Series or Standalone?

[Melki, Femme fatale]

Which do you prefer?

[Melki, Femme fatale]

I usually lose interest in a series LONG before an author loses interest in writing it (or making money from it!).

Part of the fun of reading for me is meeting and learning to love new characters, so I guess I would have to pick the standalones.

That said, I have recently started reading Ed McBain's 87th Precinct novels from the beginning, so I'm not TOTALLY against long series.

[Jeff]

Cop Hater, right? McBain's great-interesting hybrid of police procedural and mystery and he does vary his formula a bit. I'm not sure that chronological order matters so much him, though. There are a few personal milestones with the different characters, but not that much.

[Melki, Femme fatale]

Yep, Cop Hater was the first. I've read a few in this series over the years, but decided to start over at the beginning. I'm having to buy the earlier novels as they weren't included in my dad's large collection. Luckily, cheap used paperbacks are plentiful. I'm starting The Pusher: An 87th Precinct Novel later today.

[Franky]

I'm all for standalone books for several reasons. I think that far too often one or more of the books in a series is very weak and ruins the image of the entire series as a whole. To me, standalone books leave a lasting impression more so than a series, especially if that one book is 5 star quality.

I can get into a series if it is 3 books or less. I can't handle reading 10 books in a series.

[Jim]

Either or for me. Depends on the character & story. Some characters really lend themselves to more adventures while others are great, but one-shot. In pulps, I prefer a completely contained story per book since it's a known world & written in a tight action style.

[Michael, Anti-Hero]

I feel like there are too many series to keep up with so I prefer standalones. Having said that if the protagonist is great, I want more

[Melki, Femme fatale]

We know which one publishers prefer.

When I lived in Pittsburgh, our book club had a local author give a lecture. She was a veterinarian's assistant who wrote a mystery series about - SURPRISE! - a veterinarian's assistant who solves crimes. She mentioned that the publisher would not even look a her manuscript until she showed them synopses of at least two more books; they only wanted series mystery.

I guess they think once we're hooked, we'll keep coming back, and as Franky said, sometimes the quality suffers.

[Still]

Depends on the author.
I prefer standalones but then I'm a sucker for Ken Bruen's "Jack Taylor" series and P. G. Sturges' "Shortcut Man" series.

[Jeff]

Franky, I agree with you in general about series. Robert Parker's "Spenser" series is a good example of that. But I believe there may be exceptions. Donald Westlake's comic "Dortmunder" series is one that never gets old for me. Some may be better than others, but they get better as you go along, mostly because the humor is so deeply grounded in characters that evolve. And if there is a writer who can build a more sustained comic scene than Westlake, or do it more inventively, I can't think of one, and I include Mark Twain in that. I'm also a sucker for Paretsky's take on neo-noir.

[Still]

Arrrrrrghhhh!
How could I have failed to mention Westlake/Stark/Coe.... or Raymond Chandler's Marlowe series, for crying' out loud!

Or Pronzini's "Nameless" ...or Joe Gores' "DKA" ...or... etc.

[David]

I read a steady stream of stand-alones intermixed with *one* series at a time. Thus, for example, while I was reading the Stark/Parker series, I was not allowed to read books from another series until I read the last Stark/Parker. I'm fearful of getting tangled up with too many series and crowding out the stand-alones (which I prefer).