Here is your Friday question! Which do you prefer to read - series or standalones?I read both - and I enjoy both. But if pressed I'd have to say series. When you find a brilliant book and realise it is the first in a long series, it gives me a feeling of pleasure and anticipation. When you live with characters for a long time, their motivations and attitudes can be revealed as a slow burn rather than quick-sharp to suit the plot of a standalone book.
I am the same when it comes to films vs long-running TV series. I just like to immerse myself completely in a world and not have to come up for air for a while.
How about you? And which would you list as your favourite examples of both?
Depends on the story. Sequels for sequels sake are never welcome
ReplyDeleteHummmm tricky one, I'd say series but only if it's already completed. Am I the only one who forgets half of what's going on if theres more than a year between books? I'm sure I'd have got so much more out of Malazan if I'd had a straight run at it, and lets not even mention GRRM.
ReplyDeleteDitto what Adrian said about sequels. Often times they make money but do little more than tarnish the imagine of the original. (I feel this happens more often with movies and books as a TV show is drawn out by it's nature of x amount of episodes per season.)
ReplyDeleteI'd take a stand alone over a series. Series that pop up only after the success of the original make me cringe. I think series of indeterminate length (I could call out some heavy hitters here) are the worse and encourage some writers to ramble indefinitely as long as there is a contract to fulfill and a steady paycheck.
Planned, trilogies, tetralogies, stream-of-conscious thirty-two parters and such are are marginally easier for me to accept. In theory, the writer at least has an idea of how things end, and a road map of how to get there.
I don't have any problem with books in a series where each title stands alone.
For whatever reason I seem to think there's a problem with the writing if you need more than one book to tell a single story (especially in genre sff where the books can be rather massive.) I like concision and a smaller narrative focus than the drawn out, often overwrought, nature of books in a series.
Ever the hypocrite, I'm currently reading a four book series that may be the most imaginative and original work I've come across, but I think it far from the norm concerning books in a series.
I certainly enjoy a standalone, but I probably prefer series. As you say, there is a sense of attachment and familiarity that comes from learning characters and the world they inhabit.
ReplyDeleteExamples of series are the Dresden Files by Jim Butcher and The Malazan Book of the Fallen by Steven Erikson.
Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson is a particularly good standalone example.
@Adrian - what stories do you think lend themselves to series?
ReplyDelete@Simon - you're not the only one! I re-read extensively otherwise I wouldn't enjoy new books in a long-running series.
@Chad - I'm very curious as to this four book series! Want to share?
@Steve - yep, your examples of series are some of the best out there. And it looks as though both have a good end point in mind - Erikson closer to finishing, of course!
ReplyDeleteIt depends on the story, honestly. If there's a good story that stretches out over a couple of books, the better! I'm liking standalone books at the moment, given the number of books that I have to read.
ReplyDelete@Magemanda -- that's a good point. There are series that are working towards an end and 'indefinite' series. In a way, you could say that series that are working towards an end are a form of standalone--just a really long form.
ReplyDeleteAn open ended series (or at least one with no announced end) that I've been reading are the Matt Scudder books by Lawrence Block.
I was going to make this a poll question this week on my blog, oddly enough..just never got around to it :)
ReplyDeleteI vote series..that is one of the biggest reasons I like fantasy..long series with lots of time to follow characters, extra time for worldbuilding, etc. I know other genres like Mystery have series too, but its just not the same to me for some reason.
I definitely think I prefer series, although some books are so powerful they really only work as a stand-alone - any follow-up would lose some of the impact. And I also agree that sequels for the sake of cashing in on a popular story are maddening. I think some authors do better with series, and some with stand-alones; Lloyd Alexander is one of the few I've read who did both equally well.
ReplyDeleteI also think there's a difference between multi-generational series and a series that only follows one group of people. It can get really boring (unless it's a short series) to read about the same people every time, whereas if the story continues into children and grandchildren, it keeps it fresh while still continuing with the familiar characters.
@JeffC - sorry for raining all over your parade! ;-)
ReplyDelete@Elouise - you make a good point. I think one of the reasons I cite Kelley Armstrong as an excellent UF author is because she's not afraid to bring in different voices and characters to her series to keep it constantly moving and fresh.
Looking at my bookshelves, I can see I'm a series girl. When I come across a story I love, I just don't want it to end. A series allows the story to expand over thousands of pages, bring new characters and adventures in, and really give time for everything to percolate and see where it ends up. Long story short, I just don't want good stories to end.
ReplyDeletebut then I always get frustrated waiting for the next book to come out!!
I enjoy both, really. Sometimes it's awesome to find a good series and know that you can close one book and open another and continue living the adventures of the characters you know and love. Other time, it's nice to know that you can close a book and have that satisfying feeling of a story coming to a good conclusion, with the loose ends tied up and no more commitment needs to be made.
ReplyDeleteSeries really only bother me when it seems like it's one done for the purpose of selling more books. I've read trilogies that could have been tightened and fit into one single novel. And then there's also the annoyance of finishing a book and knowing you'll have to wait months, sometimes years to find out how the story ties up at the end. I can't say I enjoy that too much. :p
Standalones also don't bother me much when the story comes to a close because I'm an avid rereader. I don't mind picking up a book I've read five times in the past and reading it all over again.
I guess both have their good points and their bad, and it all really depends on the story and how it's written. I don't see much point in limiting myself to only reading series or only standalones. Seems like I'd be missing too many awesome books by doing that!
I actually almost never, ever read stand alones. Not because they bother me but I always leave the book wondering "what next?!"I usually read trilogies. They seem to be a perfect series size and depth for me. I tend to have issues with series that are umpteen installations long. My attention rarely stays for that long.
ReplyDeleteA few months ago I read some Gaiman, and that was the first time I ever really read a stand alone and left it feeling pretty good about the length of its story.
I actually really enjoy both. I enjoy a good series where each book is a complete story but is also part of a much larger story arc. But I also enjoy a good standalone that is strongly conceptual. I do tend to look more for series books because I really love being able to follow the same characters and the increased depth in world-building.
ReplyDelete@magemanda; it's the Jerusalem Quartet by Edward Whittemore.
ReplyDeleteI'm a series girl. I love being able to return to a world I love. The Kushiel books are a great example of those. The only thing that bugs me, and from the comments above I'm obviously not alone lol, is when I have to wait ages and ages for the next book *cough* GRRM, Rowling, Lynch *cough*. And I'm a re-reader too.
ReplyDeleteI like stand-alone's too. A really great one, and one of the few I own, is Ash by Mary Gentle. I loved that.
I definitely go for the series. If it's characters I care about, I want to follow them for as long as possible. Not that I don't enjoy a standalone, but there's something special about being able to really get immersed in a world.
ReplyDeleteA few years back I read David Eddings back to back from "Pawn of Prophecy" to "Polgara the Sorceress" and finished off with "The Rivan Codex". That is a great reading experience, and I would recommend it to anyone who likes Fantasy-series.
I tend to prefer series, so you can really get to know the characters, but there are exceptions where the book was written as a standalone story and should never have a sequel, such as I Am Legend, or more recently, The Reapers are The Angels. I kind of hope Alden Bell doesn't do another story in the same world.
ReplyDeleteI really like a good series, because I like the depth of character evolution that can take place over several books, and it's nice to slip into something familiar sometimes. But, if it's a fantasy series, where a storyline isn't satisfactorily concluded at the end of each book, it annoys me if the entire series isn't available. I really don't like waiting a year to find out how a story ends.
ReplyDeleteI'm more a series girl, but it really depends if there is a reason for series to continue or if it's cashing in. As Amanda says Kelley Armstrong is a great example of a series that is always changes and evolving - even when narrators return they are in a different position than they were originally. Dresden another good example of stand alone books but reading the whole series adds something to the experience.
ReplyDeleteAlthough having said that, there is a feeling that anything can happen in a stand alone - you don't know that the hereo will survive or not. In a series it's pretty much guaranteed as there's another 5 books in the series to come!
It's quite a hard choice thinking about it. My first thought was stand alones but then I remembered lots of the series that I have enjoyed.
ReplyDeleteStephen King's Dark Tower was the first series I read (well the start of it anyway, only books 1 - 3 were out at the time so had to wait ages between publication of the rest of them, worth the wait though). I also loved the Tomorrow series by John Marsden, well worth a look. More recently I have been reading the Charlaine Harris Sookie Stackhouse books and Rachel Vincent's Shifters series, of which I am inpatiently awaiting the final installment!
My favourite books ever though are The Stand by Stephen King and Swan Song by Robert R McCammon which are stand alones. There wouldn't be any series in my top 5 books of all time though so the stand alones win out.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy both, but I think series, especially trilogies, wins out overall. Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel series, The Age of Misrule by Mark Chadbourne (and the subsequent 2 trilogies following the same characters) and The Black Jewels series by Anne Bishop are possibly my favourites. I love a good trilogy though as, to me, it is the right size to get the full story told. Good examples are the Empire trilogy by Raymond Feist & Janny Wurts, His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman, The Braided Path by Chris Wooding and Kim Stanley Robinson's Science in the Capital. But I have noticed that my shelves are full of first-in-the-series novels, where I haven't followed through with the subsequent books. Hmmm, maybe I am a standalone reader t heart?
ReplyDeleteI enjoy reading both, but with more and more pressure to review more and more books I like the standalones simply due to the fact that I can keep my facts straight a bit more easily.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of great series out there that I always take time to read and I am always on the look out for another great series but from a reviewers prospective. Standalones are easier as I always have time for a standalone but have to find time to continue my series books in between the rest of life's activities.
Wow, some really lovely comments here - it does seem as though there is a real split between those enjoying series and those loving the standalones :-)
ReplyDeleteLike you, I read and enjoy both. I do tend toward series, but that might be as publishers tend to put out more of them then stand-alones. The main problem with series is when there's a difference in quality in the various books. Sometimes it's fine, other times not so much. I have no problem dropping a series when this happens.
ReplyDeleteIt's a difficult question. Stand-alones often leave you wanting more, although that in itself not always a bad thing. A series of books can give you something to get your teeth into.
ReplyDeleteI'm dreadful in that I have to read a series in relatively short space of time. This means that if this first book of a triology comes out I have to wait until the other two books are released before I can start the series. This can be very frustrating especially when you know the fisrt book has such good reviews.
I usually either prefer a short story collection or standalone novels (and somehow I missed this post from a few days ago). I believe I've read something like 2-3 dozen collections already this year (but Borges and BAF 4 readings do distort this), so it may be that my tastes are shifting to ever shorter books and more compact stories.
ReplyDelete