why should I have to read a sequel to get to the good stuff?

[Alessandro]

I was browsing the Amazon kindle store for a New book or series to start reading. When I do I tend to summarily browse through the reviews, with particular attention to the negative ones, reasoning that they are likely to be written either by morons or by people who actually have a point and are highlighting a recurrent issue with the author, plot or general quality.
Bumping into a series with a number of negative and 3outof5 star reviews, I went one further and checked the reviews for the second book in the series.. Finding it to be more polarized between fans of the first book and a number of people who decided they had lost patience with the author

This brings me back to the VF hangouts where often I seem to remember Felicia saying that the random series x got better in the later books, so that it was worth keeping at it.

I don't get it. If the first book was bad, why should one keep reading in hope that it will get better? Whilst I am willing to forgive a less than stellar sequel, if a first volume of a series doesn't grab me hook line and sinker, that entire series is going to be compromised.
I may be willing to try the author again on another series, but that one is a no go.
Is that just me? How far are you willing to go for the sake of a good story? Is a relatively serious endorsement or review that further books are better enough to encourage you to wade through the murky waters of a mild stinker?

[Snarktastic Sonja]

Though I tend to agree with you, I think it is kinda like the pilot to a tv show - sometimes it just takes a while to establish all the characters and world being created. To me, the Kate Daniels series is the perfect example. The first book in that series is far and away the weakest (though some might argue that the latest Magic Rises could compete for that honor). Had I not had friends encouraging me to continue, I just wouldn't have. And, I would have missed out. The series gets demonstrably better.

Have not had that luck with other series though. I made a valiant attempt to finish Rachel Aaron's Spirit Thief series. I couldn't do it. No matter *what* Felicia said. :)

[Serendi]

I generally get into series when they've already got a ton of books out and I've been hearing about them (Psy-changeling and Eve Dallas, for example). If I read a first book, either it was raved about (Kim Harrison) or I know the author from somewhere else (Patricia Briggs, both raved about and I liked The Hob's Bargain) and I'm willing to give the series a shot. So I'm rarely the one boldly going where no one has gone before.

But every once in a while I pick up a book that really doesn't work but has enough spark to it that I'm willing to try again. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't. I can remember one book (it was YEARS ago, no idea who the author is) that I figured, well the next one should be better written and have fewer plotholes, but this almost works... the next book was worse. Buh-bye! There are others where it does work. And sometimes, it's worth dipping back in after several years.

[Bree]

This isn't something I'm particularly proud of, but if the story has a marginally decent plot, I will suffer the fires of hell to get to the end of the series. I will trudge through bland narrative, excessive flashbacks, and stiff dialogue. I will blind myself to blatant grammatical missteps and scandalously poor formatting. I will persevere! And when the flash of triumph from finishing the story has finally faded, I will then spend no less than twenty minutes wondering exactly why I wasted so much of my time reading such utter rubbish.

Is it worth it? I'd say yes for two out of five authors. Is that going to stop me from finishing other poorly written series? No, because I fixate and can't let things go.

My husband assures me that they make medication for this kind of problem.

On the bright side, if I ever get around to writing a book, this somewhat pathetic plot addiction has taught me a thousand ways to ruin a decent story.

[Serendi]

Ah, but the question is, IS it a problem? Reading something because you want to read it, for whatever reason, doesn't seem like one to me...

[Leesa]

I tend to give a little more latitude to first-in-a-series books than I would for stand-alones. Where I usually consider the first to be the weakest is when I don't like the main characters as much, but I understand/expect/hope there will be some growth in later installments.

When I rank something 3 stars, it means I like it, but I may or may not continue with the series/author. If it is in a genre I like and the overall story was engaging but there were some problems, I am more likely to continue. I might even give a series another chance if I rated the first book a 2. I don't know if I'd go past more than three books if I was still ranking them 2-3 stars.

[PointyEars42]

Alessandro wrote: "I don't get it. If the first book was bad, why should one keep reading in hope that it will get better? Whilst I am willing to forgive a less than stellar sequel, if a first volume of a series doesn't grab me hook line and sinker, that entire series is going to be compromised...."

With you on this. It’s like having friends who date someone they aren't really into or who isn’t good for them because they think it’s better than just being single. There are tons of talented authors who have the talent and ideas to pull you into a book and make you want to read a sequel and there are plenty of editors who are able to get you past an author’s inexperience or flaws. The constant refrain of it gets better in book 3 or, it gets better after page 400 confuses me no end. Not that a sequel can’t be better than the original, of course, but for a first installment to not be able to stand on its own? What a disservice to the authors who get it right. (I say this as a romance reader who is used to half a first book's characters being nothing more than sequel bait, btw.)

[PointyEars42]

On the tv front - has anyone else noticed how needing a few episodes to get it going is becoming a standard approach whenever a new US tv show is launched. A brilliant 1st ep now seems to come as a surprise rather than a basic requirement. I don't remember it being so prevalent 5+ years ago but now I see it treated as normal in the majority of online reviews or viewer comments. Is that a by-product of having as much as 24 episodes in a standard season to fill up? I've noticed that the new series that capture your interest straight off are now often the shorter 13 episode seasons. No offense, but I can't imagine US shows being able to earn praise, let alone be renewed for additional seasons, with the 6 ep length of so many UK shows. I know someone who doesn't even consider Sherlock to be a proper tv series since there's only 3 episodes a year even though I made him watch it and he was a fan 15 minutes into S01E01.

[Ciara]

If I didn't thoroughly enjoy the first book, I won't read the second. I'm not going to 'stick with it' in hopes it gets better. If 'sticking with it' is necessary, that implies effort, and a good book shouldn't be hard to read. That said, there's a good chance I won't finish a book like that. I never used to leave books unfinished, but I am time poor now. If a book has too many craft errors I will ditch it in the first few pages. If the plot is a little slow, and I'm not feeling all that interested, I might persist for a few chapters to see what happens, but that's about it. If at that point 'm still wondering what the book is about or why I should care, it's lost me.

Oh, and I should add there is absolutely NO good reason why conflict can't appear alongside world-building. Stopping the conflict/story to world-build is a classic way to fail to seize the reader's interest. Once upon a time this was acceptable, or even standard, but attention spans are growing ever shorter in a world with so many things competing for our attention, and world-building can and should, in my opinion, appear with a healthy dose of conflict to engage the reader. TV as a medium can get away with less conflict because the visual aspect is more engaging (although I still think it's sloppy) but books don't have that luxury.

[Bree]

Serendi wrote: "Ah, but the question is, IS it a problem? Reading something because you want to read it, for whatever reason, doesn't seem like one to me..."

Ha! Alright, I'll give you that and modify my comment to it only being a problem when the need to finish a story messes with my sleep.

[Philippa]

I give a little more leeway to series which are set up for the purpose of introducing successive couples, i.e. romance series, since the relationship interaction can determine so much of any particular book. That being said, for all other series, if I dislike that first book I won't continue reading either. If I absolutely hate the first book than I'm unlikely to pick up any of that author's other series too, although I try to be a little less stringent on that one if I merely didn't care for the book.

[Becca]

If I really do not enjoy a first book on any level I won't bother reading the sequels, but if there was some aspect I really liked I'll take the time to read the next book in the series. There just has to be something there that is likeable about the story or characters.

[Malin]

I tend to find that especially in urban/paranormal fantasy series nowadays, it takes a book or two for me to really get into them. I can agree with the comparison to television pilots. The first book is there to give you a taste. If there's a varied cast of characters that I like and the world building is decent, it can take a book or two to really establish everything. If the series hasn't taken off, and hooked me by book 3, I'm usually out. Good examples of series this applies to: The October Daye books by Seanan McGuire, which I now adore and is one of my favourites. I found the first two books ok, but nothing spectacular, and then the series really hit its stride in book three, and now I await the release of each new book with extreme impatience. Same with Darynda Jones's Charley Davidson books. I thought the first two were ok, but nothing too special, and by book three, I was really sold on the series. It helps that in both these series, I really liked and cared about the main character, several of the supporting cast, and I found the world building intriguing.

One notable exception to the hooking me three books in, has been Jim Butcher's Dresden Files, which I kept dipping into every few years because so many of my friends assured me that it really did get good, it just took a while. It was only with book 4 that I started thinking they may not be crazy. Now, having listened to books 5 and 6 in audio book, I'm really liking it. Of course, I also thought Harry Dresden was a whiny, not very engaging John Constantine rip-off in the first couple of books. It may be the improved writing of the later books, James Marsters' narration on the audios, or a combination of both, but I now find him rather charming, if sometimes dangerously stupid, especially around pretty women.

That said, if I don't enjoy the characters, or find the world of a series interesting, and if my rating is closer to 2 stars than 3, then it will take a lot for me to keep going. I read a lot of reviews praising Blade Song by J.C. Daniels, and when I read the book, I found it difficult to care about the heroine, I found the hero/love interest mainly off-putting, and mainly finished the book out of stubbornness. I'm unlikely to pick up any more books in that series.

I also agree that the Kate Daniels series has a weak first book, but I also think Ilona Andrews is harsh in her/their judgment of it, and wrong to recommend readers to just start with book 2. Kate changes a lot from book 1 to 2, but a lot of the absolutely amazing world building, the magic systems, and the supporting cast is excellent, and I personally didn't find it all that bad, even. I had to convince a friend to not give up until she'd read book 2, as she found the mystery part of it completely transparent (she reads more crime and mystery novels than fantasy) and was unimpressed. By the second book she was a huge fan.

[Alessandro]

the way I see it, there should be a recognizable difference between "really getting to like/love the characters/setting writing-style" as a series proceeds and, why not, the author finds his stride and improves on an already remarkable first installment, and "taking a couple of books or episodes to start liking what you're reading or watching".
I'm totally on board with the first situation, case in point the Discworld novels, that started with a rather subdued and not all that well crafted rip-off/parody and developed into a complex world with improving quality of writing and characters that became more and more engagin. Colour of Magic stands on its own merit, for me, because the idea of a funny parody of fantasy tropes and characters was novel enough and the style was somewhat reminiscent of Gygax 's books and the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser style of narrative... and then Pratchett went on to develop his own distinctive flavour. however I didn't have to make an effort and liked Rincewind and Cohen from the get go.
on the other hand, reading the first 2 books of the Flashman series just grated on my nerves and no amount of "later books are really engaging" could convince me to stick with the character I disliked.

[[deleted user]]

I will drop a book cold if it doesnt hold me. I totally get where youre coming from, every book needs to stand alone. These writers are starting to write the series like its one long book instead of new stories. But if you are having issues Id suggest The Fairytail Saga by S.K Munt. It starts out incredible and every paragraph just keeps building. It doesn't drop or let you go for a moment. I have the arc right now of the final book in the trilogy thats not releasing until next week and oh goodness me I feel like applauding just a few chapters in.

[Belle]

If I hate a book, I'm not likely to read any more in the series, and possibly nothing else by the author. If I dislike a book, I generally won't read any more from the series. However, if I see some potential in the book, even though I don't enjoy it much, I might read the next book to see if it improves. However, I also give a tv show a full season before I decide to drop it, just in case it improves.
You shouldn't have to read more than one book in a series to enjoy it. The first book should be enjoyable on its own. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way. Sometimes, the first book is kind of 'meh' but the next one is pretty good, and the third might even be great. Just like a tv show might start off as only mildly interesting, an 'only when I have nothing else to do' show, and by the end of the season you are hooked on it.
I do really try to give books a chance, though. I binge-read all but the last book in the Sookie Stackhouse series just trying to figure out what everyone else saw in them. By the end of book 12, I was certain of 4 things 1) the author only managed to come up with one truly interesting character, Eric, and she didn't include him enough 2) Sookie is an obnoxious, whiny character who I truly disliked & kind of wanted to punch in the throat 3) Even badly written books can be insanely popular and 4) I could not force myself to read the 13th book. I have never given another series that much of a chance and probably won't ever again after that disappointment. I will generally be willing to read the second book in a series, though, as long as the first was at least 'ok'.

[Peter]

Snarktastic Sonja wrote: "Though I tend to agree with you, I think it is kinda like the pilot to a tv show - sometimes it just takes a while to establish all the characters and world being created. To me, the Kate Daniels s..."
I like the TV series analogy. When I read Dead Witch Walking, I liked the world building, but was a bit irritated that, for every significant action Rachel took, many unpleasant things happened to her. However, I was interested enough to read sequels. Since she becomes more powerful and develops interesting and complex relationships with recurring characters, the original effort was worth it for me.

I found a long boring section early in Mr. Norrell and Jonathan Strange, but liked the world and writing style enough to read beyond that bit, and enjoyed the rest of the book. I'm looking forward to reading the sequel, The Ladies of Grace Adieu.

When I tried the first of Ilona Andrews Edge series, I liked the initial setup. However, when I encountered the snooty aristocrat who was only interested in the heroine for her genes, I dropped the book. If it had not been a library book, I'd have thrown it away. How cliched! However, many people whose opinion I value have told me that she's a great writer, I'll probably try again with her Kate Daniels series.

In short, while the first book doesn't have to be fantastic, if it has a little something special - language, style, world, characters - I'll consider sequels.

[Miya]

If I don't like the first book in a series, there's pretty much nothing that can convince me to read a sequel.

[Evelyne]

I think it depends on the series. I'm very into epic fantasy and for me, those are more like one story chopped into books rather than stand alone plots. For example, take Game of Thrones. The story continues non-stop from book to book with no real ending in any of them. In series like this, the first book is often just the introduction to the plot and characters and world and is longer because the book is HUGE. So huge that it's split into several other books. There's action and plot, but a large portion is totally world building and character introduction and plot introduction. This is why they "get better" 400 pages in or in the next book. Some people really enjoy that "getting to know you" part of the book/series.

This is not to be confused with other series like Eve Dallas where each book has a beginning, middle, and an end. Some things carry over, but by and large, you can read each one as a stand alone book.