Us Writers Who Stand Alone

Here's the question: Do you prefer a series that does not rely on the previous books or do you like a continuation?

I think we can all agree that the end of the book should leave us satisfied, no matter what. Not many of us want the story to just stop, as if the novel was really just one big chapter. Agreed? Not quite, come to find out.

As an author, I'm in the middle of writing the In Blackness Trilogy (I actually really like the sound of that). I decided early on that I wanted each book to stand alone but to not disregard the previous novel. You know, to please both the new readers and the returning audience. It seemed like a no brainer.

Then I got to thinking.

If the second book only mostly stands by itself, it might entice a new reader to read the first book, whereas that same person might not care for the first if the second is a complete stand alone. It sounds shaky at first, but I'll tell you why this might make sense. The Empire Strikes Back. After you watch it, you are definitely ready for Return of the Jedi. But if you started with Empire...it doesn't make you want to watch Star Wars. Keep in mind I say this having seen Star Wars and vowed to never watch it again.

Side note. I'm not a Star Wars fan by any means. They are horribly directed, in my opinion, and have issues with everything in regards to timing, story development, and character development.

I'll use the Bourne Series as another example, using the medium of film. Sure, you're watching the second film in the series thinking, I really don't need the first one. At least I didn't think it needed the first one to make the second one work. Not really. So using that example, shouldn't one build off the other? The answer is, yes. The question is, how much?

Which brings me to Clive Barker's Abarat, a series supposedly going up to five books. Many people might disagree with me on what I'm about say. At the end of the first Abarat--and there are three out right now, and I've read one and a half--the story just kind of stops. Not the most satisfying ending I've read from Mr. Barker, one of my favorite authors. At the same time, I didn't look at it as the end of the story. I saw it as the end of that particular part. So when the second book starts, it's pretty obvious that it doesn't stand alone. It's not even close. As a reader I actually appreciated it. I didn't want to start from scratch again. But that's just me.

So I'm half way through book number two of the In Blackness Trilogy (I still like the sound of it) and it will basically stand by itself. The reader will know it's book two but the title will simply say In Blackness: The Reinvention of Man, and then, Book 2 of the In Blackness Trilogy. The moments from the first book will come into play, but I'm not letting any readers get lost because they didn't read the first one, which is titled In Blackness, by the way.

Second side note. I'm a big Vonnegut fan. More times than not when I tell someone to read Slaughterhouse Five they respond by telling me they didn't even read the first four. Just throwing it in there.

I'm interested in what readers and writers really think about the subject of stand-alone versus continuing. Is it make everyone read the entire series if they want it to makes sense, which might be a lucrative ploy if it works, or make all the books work by themselves? I say make them mostly work by themselves but what do I know.