Anyone else tired of series?

[Marz]

I used to love series, but as of late, I just want to read a book and have it be over when I finish. I especially hate when I borrow a book (I get most of my books form the library), read it, love it, only to be disappointed when I reach the end only to realize that its the first book in a series, and nothing was resolved. I think a lot of it has to do with the recent trend in every book being the start of a trilogy, and writers not thinking of each book individually. I don't mean all writers, but more and more writers are ending on cliffhangers. Now, cliffhangers can work, but I think that the plot line introduced into the book needs to be resolved in the book. Maybe the bad guy gets away, maybe he didn't get the girl but at least give a sense of resolution. If I put x amount of hours into reading it I want to feel accomplished at the end. Lately, I've noticed a lot of books end without a sense of satisfaction. Is it just me? Does anyone else agree that we need more standalone books that give a sense of resolution instead of another cliffhanger?

[David Sven]

I don't mind a series so long as its complete. Then its just the same as one long book for me sort of.

[Luis]

I think I might be getting tired too!
I'm just getting back into reading, nevertheless I miss reading a one-book-long story, it seems almost everything I've read in the past 2 years is part of a series. And it is cool in the way of "hey, it's a story so long that doesn't even fit in a book!" but the feeling I get most of the time is that some authors are just stretching their stories in order to get at least a trilogy. I don't know if it is to sell more or there's another reason behind that behavior.

[Kim]

I will generally go out of my way to read a standalone over a series. I'd rather have a story finish then drag on for book after book after book.

[Rik]

I like series but I've reached a point to where I'm very wary at starting an uncompleted series. Wheel of Time is only being finished because Robert Jordan knew he was dying and left detailed noted for another writer to pick up on. Guardians of the Flame by Joel Rosenberg will likely never be finished since his death was out of the blue. Its why I have yet to read the 5th George RR Martin book because I worry at his now plodding pace he'll never finish. There are so many completed series out there I've yet to read I've decided to go with those.

[terpkristin]

I like series a lot, especially when they're as immersive and expansive as Wheel of Time or A Song of Ice and Fire. But I appreciate stand-alone books (as hard as they seem to find in the genre!) as a brief respite from series. Really, I want an immersive experience and a good story...whatever format that comes in.

[Cy]

Reading a story has been compared to taking a journey on a river. I understand the difference between the destination and the journey, but I don't want to hear about every whirlpool, whippoorwill, and will-o-the-wisp the author comes across, and especially I don't care about what happens to said W3. Wheel of Time was the worst about this. Game of Thrones a close second. I'm with Rik - if it's not finished by the author, it's not started by me.

[A.E.]

I do prefer to read stories with a beginning a middle and a finish, with resolution at the end of the novel, not only at the end of a series. Watching a train go by isn't satisfying unless the last car is a caboose.

A cliffhanger isn't going to make me want to read the next book. An amazing conclusion to the current one is.

[Charles]

It's really down to preference and the quality of the writing.

We've had "series" since Tolkien and its derivatives (Stephen R. Donaldson's Thomas Covenant, Terry Brooks's Shannara, David Eddings Belgariad, Anne McCaffrey's Pern, etc.). It's usually just more profitable for publishers to have a series (since readers will have something to latch on to) as opposed to standalone novels.

And of course, there are wonderful standalone novels. My recent favorites are Redemption in Indigo by Karen Lord and Mechanique by Genevieve Valentine.

But there are also series books which are eccentric, stand-alone, and the sequels are very different from what came before it. Just look at Jeff VanderMeer's Ambergris books (City of Saints and Madmen, Shriek: An Afterword, and Finch) or Jeffrey Ford's Well-Built City trilogy (The Physiognomy, Memoranda, The Beyond).

[TheADHDreader]

I love series, but sometimes it gets old. When you hear that they'll by 15 books in a series and you just that you know the end for like 15-20 years. That's a hard thing to face hahaha. Of course when you read a lot of fantasy you just don't really have much choice. It's something we have to make our peace with I guess. But it can definitely get tiresome at some point,

Æ wrote: "I do prefer to read stories with a beginning a middle and a finish, with resolution at the end of the novel, not only at the end of a series. Watching a train go by isn't satisfying unless the last..."

I agree with you on that, a series book doesn't need to end on a cliffhanger, it's nice to have some sort of conclusion, it gives a certain satisfaction while a cliffhanger leaves you frustrated of not being able to get more. You have to wait a long time to know what happen next. I don't mind a conclusion that contains an opening, something that gives you suspense, a clue or questions to ponder upon. But leaving you on the tip of your toes hungry for more is just horrible hahaha.

[Ian]

I think it comes down to quality and editing. Most LONG series (Wheel of Time, Malazan) get really flabby after the first few and the plot tends to either go all over the place or slow to a crawl - a lot of these I've loved the first few books and then really struggled later on

I think there is a difference between a series that is sequential/you have to read them in order vs a set of stories in the same universe such as the Iain M Banks/Alastair Reynolds approach, which I'm more comfortable with.

In general - I don't see the need for every fantasy book to be a trilogy at least, since to me its a license to pad the story out with unecessary flab, and this seems to be the default especially in fantasy. An example of a great standalone fantasy novel is Tigana by GGK - more like that please!

[Craig]

For me, it can cut both ways. If I like the characters I love reading a series. If the writer isn't grabbing me with a character I identify with, then I'd prefer to wrap things up.

But one of the things I love about Jim Butcher's Dresden series is that Dresden's life is the over riding arc that ties the books together but, for the most part, each case is resolved at the end of each book. This has changed with the latest books however.

Similarly, I found the Incarnations of Immortality books by Piers Anthony enjoyable because each could be read independently but also tied together to expand on this world that interested me.

But give me characters like R.A. Salvatore's Drizzt, or E.E. Knight's Valentine and I'll keep reading the series.

[Paul]

I used to like series - more time to spend in that world/with those characters - however these days I find it more of a challenge. In particular I find my memory's not what it was and I can easily forget details from the beginning of a single book by the time I reach the end if it's a longish book. If a relevant detail was in a former book and maybe I've read other books in between then forget it.

This is one reason I love my kindle - I can do a quick search if I've forgotten who a character is etc.

For me a perfect series would be one where you get the same characters or the same world but the stories are relatively discrete and any important plot points from previous books are subtly re-capped. Actually a good example of this is the Harry Potter books.

[Marz]

Ian wrote: "I think there is a difference between a series that is sequential/you have to read them in order vs a set of stories in the same universe such as the Iain M Banks/Alastair Reynolds approach, which I'm more comfortable with."

Me too. When I said "series" I meant a continuation of one long story.

Æ wrote: "A cliffhanger isn't going to make me want to read the next book. An amazing conclusion to the current one is."

Exactly. I'm okay with certain subplots being left open, but sometimes it feels like writers use cliffhangers just to get around figuring out a satisfying resolution. Endings are hard.

[Doug]

I'm glad that other people feel this way. I was just discussing this with a friend the other day. I used to love a series. I remember when Goodkind's Sword of Truth or Jordan's Wheel of Time were in their infancy and I eagerly awaited each new book. Now it seems like everything is a series, even when it doesn't need to be. It has gotten to the point where I won't touch a book in a series for the most part. I feel compelled to finish a series, even if only for the sake of completeness, and find I don't have the drive I once did. There are several great series of books out there I have not touched because I'm waiting for them to be complete.

It's one thing if a series is one long story and warrants a series of books. However I think too many authors are forcing a series where there doesn't need to be one purely from a marketing standpoint. This does a great disservice to a story that is fine on its own and rightfully complete. Where as I used to love a series, there is now something more satisfying about a story told in its entirety and completed in a single book.

That being said, I do appreciate the universe model of a series where many books exist in the same universe. My favorite example of this is the old school Dragonlance universe which I loved as a kid. However, I think this works best when multiple authors are allowed to contribute to the universe which is difficult both from a legal and creative standpoint. Though I suppose this is where fan fiction comes into play but I would like to see more officially sanctioned material of this type. In the meantime, at least I have learned to not continue a series if the story feels complete.

[Ralffie]

I sometimes think this is analogous to TV shows typically are in the UK versus the US. The British shows are often content to have a short run with a nice tidy story arc, and then be done. American TV shows will run for a decade if they can. In that case it is a $$$ thing--the studio has a proven moneymaker.
In the case of scifi and fantasy, I think we love being in that world (like we love being with the characters on a beloved TV show). So--we want to continue it. But very often it is not epic, it is just gluttony.

[Tamahome]

Jo Walton just blogged about serieseses:

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/04/here...

[Craig]

It just depends on how well they're written. Patrick O'Brian's Aubry/Maturin series is 19 books, but with prose like his I could easily do another 19 and I'd give my left arm for another installment of Gene Wolfe's Wizard Knight duology. But inevitably there are other series that are rather the opposite.

[Eric]

I still love a good series but I will not commit to another Wheel Of Time. Pretty much just limit myself to Trilogy's now days.

[Nancy]

For me it depends on my mood. I can deal with cliffhangers, and lengthly series as long as they're dealt with well, and don't feel like the author is dragging out the story to make more cash. There can be something really special about a character that is able to grow and develop over a long period of time. Often you can't fit that much growth into one book without producing a real door stopper, which can be a little intimidating.

At the same time, there is something really satisfying about a well crafted stand alone novel with a strong beginning, middle and end.

Here are some stand alone books I recommend:
Chime by Franny Billingsley
World War Z by Max Brooks
Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke
Little Brother by Cory Doctorow
The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman
Singing the Dogstar Blues by Alison Goodman
Tender Morsels by Margo Lanagan
The Dispossessed by Ursula K Le Guin
Redemption in Indigo by Karen Lord
The Glass Harmonica by Louise Marley
Who Fears Death by Nnedi Okorafor

[Angela]

Ralffie wrote: "In the case of scifi and fantasy, I think we love being in that world (like we love being with the characters on a beloved TV show). So--we want to continue it."

I agree completely!
I always seek out a series over stand alones b/c if the first book is good (and additional points if the series is finished) I know I can keep it going for a while. I love knowing that there are more books in a good series I just started. Unfortunately, a lot of series start out great and then get worse and worse as you go. False promises!

[Marz]

Ralffie wrote: "I sometimes think this is analogous to TV shows typically are in the UK versus the US. The British shows are often content to have a short run with a nice tidy story arc, and then be done. Americ..."

Yeah, it really does depend on the author. Some of my favorite books have been series, I am definately a sucker for more time in the same universe, with characters I love. But there reaches a point when it is no longer satisfying, usually when authors write a series just for the sake of having one.

[Marz]

Nancy wrote: "For me it depends on my mood. I can deal with cliffhangers, and lengthly series as long as they're dealt with well, and don't feel like the author is dragging out the story to make more cash. There..."

Thanks for the reccomendations! I've already read Chime, and am working my way through Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell(slowly but surely!). I'll check the others out.

[Marz]

Ralffie wrote: "I sometimes think this is analogous to TV shows typically are in the UK versus the US. The British shows are often content to have a short run with a nice tidy story arc, and then be done. Americ..."

I accept that analogy. For me, it's like as much as I want more, and to spend more time with characters, I would rather have a well-written tidy arc with evreything concluded.

[Nancy]

Marz wrote: "Nancy wrote: "For me it depends on my mood. I can deal with cliffhangers, and lengthly series as long as they're dealt with well, and don't feel like the author is dragging out the story to make mo..."

You're welcome :)

[David]

the worst series that I actually read was Ron L Hubbard's Decology sp? after I finished it is seemed like the 10 books could have easily been done in 3 books
I really like Piers Anthony Incarnations of Immortality the first book is one of my favorites but tword the end he really ran out of steam. Speaking of Piers Anthony what the hell is with the zanth series the first couple were cute the 50 afterwords why bother!

[AnnaBanana]

I love a good series, but I agree that the sweet spot is usually around 3 or 4 books. That also speaks to the beginning, middle and end of a story. For me, the best part of a book is getting to know the characters, and then finding out what happens to them. The first few books of a series feel more real, if they drag it out it just feels like the author is making stuff up just to have it happen to their main character, instead of creating a new character or showing the story from another character's perspective. Its...cheap.

[Tim]

I probably wouldn't have embarked on Ice & Fire if it wasn't for the TV series -- the combination of the thickness and number of the books had put me off, without even looking at a single word of the story.

[Usako]

Series to me were exclusively S&L or the teenage ones such as Encyclopedia Brown, Nancy Drew, Sweet Valley High, and so forth. Now when I add a book to my TBR, it seems 7 out of 10 are series. I've so many to finish that I hestitate to start new ones. It's kinda a turn off because I'd rather not wait for the next one.

However, there are gems I will wait on such as The Dresden Files.

[Matthew]

Only if they're trilogies or very acclaimed. I just started The Game of Thrones last year but almost lemmed the following book. I'm still contemplating when to start with Storm of Swords.

[AnnaBanana]

Ice & Fire is pretty awesome, but some of the characters end up stalled in the 4th and 5th books. They seem included only so that you don't forget about them, and their story lines were boring. However, knowing Martin, those seemingly insignificant changes could turn the next book on its head, so...who knows?

[Don]

I try not to read them unless the story resolves each time. It's great to have more of an interesting world, but I feel manipulated by an unfinished novel.

[Matthew]

Anna wrote: "Ice & Fire is pretty awesome, but some of the characters end up stalled in the 4th and 5th books. They seem included only so that you don't forget about them, and their story lines were boring. Ho..."

I'm having trouble with the multiple character perspective too. I absolutely detest reading chapters of Catelyn, Sansa and Theon.

[AnnaBanana]

Sometimes you have to consider a "series" as one novel in multiple parts, which I believe is what the LOTR series is meant to be. It is all about perspective. It makes it easier to read the longer series, but painful when you have to wait for the next installment. If you think about it, novels as we know them today had roots in the serials printed in newspapers a couple of hundred years ago. Imagine only getting one chapter per week!

On another note, it is funny how often Ice & Fire is held up as an example of all that we DISlike about a series, yet if they are so annoying, why are they so popular & beloved? Clearly something about what we don't like is successful.

[Matthew]

Anna wrote: "Sometimes you have to consider a "series" as one novel in multiple parts, which I believe is what the LOTR series is meant to be. It is all about perspective. It makes it easier to read the longer ..."

I don't mean to insult anybody but Ice & Fire love MAY be a geezer thing =P.

I don't know man, I bought Game of Thrones BECAUSE of the acclaim last year. I LOVED IT but when I continued on to Clash of Kings, I almost lemmed it.

[Joe Informatico]

It's pretty simple for me:

If your series has a definitive epic plot arc (e.g., save the world from the evil god), you need to finish that in a finite number of books. Preferably 5 or less, and no more than 7. The longer you drag out something like that, the less likely you can ever resolve it in a satisfactory way. I understand that it's getting harder and harder to make a living as a novelist, and the desire or even need to milk a cash cow as long as possible can be really great, but the longer it goes on the more likely it is I'll end up dropping the series before its completion.

If your series revolves around a particular setting or group of characters, and each book is basically a stand-alone episode, maybe with some character or setting development from book to book, but no definitive, in-your-face overarching plot, you can probably write that until you get bored of it.

[AnnaBanana]

I am not a geezer *glare*

[Brad]

I admit, I've grown pretty tired of the cliffhanger series. F'rinstance, I enjoyed S.M. Stirling's series for a long time, especially how they were interconnected, but it seems to be taking FOREVER to finish the current "Dying of the Light" series -- so long he's started a couple more, non-related, series that I just can't get into.

On the other hand, the WILD CARDS series that G.R.R. Martin has edited/co-created over the years. Each book pretty much stands on its own; if you've read the others it increases the joy and richness, but each one has a satisfying beginning-middle-end, too. I'm just surprised the series hasn't gotten more attention, what with Martin being the New Tolkein and all ...

[Esther]

I loved series as a child/teen because I read so much it was an easy choice and the chance to re-encounter familiar characters.
Now I do like several series but I feel duty-bound to keep up as each new book is published and then I have trouble fitting in stand alone books and new authors.

[Mark]

Oh well it depends because there are series like those C.J. Cherryh and Lois McMaster Bujold create which are great AND can pretty much be read standalone.