Goodreads Librarians Group discussion

Questions > Sequels - Series or no series?

Comments Showing 1-15 of 15 (15 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Jan (new)

Jan (janoda) | 140 comments Hi. I've been cleaning up / creating the correct series for the books by Stephen Baxter. Everything makes more or less sense by now, except for the following.

Ark is the sequel to Flood, but the series has no name.
The author has names for all his other series, so I thought maybe it wasn't a series after all, but his site lists them as a series. (by which I mean he orders them as a serie, it's still nameless).

How do I proceed? Do I name the series after the first book? I don't create a series? (Though I think they should be linked, since SB is a very prolific writer, and people might not realize it is the first/second in a duology).


Ralph Gallagher | 212 comments Can you contact the author? I had a similar problem where there were four or five books that weren't an official series, but they were supposed to be read in order. I contacted the author and she was able to give me an unofficial name for the series.

message 3: by rivka, Librarian Moderator (new)

rivka | 42415 comments Mod
Other option: name the series with the first book's name.

This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For | 949 comments rivka's suggestion in #3 seems to be the de facto default when series don't have official names, thus

Flood (Flood, #1)
Ark (Flood, #2)

If a more focused series name develops later it can always be changed (much more easily now than it used to be!)

message 5: by Jan (new)

Jan (janoda) | 140 comments Allright, I'll do it that way.
Thanks guys!

message 6: by willaful (new)

willaful Lacking another title, I like to use the main linking factor. Like a repeating character's name or the place the books are set.

message 7: by S. (new)

S. Burke (soooz) | 3 comments You answered your own question. Rather than list it as a series list it as a Book { }in a "Duology."


message 8: by willaful (new)

willaful I vote that it's better to use the term series loosely and have books linked than to not. That's one of the main pieces of information I want to know about any book.

message 9: by S. (new)

S. Burke (soooz) | 3 comments Indeed yes, I thought we were having an open discussion, not taking a apologies.

message 10: by willaful (new)

willaful We're not voting, it was just a turn of phrase. :-)

message 11: by S. (new)

S. Burke (soooz) | 3 comments Okay...thank you. I thought I had done my usual Klutz routine and wandered into a no go am the bane of my own existence!

message 12: by Jan (new)

Jan (janoda) | 140 comments Soooz, I don't think there's a functionality for duologies, and trilogies etc... I think they all go into series...
Willaful, character and place aren't they way to go here, (as far as I know that is), because neither is the same. As far as I understand there's a massive flood in the first book, and in the 2nd book, there's a spaceship with the survivers. However, the characters only overlap a little.

This Is Not The Michael You're Looking For | 949 comments It's better to avoid terms like duology and trilogy anyway, because invariable authors come back and add books and then you get things like "the fifth book in the increasingly misnamed Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy"

message 14: by Jan (new)

Jan (janoda) | 140 comments Hihi, that's a very good point.

message 15: by willaful (new)

willaful Jan wrote: "Willaful, character and place aren't they way to go here, (as far as I know that is), because neither is the same"

That does make it harder. Just do the best you can. The main thing, from my perspective, is that someone looking up one of the books will be able to see that there's a linking book. It can always be changed later if a more canonical name comes along.

You could put a note in the description field making the link clearer.

back to top