# Series or Stand Alone books?



## AnnMHammond (Aug 9, 2012)

I just realized (after looking through my archives) that I *really* only read series! I've been reading for over 15 years and even as a kid I only read series ("Baby-sitters Club", "Sweet Valley Twins") with a few awesome stand alone books thrown in. ("The Castle in the Atti"c & "Where the Red Fern Grows" are a few I can recall)

In fact, the only time I DO read a book that isn't a series is if it's a Romantic Comedy (or whatever you call a "chick flick" in a book  )

I think the reason is because I LOVE getting to know characters and living in their world. With a stand alone book I feel like it takes me at least half way through the book to get connected; then it's almost over!  

Am I the only one? Do most people switch back and forth?


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

I've never really thought about it, but I do read a lot of books that are part of a series, or at least a trilogy. Eg., right now I am reading Pretties (having just finished Uglies), which is second in a series of four. I don't think I really make a conscious effort to either read books that are part of a series or to read standalone books most of the time. The exception would be if I have read book one of a series and want to see what happens next enough to make the next book in line my next read.

It seems like there just are a large proportion of books that are part of a series. I think there's probably some pressure on authors to continue writing about the same characters once they've published a hit book. It's also probably somewhat easier to continue with the same characters in the same world that you already know rather then starting from scratch. Then again, I think a lot of times the author from the outset has an overarching plot that is just too big to be contained in even a large novel.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I read a lot of romance and I noticed that a large part of books are now part of series. Its almost impossible to come across just stand alone romances anymore. So I read more series based on just whats out there. Its hard for me as I cannot under any circumstances read a series out of order. Even if its just slightly connected. I am OCD about that. So when a new book comes out and its yet another series, I have to go back first and get #1. Then I can't talk about it with those that already read #4. 

I pretty much enjoy both, but sometimes its nice when I read a stand alone, without my obsession for series order to kick in. Less stress.


----------



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

Looking back at my library of 4,500+ books, I see that the non-series books are in the majority. I do read a number of series, but I'd rather have a good read than another in a series (if I had to choose). Back in the early days of my reading, I was much more interested in SF. It doesn't seem like series were as common as now.

Although I enjoy a good series, it doesn't seem that many of them hold my interest after the first few volumes.

Mike


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

Question: do you prefer series books or stand alone books? 

My answer: Yes! 

Series give lots of time to develop a concept or character. 

Lone books make it easier to try new ideas, and give variety, keeping the author out of a rut. 

Both are great! 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

Mostly series because if I enjoy a book - I want to read more about that character by that same author.  And most of the mystery/thriller books I enjoy are from series.  Having said that - if  someone recommends a single book to me - I will read just that..  For example,  just was recommended to read The Snow Child.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

I might be a rarity nowadays but I don't like series, especially the episodic variety with the same reoccurring characters.  I find those kind if books to be lazy formulas.  

In a good novel, the events of the story will effect and change the characters in a way that will make them different from beginning to end.  You can have a story about a detective but if the character just goes on one adventure after another it grows weary some after a few books.  

There may be some exceptions.  Iain M. Banks writes science fiction novels about the Culture but each novel has its own characters, sometimes hundreds or thousands years apart, and the "series" label is more about marketing.  Tana French writes crime stories with an unique approach: a secondary character from the pervious novel gets to narrate the  next story and the former lead character gets dropped.  I like that a lot. It will keep her writing fresh.  Banks and French are examples of how to do "series" right, but you could argue they don't really write series.

Otherwise, I know of no author who can sustain an episodic series beyond four or five books before losing my interest.


----------



## MalloryMoutinho (Aug 24, 2012)

I feel that question is like asking a mother which child she likes best.

I love to read, plain and simple. I go through stints where a read a book a day. So, limiting myself to either is just not feasible.

However, I will say this about series. I HATE, and I do mean HATE, waiting for the next book. I'm pretty sure I go on a completely illogical rant about how the next in the series should be available the next week. I mean really? How long could it possibly take to write a new book..... 

This is why I took a very different approach with the HP series. I refused to read any of the books until they were all out. Once book seven became available, I read them all in a span of 9 days...cuz, well, that's how I roll!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I like both. I do read a lot of series. However, I like series, not serialized books. I can't stand when I get to the end of a book and there's a cliffhanger that makes me need to get the next book to find out what happens. There are a couple of popular authors who do that. Amanda Hocking? And the Fever series? I want the individual books to stand alone.

And I've been reading series since The Bobbsey Twins.... 

Betsy


----------



## NS (Jul 8, 2011)

Stand alone.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I would say that in general, I find a really good stand-alone novel to be the most satisfying reading experience, but only in general: there are quite a few exceptions to that rule (such as Zelazny's original 5-book Amber series, which I've re-read many, many time -- though admittedly that whole series probably fits into one GRR Martin novel  ). What I _don't_ like is authors (or publishers making authors) seeming to write sequels purely for marketing purposes, just as Hollywood does with movie sequels. Oh, I totally understand the economics that lead to that and can't say I _blame_ them, but at least with many authors it leads to tiresome repetition instead of continued creativity.


----------



## Ergodic Mage (Jan 23, 2012)

The Hooded Claw said:


> Question: do you prefer series books or stand alone books?
> 
> My answer: Yes!
> 
> ...


I'm just writing a cheap "me too" post since this hooded guy already covers my view.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

I probably prefer stand alones these days, but I read both.  I often read the first and maybe the second in a series.  I only stick with about 5 series that I can think of and of those I've only read 3 of them through all the books that are out.  Two or three books is generally enough for me and I often drop a series after some number of books.  I rarely buy ahead in the series, although I keep them in my wish list, kind of an "in case" kind of thing.  If I run out of other things to read, I'll sometimes go back to a series that I started, but in general...well, I prefer just a couple or three books in a series and I love a good stand alone.


----------



## amygamet (Aug 26, 2012)

I read both, though I particularly enjoy series.  It's so nice to slip back into a world you already know and love.  Like catching up with an old friend.  I don't choose a book based on whether it's a series or not, but I love realizing (after I've grown to care about the characters) that there are more out there.


----------



## AnnMHammond (Aug 9, 2012)

I love how there is something for everyone! Some people actally prefer Stand Alone  

I DO agree that I HATE HATE waiting for the next book in a series. I love it when a series is already finished before I begin reading it. 

I also agree that after so many books a series can become redundant. I think about 4 or 5 books are best. 

Better leave people wanting more than bore them to death! LOL


----------



## Dylan Hayes (Aug 18, 2012)

I really like both, but if I had to choose one over the other, I'd go with stand alones. When I was younger, I would definitely have said series, because back then, once I got into something, I wanted more. And I still do...to a certain extent. But there are so many things out there to read and if you get caught up in a series, you miss out on a lot. And, yes, I agree that a series can wear thin if it goes on too long.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Most of the novels I read are stand-alones. Having said which, a really good private investigator series is a hard thing to beat.


----------



## Gareth K Pengelly (Aug 25, 2012)

I am a bit fan of series, myself.

I enjoy getting to know the characters, seeing them develop.

One series I've found that combines the feel of both a series AND a stand alone book is the Horus Heresy series by Black Library.

They're technically a series, as they're set in a roughly chronological order, but a lot of the books focus on completely unique events and characters, even though they all tie in to a sort of cohesive whole.


----------



## herocious (May 20, 2011)

Stand alone.


----------



## Lensman (Aug 28, 2012)

Series are becoming ever more common - publishers like them, because they are more likely to grab back readers who read the first volume.

Some series can become very formulaic. I prefer a serial, where the author has planned the whole story as a single entity - it gives a greater opportunity for world-building (particularly important in fantasy and SF where the world may be very different to our own) and character progression.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

series. but not like Piers Anthony and his never ending Xanth series. Linked series are fine, like Dalglish's separate series that are interconnected by location and some of the people.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I don't know that a character has to change and grow over the course of a book. Not everything has to be the Hero's Journey. Some characters are who they are, their path for their life has been set. While life does have pivotal moments that change where you're going, but life is also episodic much of the time. A detective has one case after the other. I'm not saying that books shouldn't be about life-changing monents, or that readers are wrong to prefer such books, only that books don't have to be like that.


----------



## LTucker (Aug 8, 2012)

I prefer series. Once I've met an interesting new character, I want to keep reading about them.


----------



## Nova_Implosion (Jul 20, 2012)

Stand Alone. Series is cheating.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

QuantumIguana said:


> Some characters are who they are, their path for their life has been set.... A detective has one case after the other.


Well, maybe that works for some readers. Ed McBain's popular 87th Precinct novels are like that: started in 1950s and his characters still stayed the same when it ended fifty years later. If I'm not mistaken, he didn't even age them over time. They just solved a case and after case like bees gathering pollen. After reading a few: Why bother with the rest?


----------



## M.P. Jones (Dec 28, 2011)

I usally prefer series because I want to invest time in getting to know the characters and scenarios - if there is only one book then you don't get the same payback.  Having said that, I have read series where the author should have stopped after one book!


----------



## Loren DeShon (Jun 15, 2011)

I prefer stand alone, and I used to think of a series as a mark of cheapness or lower quality, but that's no longer the case (if it ever was).

The Flashman, Harry Potter, and Aubrey/Maturin series are now some of my all-time favorites.

But, all things considered, I'll still pull a stand-alone off the shelf first in a book store.


----------



## Not Here Anymore (May 16, 2012)

I prefer series--no surprise!--but I do read some stand alone books. If I like the character and setting, I want to return to that world. The Flavia de Luce books are like that for me. I know it's improbable that Flavia would solve mystery after mystery in a rural English town, but I love the characters and want to visit their world again. 

I also like linked books with a group of characters who are related some way--work, family, etc. I've seen this a little in mystery (Gemma Halliday's Hollywood series), but I think it's more common in romance (Lauren Willig's Pink Carnation books, Mary Balough's regencies, etc).


----------



## saraesperanza (Oct 10, 2011)

I'd never be biased against a standalone, but yeah. Series girl through and through in both writing and reading. Just the way I am.


----------



## MadCityWriter (Dec 8, 2011)

Weirdly (to me at least), I seldom read past the second book in a series; often I only read the first book.  I get impatient reading more than one or two books by the same author. Maybe because there are so many others out there to sample?  I'm not sure why.  The exception to this was the Lord of the Rings. I read all three books in the trilogy and the Hobbit.


----------



## BenjaminBurrell (Mar 29, 2012)

I agree in that with series you get to continue with the investment you've made in understanding the characters and their world. It takes time and energy to learn who everyone is and their relationships. For worlds and casts that you enjoy its nice to be able to see a larger story line unfold with them. I also think with series you can have longer and more developed character arcs. People can take much longer to become who they end up becoming. 

Stand-alone books however, have the advantage of being able to take their cast through a more complete or permanently resolved story. Also, all the meaningful arcs of the story are forced to happen within the confines of that single book. You know you won't be missing out on a chunk of meaning and relevance by not reading the next ten books. Take Shipping News, for example. If Proulx had planned to write it as a series she may have taken ten books to get the characters to where they were going. Would the larger story have justified that?

I think they both have merit. The stories are dramatically influenced by the format. As long as you know what you're getting into when you start.


----------



## Marc Davies (Aug 9, 2012)

I used to read mainly series.

There were a couple of reasons for that.  Firstly, I usually stick to sci-fi and fantasy, and most books in those genres are series by default.  Secondly, I used to have a lot more time on my hands, so getting stuck into a series was fun.

I have to say I've been sorely disappointed by a number of series over the years, so my willingness to start a new one has diminished.  Take Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time Series.  After book 10 was released, I got really fed up with being strung along for so long that I abandoned it.  A couple of other series have similarly disappointed me.  

So now I'm on the hunt for some good stand alone books.  It's surprising how few and far between they are.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Marc Davies said:


> I used to read mainly series.
> 
> There were a couple of reasons for that. Firstly, I usually stick to sci-fi and fantasy, and most books in those genres are series by default. Secondly, I used to have a lot more time on my hands, so getting stuck into a series was fun.
> 
> ...


Series are way longer than they used to be. I read a lot of fantasy as well, and there was kind of an unspoken rule that 3 to 5 books, maybe 6 completed a series. Now authors seem to find contracts are easier if they just keep writing the same series. This (to me) has resulted in the "never ending" syndrome and I time out on it. I find that 3 is a series is a nice amount. Even two is kind of cool. You get much past that and I lose interest. I too read a lot of "Firsts" in the series, but find these days, I rarely continue. I LOVE. LOVE. LOVE. the Ilona Andrews Series (Kate Daniels) But the last one...I'm just done. The writing is still strong and entertaining, but the plots feel like they are having to get more and more "out there" to "top" the last book or continue the tension. When the characters have overcome so many obstacles, what can you keep throwing at them? That isn't just more of the same or a repeat? Granted, the Andrews team has done a great job of keeping a couple of storyline threads going (Kate's past and the problem that goes with it) but I don't want to keep reading various adventures. They even released a "different character" book, but I've never liked side trips like that.

To be fair, that is only one example. Janet Evanovich in the mystery world is another. And both Ilona Andrews and Evanovich are awesome writers. And both have branched off. I'm glad of those branchings because I just don't see myself keeping up with the main series. (Andrews' Fate series was awesome for book one. Book two, not so much--already kind of timed out on that series, but each character set is different in the new books, so I might check out a few future books. They are basically stand alone stories in the same world so that helps keep it a bit fresher, at least for a while. Maybe.)


----------



## L.M.Sherwin (Sep 3, 2012)

I really do read a lot of series, but I also love stand-alone books. I think my library is probably split about 1/2 and 1/2 with series and stand-alones.


----------



## dlanzarotta (Jul 14, 2010)

I read mostly series.  I'm a 'character reader'. lol I love getting to know and getting attached to characters.


----------



## julidrevezzo (Sep 15, 2012)

If a standalone is great it'll always make me wish for a series. Yes. I'm a series reader too, _If_ I can start from the beginning. It drives me crazy when I want to sample a "New to me" author and can't get hold of the first book. Thankfully, there's online booksellers, now.  But to walk into a brick and mortar store (especially a used bookstore or the local B&N) , and snag a book off the shelf only to find it's third or fourth in the series and that they don't have book one on the shelf makes me a little crazy. Yes, you can get the sales associate to order it for you, but the impulse buyer in me wishes they'd keep the first book in series on the shelves for that reason! *eg*

On the other hand....I do agree with those that say some can go on too long. I've gotten bored with a few after book four. (I won't say who yet, to avoid the flying tomatoes. )


----------



## nmg222 (Sep 14, 2010)

julidrevezzo said:


> On the other hand....I do agree with those that say some can go on too long. I've gotten bored with a few after book four. (I won't say who yet, to avoid the flying tomatoes. )


Don't worry about them tomatoes, I had plenty slung in my direction for quitting Lee Child after 5 books. Those Jack Reacher novels were just silly (ducks for flying tomatoes).


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

nmg222 said:


> Don't worry about them tomatoes, I had plenty slung in my direction for quitting Lee Child after 5 books. Those Jack Reacher novels were just silly (ducks for flying tomatoes).


I've only read one. I liked it okay, but the plot was on the weak side. I figure they'll get better, but I just haven't gotten around to reading another one yet...

Give Carol O'Connell a try. I think her series is way better. There's one book in that series somewhere along the way that was...not so great. The plot was so twisted I didn't even believe the guy was guilty by the end. But the rest in the Mallory series are danged good. (She's got one stand alone that is pretty convoluted too but her other one, Judas Child, remains one of my favorite all-time reads.)

Checks for tomatoes...ducks out.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

nmg222 said:


> Don't worry about them tomatoes, I had plenty slung in my direction for quitting Lee Child after 5 books. Those Jack Reacher novels were just silly (ducks for flying tomatoes).


I was never tempted to read Lee Child, but I did manage to read six David Weber novels somehow. Or did I read the same book six times? Does it make a difference? I'll make spaghetti with the tomatoes.


----------

