point of completion? Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I'm not one to predict the future, but it's good to know that simply being able to step up and say "this will take two books to tell, no more" is something that will draw potential readers in if I do ever manage to make it to that point.

And since it's a fantasy story, I have a feeling saying that would really be saying something, given the length of a lot of current fantasy series.

I don't think you can actually say "this is going to be done in ## of books", what if somewhere in the writing you go "oh, so the story is gonna go that way..." and it ends up being ten books?

I'm not necessarily complaining about the length of a series, well, maybe not much. I just think after 20 books maybe we should find some new characters. Especially if it's a really good author, I hate to see them stick to one series and let it go on and on and not find new characters to love.

But then again I can barely write these posts so...yeah.

I agree, DevonAlyse, there are definitely authors who would not be able to say how many books they plan to write in series at the beginning -- those authors that prefer not to fully outline their story lines first. If it works best for them to write that way, then of course, they'd have to just keep writing until their story tells them that it's over. For me, I love to outline pretty heavily. I know exactly where my stories are going and have all the scenes fully developed before I even begin to write. For series, I actually plan out all of the books in the series before even starting the first one. I really like to get a good grasp on the larger arc of the story that will be told over the course of the entire series right at the beginning. Sometimes I even title all the books first also!

M. wrote: "I agree, DevonAlyse, there are definitely authors who would not be able to say how many books they plan to write in series at the beginning -- those authors that prefer not to fully outline their s..."

Do you ever change your titles after your writing tips in a different direction than you planned?

I'd tried writing in highschool. It was...sad, very, very sad!!! I'm gonna stick to reading from no on?

But if you ever need a title suggestion, i'm good at that!!

Yes, I've done that before, but very rarely. Every detail is so solid in its outline form before I begin, that it's very unlikely for things to change. Little pieces of the story might change, but usually nothing big enough to warrant a new title. :)

I think both are worthy of my attention . As a former soap opera obsessive I've just changed from watching serials to reading serials , LOL !

I enjoy both the series and the standalones. However, the only problem I have with a series is, if I don't like it, I still feel compelled to finish the series (as far as all the books that have currently been published in it) because I feel that it isn't finished until the last book of the series and once I start a book, I have to finish it no matter how much I don't like it. And I feel that a series has gone too far when it no longer interests me. :)

I like series and standalone books. I guess the point where series go too far is when there are so many books that you can't keep up.

I haven't had that problem yet though. The biggest book series that I've started reading is Cirque du Freak and that is 12 books long.

When I like a book I like it when it is a series too. ;)
I think for the same reason that writers like to write series: I can stay longer in the same world :) But I think all books need to stand on their own as well, at least enough so that you can read, understand and enjoy it when you read just one book, and are not forced to read the rest of the series too.

But I have the feeling it's a trend lately to make every book into at least a trilogy and that's a shame. It can be just as nice to read just one, well written, rounded book that stands alone!

It depends on the story for me. I like trilogies and short series but I don't think I could really go through a massive series like Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time or something. But I think it really depends on the story and stuff.

I've also been preferring standalones lately only because I've been reading a number of trilogies lately and I'm waiting for some of them to finish up before I start a new one, lol.

I'm usually cool with trilogies if they leave me hanging and force me to go out and get the next book. But I don't like series that continue to do that for books and books. I prefer series books that stand alone.

It sounds sort of like nerd trash, but I used to read the Star Wars books. For a while it was cool. I'd pick them up at my favorite used book store the same way I used to pick up comic books. They were all stand alone stories, except for the couple of Zahn trilogies.

But in more recent years (which has probably been like the last five or so- I'm horrible with time), they started whole story lines that turned the books into something more like comic books with stories that spanned books. Like the war they had with the race from outside their galaxy. Okay, I was a little taken in by that (it's a fun idea) but it became clear that it was never going to end, and I had to quit it.

Well, some stories in a "series" sometimes can stand alone. Like Anita Shreve's "The Pilot's Wife" - set in an informal trilogy.

I don't mind much, especially trilogies. Three books aren't that hard to keep up with. But when it stretches to like... 10? Harry Potter was an exception because I practically grew up with them; I could keep up. But say, like the George RR Martin ones? It'll take me a while.

As others have said, I like stand alone books WITHIN a series...especially if the next book is not yet available.

Cliff hangers are fine if the next book is out. Even a short wait for the next book is ok. Long waits after a cliff hanger for the next book (like 5 years) just turn me off.

Splitter