# Trilogies and series - love them or loathe them?



## Mandy (Dec 27, 2009)

Okay, so maybe 'loathe' is a strong word...

Do you love trilogies and series, or do you prefer standalone novels? I've found that while I don't go out of my way to avoid a series, I do have a strong preference for standalone novels. More often than not, when I do pick up a series, it's because it's gone viral and has received rave reviews. I used to get so peeved when I 1-clicked a book only to find out later that it was in a series, but, thankfully, this rarely happens now.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Mandy said:


> Do you love trilogies and series, or do you prefer standalone novels?


Yes.


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Yes.


*snort* I agree!

I like stand-alones, but when I really like the characters and stories, I want to read more about them, and am happy when there is a series to continue.

I will say that I prefer each book of a series to be a stand-alone story with a conclusion to that particular storyline. My "loathe" would be reserved for what I consider "serials" where there is no ending to even a portion of the overall arc. Cliffhangers irritate me beyond what I can find words to convey.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I generally don't care much these days for series of many books that essentially tell one long, long story (Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series). I'm okay with a long "series" where each book essentially stands on its own, such that the connecting thread is the characters and maybe some ongoing sub-plots, but when you finish that book you feel like you finished a story (Pratchett's "Discworld" books). If an author needs more than one book to tell a single story, I'd prefer it be limited to the trilogy range, with some definite plan ahead of time to let know I'm not going to have to read a dozen books to find out how the story ends (and hope the author lives long enough to do so).

On the other hand, many of my all-time favorite books were single stand-alone novels, so I certainly have nothing against them.  (_Slaughterhouse Five, Lord of Light, Catch 22, Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff...",_ etc., etc., and so forth)


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Yes.


Can't disagree with that.

I love a good series, but I have mixed feelings towards ongoing / neverending ones. There are some characters I could keep reading forever, but at the same time there often comes that point of jumping the shark.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

Truly great trilogies and series give more pleasure than truly great standalone novels - assuming the greatness per book is comparable.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

I don't see why it has to be love or loathe as a generic preference. It depends on the work. There are very few series that I will read more than the first three or four books, especially if the books don't have a self-contained story-line.

If I do continue to read a series, it will most likely be one where the books contain the same character(s), but have a plot that is resolved in each book. Example: the Nero Wolfe mysteries or either of Jack McDevitt's SF series. Or Terry Prachett's books.

The things that will turn me away from an on-going series are cliff-hangers and non-resolution of story-lines. Examples are the Dresden series (I haven't bothered to get the last several) and the Jack Reacher series (I quit at the one with the cliff-hanger ending). The Pendergast series is borderline at the moment.

It's a different matter if it's an older series and has already been completed. Those I don't mind reading.

There a few exceptions. Zelazny's Amber series is one, although it's possible that most of the original works were already published when I started reading them, so was relatively unaffected by the cliff-hangers and unresolved endings. I can't remember.

One thing that might help explain this is that when I started reading mysteries and SF, short stories and stand-alone novels were the rule of the day. It was pretty rare for a book in the SF genre to have a sequel. In mysteries, it was much more common. I grew up in a reading environment with a wide range of characters, situations,and ideas. Something less common today, I think, where "more of the same" seems to rule.


Mike


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Yes.


^^ this


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

This leads me to something I've commented on elsewhere: It seems that market pressures (blame the readers?), publishing pressures (publishers want to go with the "sure thing") along with authors who (understandably) want to go where the best chances at making a decent wage, are all seem to encourage authors to write series (whether of stand-alones or continuing stories) -- at least in many genres -- as opposed to one-off novels. The unfortunate side of this, to me at least, is that it potentially stifles author creativity. I, for one, would rather have a favorite author put out 3 original and differently interesting novels in three years than six of the same old thing in the same period.

If an author is railroaded (whether by external or internal pressures) into churning out one book after another with the same characters, same settings, same general plot lines, same general themes over and over and over, how can they be expected to keep on creating truly ... well ... creative works? Maybe we readers need to be more willing to take chances and encourage our favorite authors to try new things, as opposed to letting authors know how impatiently we are waiting for the next installment in such-and-such series?

Thus endeth the wandering post for today.


----------



## meh (Apr 18, 2013)

crebel said:


> *snort* I agree!
> 
> I like stand-alones, but when I really like the characters and stories, I want to read more about them, and am happy when there is a series to continue.
> 
> I will say that I prefer each book of a series to be a stand-alone story with a conclusion to that particular storyline. My "loathe" would be reserved for what I consider "serials" where there is no ending to even a portion of the overall arc. Cliffhangers irritate me beyond what I can find words to convey.


Totally agree with this. I like series fine, but I hate stories that just stop in the middle, especially under the label of cliffhangers. I've refused to read "Insurgent" because of this very reason. It infuriated my daughter enough that she refused to read the last book. (The first one was okay, could stand on its own.)

I also long since gave up on Jordan's Wheel of Time. I want a series to have a definite end at some point, unless you're talking about a mystery series where each book really is a standalone as well. I might add that I also gave up during Season 2 of LOST because nothing seemed to ever go anywhere.


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

I enjoy series if I love the character and want to know more about them and what they are doing next.    But then  I also like stand-alone novels and sometimes want them to turn into series for the same reason.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

I've loved series ever since I got into Raymond Chandler at a fairly young age. With the better ones, revisiting the central characters is like looking in again on a bunch of old friends. But I agree with NogDog -- each book should be a complete story in its own right. Which makes each individual novel in such a series a stand-alone, I guess.


----------



## Avis Black (Jun 12, 2012)

Series and trilogies are fine as long as the author keeps up the quality level, but almost every series I've ever read seems to go downhill after a certain point.  Knowing when to stop is a virtue for an author.


----------



## stevene9 (Nov 9, 2008)

I love series, the longer the better. I think David Weber's Honor Harrington series is over 20 books by now, including a few spinoffs. I would say that I am reading maybe 25 to 30 series, and that now comprises about 90% of my reading.

Steve


----------



## Daniel Dennis (Mar 3, 2014)

I like them. But they need to maintain quality. Sometimes the  plot is fine but it just isn't a fit for the series.

Sent from the back of a white CIA van using Tapatalk. Please help!


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Yes.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

4 or 5 is my limit. After that I get bored. Especially if I have to wait for the next one to come out and I've forgotten the story.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I think it depends on what you mean by 'series'.

I like a couple of mystery/detective series by Linda Fairstein and Deborah Crombie. In both cases, the characters are lawyers, detectives, and other such types and each novel, though it has the same characters features very different story lines. Tess Gerritsen is another. I can read these for a good long time because you have a sense of knowing the people without any problem of, 'now, what happened to him/her last time?' Because, though there is interaction between characters that somewhat affect how they behave in subsequent books, it's MINOR to the main story. You really could pick up any one from the middle without having read the first bunch and not be lost at all.

Then there are what are usually termed 'cosy mysteries'. Or at least this is how I think of them. Some amateur sleuth in a small town who keeps getting mixed up in stuff he/she shouldn't. Usually it's a female. I find they often act . . . . stupidly (not to put to fine a point on it . . . and so most of them annoy me for that reason. But, still, in most cases they're more or less stand alone, just with many of the same characters. But at some point the huge crime rate in the small town defies suspension of disbelief -- I mean, really, for most people it's not the case that everyone they meet either gets murdered, is the murderer, or was suspected of being the murderer. 

What I get tired of pretty fast are ones that keep ending on cliffhangers which are, theoretically, designed to make you want to get the next one to find out what happens. But, unless the next one is IMMEDIATELY available, I probably won't. Unless the book was something near a 5 star read in the first place. To me, that's more like a serial -- one long story told in episodes and the action of each is meaningful to the overall plot. You can NOT pick up a book in the middle without having read from the beginning and have any sort of clue. I'm not really keen on those for that reason.

That said, if it's that sort of thing billed as a trilogy, at least you know that it's just 3 books you are committing to. Unless it's Douglas Adams. I think his _Hitchhiker's Trilogy_ ended up being about 6 books.  And . . . . probably . . . . he should have just stopped at 3.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

Yep - Hitchhiker - never read beyond 3. Or Terry Pratchett for that matter. Funny and clever, but you can have too much of a good thing. I can eat cake - but after the third one, I'm in sugar-overload and couldn't touch another ...


----------



## hs (Feb 15, 2011)

I like both, but it takes more for me to start a series than a standalone novel. Because I'm committing more time to read a series, I usually won't start one unless it's been highly recommended or it's gotten great reviews. On the other hand, I'll try a standalone novel if it sounds somewhat interesting. 

I also agree with the other posters who talked about each book in a series being able to stand on its own. The worst is a series where the books end in a cliffhanger!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Ann in Arlington said:


> That said, if it's that sort of thing billed as a trilogy, at least you know that it's just 3 books you are committing to. Unless it's Douglas Adams. I think his _Hitchhiker's Trilogy ended up being about 6 books.  And . . . . probably . . . . he should have just stopped at 3.
> _


_

There were more of those?  He should have just stopped at one as far as I'm concerned. 

I like, even love series. But each story should stand on its own, mostly. I don't mind an overall story arc. Iris Johansen's series about Eve Duncan, where she's always looking to find out what happened to her daughter, and has a personal life arc that crosses books--I'm good with that. The Spenser series was like that too--the characters grew through the book. And same with the In Death series.

I like stand alone books, but if they are characters I really want to know more about, I'm always kind of disappointed that they are standalones.

Serials, which I consider books to end with a cliffhanger (the heroine is tied to the railroad tracks--will she be rescued?), are anathema to me. I will not buy the second book. I feel like I'm being blackmailed.

Interestingly, I don't mind TV shows that end on cliffhangers. Perhaps it's because I've been condition to expect/accept those. Or perhaps because they're free, at least the ones on broadcast TV.

Betsy_


----------



## TWErvin2 (Aug 7, 2010)

I tend to prefer a series over a trilogy. A standalone novel over a trilogy as well.

But, with the novels in a series, even if there's an overall story arc, I definitely want a self-contained story arc within each installment in the series. It should read like a full, complete novel and not feel too much like a segment of an overall work in progress.


----------



## Anne Berkeley (Jul 12, 2013)

I love them, but I love them even more when all three are published. Waiting between books stinks.


----------



## stevene9 (Nov 9, 2008)

Anne Berkeley said:


> I love them, but I love them even more when all three are published. Waiting between books stinks.


There are series that I haven't started yet because I am waiting for the next book to come out, and then I will read them all at once. I know there can always be a "next book", but if I specifically know one is coming in the next 8 to 10 months, I will generally wait to start reading the series.

Steve


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

I love a good story, whether an epic series or a stand alone - it should be what it needs to be to tell the story.

But I do love an epic story. I love when a new book in a series I love is coming out. But I hate seeing long running series and being interested in them but knowing I probably don't have time to catch up with all the books. I also hate waiting many years between books in a series I love. But equally, I hate reading a really great stand alone story and then having withdraw because that's all there is. There's good and bad to each.


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

NogDog said:


> This leads me to something I've commented on elsewhere: It seems that market pressures (blame the readers?), publishing pressures (publishers want to go with the "sure thing") along with authors who (understandably) want to go where the best chances at making a decent wage, are all seem to encourage authors to write series (whether of stand-alones or continuing stories) -- at least in many genres -- as opposed to one-off novels. The unfortunate side of this, to me at least, is that it potentially stifles author creativity. I, for one, would rather have a favorite author put out 3 original and differently interesting novels in three years than six of the same old thing in the same period.


There's some truth to this statement. Back when I was shopping my first novel around to agents, a question I got asked a lot (from those that bothered to write back) was "is there a sequel? Is this a series? Is there more?"

At the time, it was meant to be stand alone. The interest in more led me to come up with another story. But I don't want to feel forced into staying with the same characters forever.


----------



## Daniel Harvell (Jun 21, 2013)

As many others mentioned, I love a good story. Period. If those stories are told well in a series format, I'm all for it - it's like visiting with a familiar friend from time to time. The key is deciding when to bow out, which often seems to happen too late (if at all).


----------



## joyceharmon (May 21, 2012)

I like trilogies and I like series. What I don't like is when I'm reading a series but I thought I was reading a trilogy. (The author might even have been calling it a trilogy all along.) By the time you reach book 3 of I Thought It Was A Trilogy, you expect all your questions to be answered by the end of that book - but then you get to the end and it's still right in the middle of stuff and maybe there are some teaser pages for book 4 - argh! Especially these series where the author produces a book every other year. Grrrrrr.


----------



## Sandra K. Williams (Jun 15, 2013)

NogDog said:


> If an author needs more than one book to tell a single story, I'd prefer it be limited to the trilogy range





DebBennett said:


> 4 or 5 is my limit. After that I get bored. Especially if I have to wait for the next one to come out and I've forgotten the story.


I've got nothing to add to the above quotes. Agree completely about trilogies, quartets, and so on.

For episodic series where each book is a single story even though the characters or world may remain the same, all that matters is that the quality remains high.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

For me, there's nothing like discovering a really good series and knowing I have five or six awesome books to look forward to before I've even finished the first.

The problem is that I'm a disorganised idiot who almost always starts on book 2 (if I'm lucky; I just finished David Gemmell's Stormrider, which is the fourth and FINAL novel in his Rigante series). You'd be surprised at the number of books which don't make it clear from the cover that they're part of a series. Or maybe you wouldn't. Perhaps you share my pain. It would be good to know I'm not alone...


----------



## MLKatz (Sep 8, 2012)

Mandy said:


> Okay, so maybe 'loathe' is a strong word...
> 
> Do you love trilogies and series, or do you prefer standalone novels? I've found that while I don't go out of my way to avoid a series, I do have a strong preference for standalone novels. More often than not, when I do pick up a series, it's because it's gone viral and has received rave reviews. I used to get so peeved when I 1-clicked a book only to find out later that it was in a series, but, thankfully, this rarely happens now.


I loathe the way that Game of Thrones is torturing my soul, but I love Game of Thrones. Is "love and loathe" a valid answer to your question?


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

I absolutely love diving into a series... but only after I know it is complete or after it has at least 4 books published. I hate waiting. That's a big problem for me, and once I fall in love with a character I don't have the patience to wait years for their story to be completed. That's why I wait. As for standalone books, they're fine, but I always secretly hope there is more, another chapter, another book, something. But, that brings us back to the issue of patience and series books. LoL.


----------



## Kristine McKinley (Aug 26, 2012)

I love a series, but only when the author knows when it's time to end. I hate when it's dragged out, no matter how much I love the characters sometimes a series has to end. Don't make me end up hating everything by pushing it too far.


----------



## Sydney M. Cooper (Mar 30, 2014)

I love a good trilogy. Actually, one of my favorite (and simultaneously least favorite, if the book isn't out yet) feelings is getting to the end of the first or second book in a series and _dying_ to read the next one - I like to feel that emotional connection to characters. The only downside to any series is when you read a great first book or two, and then the follow-on books veer off on some wild tangent you have no interest in. I have this problem with Maria Snyder's work in particular... I tend to fall in love with her first books and have a hard time getting through her sequels.


----------



## John F (May 19, 2014)

I enjoy series with continuing characters, such as John Le Carré's spy novels featuring George Smiley and the classic detective novels of Margery Allingham, Michael Innes, Dorothy L. Sayers, and Rex Stout.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

I like a them both because then I don't have to figure out what I'm going to read next. It's all decided for me if I like the first one.


----------



## Shelley_Watters (Apr 24, 2014)

I think it depends on the story. If it's obviously a story that could have been nicely wrapped up in one novel, but has been stretched to two or more simply to sell more books, I don't like them. But, if the story is just so complex and wonderful that it needs more than one book, then that's fine. 

In particular, I love series that are standalones in their own right. JR Ward's Black Dagger Brotherhood does this well, IMO. Each book has a complete love story, but an overarching plot that spans all the novels. I like that I get my closure, but at the same time can pick the series back up without having to re-read previous novels.


----------



## Tris (Oct 30, 2008)

I love both series and standalone. However when I had to redo all of my collections on my Kindle, I notice just how many books that I read are part of a series.  So from time to time, reading a standalone is refreshing...but then I find out that my standalone become series all of a sudden! *sigh*  Oh well...

Like people have said, I like series, but I hate when they drag on and on with no real progress...especially when the author is deceased, and someone else picks up the series.  

The issues I have with trilogies is that the second book (usually) isn't that great.  It's the valley before you get the two main climaxes.  The other problem I have with them (and with series in general), is that lately, everything seems to be a series!    

My problem is more: I wish that some of my standalone were series, and some of my series to be standalone. 

Tris


----------



## JeanetteRaleigh (Jan 1, 2013)

I love them up until the point that it feels like they're just the same story.  Most of my favorite books are inside a series. 


The only time I loathe a series....

At the library. Why the heck are all the books # 2 or #5 of the series?    We have an interlibrary loan system, so I could FIND Book 1 of a series if I really wanted to.  Sometimes I do.  Sometimes I just keep browsing.


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

I asked a librarian friend of mine that same question. She told me that they probably HAD 1, 3, & 4 of the series at some point, but that those copies didn't come back in or were damaged beyond hope. Libraries almost never replace books.

The inter-library loan is about the only hope you have to read everything half the time.


----------



## sstroble (Dec 16, 2013)

Have only read 2 trilogies: C S Lewis' Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength and the nonfiction The Bounty Trilogy (Mutiny on the Bounty, Men Against the Sea, and Pitcairn's Island. 
Only liked That Hideous Strength from the first trilogy but really enjoyed all 3 of the Bounty Trilogy. 
Also have read hundreds of stand alones. 
Read somewhere that Edgar Allen Poe argued that a story should be able to be read in 1 sitting. Beginning to wonder if he was on to something, even though none of his works sold well while he was alive and he died at age 40.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I love a good trilogy - but I get annoyed when it consists of 3 novellas that would otherwise make up a single, moderately large novel.


----------



## Sara C (Apr 30, 2014)

I am all about a good series. I enjoy standalones as well, but I always feel more than a little sad when they are over. Of course, I'm the type that gets really, really, REALLY attached to characters. I'll reread a book ten times over. When I have a series to read, then I can just read each book in the series two or three times, rather than reading a standalone ten times, hah.


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

Like another poster here, I like books in a series that can be read as stand alones so I can read them in any order and stop without missing anything when I've had enough.


----------



## Mark Young (Dec 13, 2010)

It all depends upon the series. If the characters are well developed and seem to grow with each novel, conceivably a series could go on for a long time. For example, one of my favorites is Michael Connely's Harry Bosch novels. It seems like I have watched Harry forever, and never get tired of his next challenge. Other series lose me in the first few chapters.


----------



## UnicornEmily (Jul 2, 2011)

crebel said:


> I will say that I prefer each book of a series to be a stand-alone story with a conclusion to that particular storyline. My "loathe" would be reserved for what I consider "serials" where there is no ending to even a portion of the overall arc. Cliffhangers irritate me beyond what I can find words to convey.


I agree! I'll tolerate a cliffhanger on book two out of THREE of a TRILOGY, but that's about it. If a book ends on a cliffhanger with book one, especially if there's no hint that it's meant to be a series, that's usually it for me and a series.

That's usually it for me the and the author, actually. If it's meant to be the beginning of a series, and the author doesn't make that clear, I feel like my trust has been violated.

I don't mind a mild "cliffhanger" (oh, things are about to change next book -- I can't wait to see how it's going to turn out), especially if it's a setup for a legitimate change in tone or feel that is best used as a dividing line between installments. If it's just "the villain got away for no good reason and now things are worse than before," though . . . no. No. Just no. Talk about a pet peeve.

On the other hand, I love standalone books! If an author makes me totally satisfied at the end of a story, that's perfect. And if the author left it open for a sequel, and then makes the sequel that is just as standalone-able and satisfying, without a manipulative trying-to-force-you-to-read-a-third-book ending, that's fantastic!


----------

