TGS: Why do you read a series?

[[deleted user]]

I've noticed several people saying that TGS "is not the best" or "not my favorite" in the series, but obviously they kept reading the series for some reason. For me, I feel like the first book in a series should be at least one of the best, if not the best.

For example, GRRM's first book in the Song of Ice and Fire series is still one of the best because it sets up so many complex relationships, and gives you enemies, heroes, and comic relief. It seems a typical story, and you feel safe. It gives you a lot of ups and downs and intrigue, but overall leads you to believe that (view spoiler)[Ned Stark is your champion, and he'll win out in the end, even if he's a little broken for it. Then the story pivots, he's executed, and suddenly you realize that the story you're reading is not going to follow the rules. There isn't really a protagonist, and nobody is safe. THEN it goes on to build up more hope in you for Rob Stark...
and we all know how that turned out. (hide spoiler)]

So for those of you who went on to read the rest of The Dark Tower series after reading TGS, even though you don't consider it the best or even one of the best, why did you keep reading? What other series have you been really into, and why?

For people have have read TGS before, and didn't read the rest of the series, why not? Was there another author's series that you were hooked on after the first book? Why?

[Lena]

Curiosity and faith in the genre. When everyone tells you something is the best of the best, well, you've got to give that a try don't you? In my case, I built up the faith in King by short story collections, then found a buddy reading group to dive into The Stand. A few more books and the man had all the credit he'd ever need from me. I started two years ago with The Little Sisters and had no intention of stopping until I reached The Tower, The Tower, the Tower!

✓The Dark Tower Cycle by Stephen King
The Little Sisters of Eluria ★★★☆☆ Finished 7/1/2015
The Gunslinger ★★★☆☆ Finished 7/8/2015
The Drawing of the Three ★★★★☆ Finished 8/4/2015
The Waste Lands ★★★★☆ Finished 9/24/2015
Wizard and Glass ★★★☆☆ Finished 11/10/2015
The Wind Through the Keyhole ★★★★★ Finished 12/23/2015
Wolves of the Calla ★★★★★ Finished 4/27/2016
Song of Susannah ★★★★★ Finished 12/9/2016
The Dark Tower ★★★★★ Finished 1/26/2017

[Matthew]

Well just because the first book in a series isn't the best, doesn't mean it isn't good. Wouldn't it make sense from a "macro" story structure perspective that the best part of the story is going to occur in the "second act", after you have gotten past all of the character introductions or near the "closing act" of the book where you finally get the resolution of the story arcs or conflicts developed?

It is sort of like saying "Chapter 1 of the novel should be the best or one of the best chapters".

[David]

Still haven't started reading TGS, need to get on that. But as to the rest of your question, I feel like most of my favorite series started with a book that's far from the best in the series. The first queen's thief book, for instance, is my least favorite. The second book is far more complex, more political, longer, and in an entirely different viewpoint (third person vs. first person), which is a trend that continues. But I liked the first one enough to read the second one.

The first Dresden Files is hard to go back to now, but at the time I read it I didn't know that it could get better so I loved it. It's only in hindsight that's it's one of the weaker in the series, which I feel is usually the case when people are talking about TGS, people really liked it at the time but in hindsight see how it's not the best one. I think it's just as long as I like the first one enough, I'll keep reading, until I lose interest. The Last Apprentice series dove starkly in quality after the fourth book, imo, but I keep reading them because they still provide a base level of entertainment, they're familiar, and I know what I'm getting, but it is kind of depressing when I think back to how much I liked those first four books.

In general I think it's usually a good thing if a series gets better as it goes along. If a first book isn't very good, sure, you might miss out on the later books that are better and never know what could have been. But is that preferable to being blown away by the first book in a series, getting all invested in the idea of a whole series of further books to read, and being disappointed that none of them live up to the first? There's no coming back from that and you might wind up bitter about the time you wasted on the good faith generated by the first book and sour on that book as well. At least in the other situation it's possible that you'll hear people saying the series gets way better in later books and come back and give it another shot.

[Trike]

All good replies.

I think Matthew's parallel to first chapters is a good one. Maybe there is enough goodness in that first book to entice you to continue, and the book itself is entertaining, but then the author found a way to top themselves. Only in retrospect is the first book "lesser than" the subsequent volumes.

IRL some friends and I were talking about endings in books, and how that can often make or break the entire thing. But what gets you reading is that initial hook.

I will drop a series once I lose interest, which happens about 95% of the time. Dresden Files, GoT, Dragonriders of Pern, Safehold, and plenty others have had me reading for several entries before quitting, while other series I've bailed immediately after the first book. (Temeraire, Harry Potter, Hyperion, etc.)

[John (Nevets)]

And remember sometimes with the early book in series, it's very early in the authors career as well. Storm Front was, Jim Butcher first published novel, and you can tell, but he matures as an author, as the series progresses. I've heard the same thing about David Weber and his Honor Harrington series, although I've only read the first one. I'm sure there are others, that it is true for as well. That's one of the reason's it was so surprising when Patrick Rothfuss came out with The Name of the Wind as his first novel, it was someone coming out of nowhere with a really well written novel.

[Rik]

If the Gunslinger had been the first DT book I'd ever read I probably would have lemmed it.

However by the time I read it for the first time (probably 1988 or so) I'd already consumed many other Stephen King books and loved them. I knew that The Gunslinger was an early work and not up to the quality of his later works.

I only came across it because it was around the time Drawing of the Three was released (and I just looked it up and it was released in 1987 so I was close with my 1988 guess, I was basing it off when I graduated high school). I loved King's books and knew it was a sequel so I did Gunslinger first and forced myself to continue. Then came DotT and I loved it followed five or so years later by The Waste Lands which I became obsessed with over how much I loved it (Choo choo).

[John (Taloni)]

^Yeah, I trailed off the Pern series too. White Dragon wasn't enough to kill it even though Jaxom stinks as a protagonist. Then it was on to stuff that increasingly killed the mostly-fantasy world they were in. Dragonsdawn at least had Anne's voice while getting way too techno. Then I read a Todd McCaffrey book that had a gold rider who could hear all dragons (again?) but who lost her dragon in a gruesome incident. She then carried on in complete contravention of previous lore. Aaaaaand....done.

[Joel]

I read a series if I want to know what happens to the characters. I have been busy reading other stuff (including other King books), but I would really like to know where Roland can go from the end of The Gunslinger. Nothing more complicated than that.

[Nico]

Brian wrote: "I've noticed several people saying that TGS "is not the best" or "not my favorite" in the series, but obviously they kept reading the series for some reason. For me, I feel like the first book in a..."

For me, the ending of the series is where it gets bad. With Stephen King, probably because he is a free-writer instead of a planner, I find his stories dissolve at around the 75% mark. Dark Tower peaked for me at Book 4, but I continued reading because I'd really liked Gunslinger.

That first book is the most important. Something has to hook me - either the characters, the plot or the coolness of the magic system. Example - Stormlight archives. I listened to that behemoth of a book over maybe a 2-day period. Characters, plot, magic... I could enjoy even the POVs of characters I hated because some other aspect of the story is picking up the slack.

For a series to work, I think it needs that sort of plan B, plan C, fool-proofing. Otherwise, I can like it and still not feel invested enough to read on.

This is where I feel GRRM's ASOIAF is on a decline. His pool of characters that we enjoy is running low. The story world has gone stagnant. The plot has gotten monotonous/iterative. And the plot twists/subversion have become predictable.

Gunslinger worked, imo, because of the high level of intrigue the plot had. Kind withheld a lot of information - if you were even slightly curious you had to go on to the other books. It was like a bait book - it's only purpose was to hook you. Jake in the waystation? I had to go on.

But them I only read them recently when they were all released. I don't know what would have happened if I'd had to go through years between books.

The timing of the book releases might really be the most important feature. Harry Potter managed to get children in secondary school to sort of "read-along" on Harry's adventure. Sanderson releases like a beast.

But look at Rothfuss. It's been 6 years maybe since his second installment which was shoddy imo when it comes to plot, so even though he's a master writer, I'm very "meh" when it comes to the Kingkiller Chronicles. If I'd only been waiting for a year, I might have forgiven a bad book 2, but 6 years with a bad taste in my mouth doesn't have me lining up for more.

It's tricky, but I don't think it's very hard to get in a good enough book 1 and a good book too. Trilogy ending is where I find people muck it up. Or around book 4 and 5 for longer sagas when the plot inevitably starts fraying out.

[Rick]

Presuming we're talking a series that's a story told over multiple volumes (and not a bunch of books set in the same universe but each with its own story)...

What gets me to read is a story that is intriguing and which NEEDS more than one book to be told well. A story that could be told in 400 pages but that get stretched to 1400 is not that.

What stops me is a story with filler. Filler can either be long stretches where nothing advances either the plot or the development of the characters or it can be side plots that have nothing to do with the main plot and don't advance the depth of characters we already care about (or that introduce new characters for no real reason).

[Trike]

John (Taloni) wrote: "^Yeah, I trailed off the Pern series too. White Dragon wasn't enough to kill it even though Jaxom stinks as a protagonist. Then it was on to stuff that increasingly killed the mostly-fantasy world ..."

I remember some author in the 80s mocking the sudden proliferation of Pern books by saying, "Pretty soon she'll be out of ideas, and then we'll see the Dolphins of Pern." A few years later, boom: The Dolphins of Pern. I'm 95% certain she did that on purpose.