Stand-Alones or Trilogies/Series/Quartets?

[Jennifer, The Jaguar]

Which do you prefer, and why?

[Lina]

I most prefer astandalones. Mostly because authors tend to drag series on for too long though.

[Jennifer, The Jaguar]

Yeah I like a good stand-alone every now and then but I also like books like Prince of Thorns that were written as part of trilogy/series, but could easily be read as a stand-alone if desired.

[Lina]

Asch's Anti-Paradigm (JennTheAwesum) wrote: "Yeah I like a good stand-alone every now and then but I also like books like Prince of Thorns that were written as part of trilogy/series, but could easily be read as a stand-alone if desired."

I too like series where I can standalone if I want to. Many crime-fictionns are like that (Jo Nesbø, anyone). I like to read them in order, but if I just want to read one, I'll just read one.

[Angelli]

I really like stand alones, but most of the time I get attached to the characters or the story in general, and I really end up missing them/it. I like that of the trilogies and series but yeah, sometimes there are too many book in a series you get tired of it.
Trilogy is my favorite really 'cause is not too much or too little. And maybe 'cause I love to have collections :)

[Jojobean]

Well I do like series books but almost EVERY book is now becoming part of a series, which is getting tiring. So as of right now I prefer standalones where I can get a story wrapped up nicely in one book.

[Maggie the Muskoka Library Mouse]

Usually I reach for stand-alones. I dislike getting into this great new series/trilogy/quartet and then discovering that the next book hasn't been written yet!