# Are book series overtaking novels?



## Ciuri Di Badia (May 3, 2012)

Recently, i have been doing my shopping on amazon and I have noticed that more people are purchasing book series as opposed to stand alone novels. It seems that series are becoming more fulfilling than novels. What is your opinion on this?


----------



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

Ciuri Di Badia said:


> It seems that series are becoming more fulfilling than novels. What is your opinion on this?


Fulfilling to whom? 

I'd hazard a guess that more series are being written because publishers see it as a lower-risk strategy for profit-making, and many readers get into a comfortable rut.

I suspect many authors are somewhat less enamored of series in that they get tired of writing about the same characters all the time. Even if they make a lot of money from the series. Writers get into a rut also. Very few series hold my interest for more than three or four books.

Speaking for myself, I started reading in an era (the 1950s) when stand-alone work was more common. I like stand-alone novels as much as I like series books. There's something very satisfactory about a story coming to an end.

I also like to read short stories, which seems to be out of fashion these days.

Mike


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

It's not surprising folks write series. If they write a book and it does well, it's reasonable to assume that readers enjoy the characters and so it makes sense -- if you have another story for them -- to use them in a second book. And a third. Etc. The problem is when you no longer have any new stories but still use the characters. 

As a reader, I have read a number of stand alone books. If they're well done you don't really _want_ to read 'the next in the series'. There's a feeling that the story is told and finished. It is, as Mike notes, extremely satisfying.

Other books, equally well done, leave you feeling that there might be more stories about these folks -- especially true if they're crime fighters or mystery solvers -- and if you _like_ the people you want to read on. If you don't like them, or if the story is not well told, you don't.

What often happens is that the first book is good and then the author writes more. Sometimes too many too fast. Sometimes it feels like they're just trying to 'cash in'. There are a bunch I've started and after reading a few I feel like they're just not doing it for me. There's either no character development -- long story arcs, or the new internal stories in each new book are not interesting any more.

Or sometimes there's too much 'long story arc' stuff -- things I think should be subtle and background information and on which the resolution of any given story should not depend! Obsessiveness notwithstanding, I want to feel like I could read any book in the series and not feel like I was dropped without preparation into an unfamiliar world where everyone but me knows all the in jokes. So when I come upon scenes that would have no meaning for me had I not read previous volumes, that's a turn off. And if a bit of plot resolution depends on something that happened earlier, that's also a turn off.

I've also found that, for me, it's much better if I don't read a whole bunch at once. So when I find a new series, I don't just get them all and read them one after another. When I've done that in the past I get kind of overdosed. And after a while they're not fun -- maybe because it's too easy to see the similarities. So I tend to leave a few months and a couple dozen other books in between each new volume, even if all are available now.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

jmiked said:


> Fulfilling to whom?
> 
> I'd hazard a guess that more series are being written because publishers see it as a lower-risk strategy for profit-making, and many readers get into a comfortable rut.
> 
> ...


Pretty well summarizes my views, though I didn't start reading until the '60s. 

Anyway, it's certainly not just with books. Look at how many movies have had sequels made of them, and look at how many CSI's have been spun off of the original series. Publishers/producers perceive name familiarity (title, character names, etc.) as reducing risk.

I have enjoyed many series over the years, though there is usually a point where it becomes stale and I give up on it when it gets much past the trilogy level*. There is enjoyment to be had in watching characters -- even worlds -- evolve over a longer period than is easily represented in one novel, and there is a certain comfort to reading more installments of characters, locations, and stories that you liked in earlier books. However, I do find myself more and more missing the one-off novel that has a beginning, middle, and (satisfying) end; at which point it's on to something fresh and new.
_____________
* And then there's something like the Discworld books, of which I've read all three dozen or so (many more than once); but -- except for the first two books -- each novel can stand alone pretty successfully, and Pratchett actually cycles through different story arcs, so the main characters (and their themes) are only repeating every third or fourth book, perhaps, making it sort of a series of related stand-alone books.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Lot of the books I read seem to be in series. But most of them are full novels and self contained. They have different characters for the sequels and maybe some of the "old" characters pop up here and there. Those I like. I also read a few series where it follows the same characters, JD Robb futuristic is one and the others are Urban Fantasy. 
I usually get worn out by book 6 or so. Well the only one I am not tired off yet is JD Robb. 
But the series parts do have to be full books for me to read them. 

What I can't stand are incomplete books that just end with either a cliffhanger or the middle of a scene and then its, look for the next book in the series in 5 months. Yikes. So now with new stuff I have to dig very carefully to make sure the books are at least a complete story. 

I do miss the stand alone novel. I read a lot of romance and it seems pretty much everything now is a series. I go and read back list titles and I find some nice stand alone there. But even back then, series books have been popular in romance. But again, they are complete full books. 

But I am OCD with reading stuff in order, even if they are just loosely connected. So its a constant research project for me to see what part of the series it is, is it a series, is it complete. Sometimes I spend more time researching than reading it seems.  
But I just can't read book 4 before book 1. Just. Can't. Do. It.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

jmiked said:


> Fulfilling to whom?
> 
> Speaking for myself, I started reading in an era (the 1950s) when stand-alone work was more common. I like stand-alone novels as much as I like series books. There's something very satisfactory about a story coming to an end.
> 
> ...


I can think of 4 series books right off the top of my head from the 50's if not earlier.
Nancy Drew, The Hardy Boys, The Bobbsey Twins and Little House on the Prairie.
Though even I will admit that any of those books could stand alone and you didn't have to read them in any order.

I like short stories too.


----------



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

cinisajoy said:


> I can think of 4 series books right off the top of my head from the 50's if not earlier.


I could fill several pages with a list of books that were in a series from that era. I'm not contending that series were uncommon, just that there wasn't as much of an emphasis as there is today.

Mike


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

jmiked said:


> I could fill several pages with a list of books that were in a series from that era. I'm not contending that series were uncommon, just that there wasn't as much of an emphasis as there is today.
> 
> Mike


I think that's a fair statement. . . or maybe we're just more aware of them as we're older? Dunno. It does sort of seem like series of old were more the 'pulp fiction' or 'kids fiction' kind where as now it's more mainstream aimed-at-adults sort.


----------



## Stephen M Holak (May 15, 2012)

There's another element at work here.  I've seen a lot of advice--though I'm not going to offer an opinion on it--directing new self-published writers to maximize their fanbase and financial success by writing series, because "that's what the reader's want," and to put the first book in the series up for free promotions when the follow-on books are out.  Apparently, it's being heeded.

No idea of how successful the approach is.  A book sells because the readers like the stories and the characters. IMO.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

SteveHolak said:


> There's another element at work here. I've seen a lot of advice--though I'm not going to offer an opinion on it--directing new self-published writers to maximize their fanbase and financial success by writing series, because "that's what the reader's want," and to put the first book in the series up for free promotions when the follow-on books are out. Apparently, it's being heeded.
> 
> No idea of how successful the approach is. A book sells because the readers like the stories and the characters. IMO.


I actually found some of my favorite series this way, when the first one was free. But freebies seem to have quickly dropped dead since Amazon forced affiliates to essentially not promote freebies.

However, I am less likely to BUY a book from an unknown author if it's a series because it feels like a bigger investment to me. I know I don't have to finish the series but still, it just somehow feels easier to buy a one off book if I've unsure about the author.


----------



## Sondrae Bennett (Mar 29, 2011)

Atunah said:


> What I can't stand are incomplete books that just end with either a cliffhanger or the middle of a scene and then its, look for the next book in the series in 5 months. Yikes. So now with new stuff I have to dig very carefully to make sure the books are at least a complete story.


I agree. Personally, I love reading series, because it means I don't have to say good-bye to the characters, even if they are no longer the main characters. What I hate is serials that go under the guise of series, which as AuthorDianaBaron states seems to be an annoying growing trend in romance these days. Each book should feel complete. Patricia Briggs (UF) does this and after seven Mercy Thompson books and three Alpha and Omega books, I'm still anxiously waiting for her next release.


----------



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

I got to thinking this afternoon on this subject again. Yeah, I have too much time on my hands. 

What does it take to make a book a part of a series? Does it have to have the same characters in it, either in a primary or secondary role? Does a mention of the same characters make it qualify? Does it merely have to share the same universe? Does two books make a series? Three?

Isaac Asimov's _Foundation_ series doesn't even necessarily keep the same characters in the plot throughout the same book. Granted, these are 'fix-ups', i.e. stories published as novellas/novelettes that later had slight re-writes to make the continuity more seamless for a single volume. If only the first three _Foundation_ books had been written, would this qualify as a series?

I've only read one book in the Iain Banks _Culture_ series, but I think I was told the novels were pretty much stand-alone without repeating characters (could be wrong on this). This would make it a 'shared-universe' series.

Obviously we could fill a book with names of the various series with the same character(s) in them, going back to the Sherlock Holmes stories (maybe going back further).

If you have two characters who were both in books at the start of a series, then each had books about just them, would this still be one series?

I think I've read a trilogy were it starts with one character, adds another in the second volume, then kills off the third character for the third volume. Is this a series? Or is three book not a series.

I need to go back on my meds. Or the weather needs to clear up so I can go bike riding out on the dirt trails again.

Mike


----------



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

Atunah said:


> What I can't stand are incomplete books that just end with either a cliffhanger or the middle of a scene and then its, look for the next book in the series in 5 months. Yikes. So now with new stuff I have to dig very carefully to make sure the books are at least a complete story.


Yes.

I'm still waiting for the third book in Dean Koontz's _Moonlight Bay_ trilogy. The last one was published in *1998*. Koontz keeps saying he will write the final volume, but I no longer find him credible on the subject.

Then there's David Gerrold's _Chtorr_ series. Last one published in 1992(?). And you know what? I don't care anymore. The series felt so padded at the end of the fifth volume that I no longer care if any more get published.

I quit reading Lee Child's _Reacher_ series after the totally unnecessary cliff-hanger ending in one of them that was explained in what was almost a one-sentence anticlimax in the next volume.

Mike


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I think it's a series if they all take place in the same world. So, yes, _Foundation_ is a series -- which actually also includes the "Robot" novels -- _Caves of Steel_ etc. which are actually murder mysteries.

Nowadays, though, series do usually have _all_ the same main characters. There's one by Tana French, however that, though they all take place in the same general area, each volume features a different character. So it's not an ensemble cast that comes back each time, as in, for example, Linda Fairstein's _Alex Cooper_ series, but rather stand alone books that may reference MC's from previous volumes, but those characters are at best bit players in this one. Kind of cool, actually.


----------



## Brownskins (Nov 18, 2011)

No, book series is not overtaking novels.  At the end of the day, it is still writing and storytelling quality that counts.  Series is just one of the win/win strategies currently favored by both authors and readers.

Using what the others have said to define a series, I kind of treat it like singles (music tracks, not the Kindle "single").  It's a good way to sample an author (or singer for that matter) without committing to the entire series (or album).  If I determine that an author's writing style, created world and characters have the perfect chemistry that works for me, then I am willing to try another book in that series.  I am referring to fictional light reading (e.g. mysteries).

A book series can lessen the purchase risk that I as a reader can make.  As with any other work of art, some books in a series may not be among the author's best works.  I am willing to skip those.  Also, once the author is no longer being creative in his story-telling, it will be easy to drop the series and move on to the next novel.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Are we confusing serials with series though? Heck I am confused. 
For me a book in a series is still a complete and full sized book. I mean to try out an author, it wouldn't really matter if its one of their standalones or a book that belongs to a series. If I sample an author, I usually just read the sample from the book on my kindle.

I don't really think music and books compare well. A song I guess one could say is like one of those chapter serial books. But at least the song is complete. Unlike the chapter piece meals.



Brownskins said:


> A book series can lessen the purchase risk that I as a reader can make. As with any other work of art, some books in a series may not be among the author's best works. I am willing to skip those. Also, once the author is no longer being creative in his story-telling, it will be easy to drop the series and move on to the next novel.


For me its the opposite. A series is way more a purchase risk to me. Because I tend to get hooked on the darn thing so its risky to my CC statement. . Thankfully I am so behind, years in many cases that I can get many of the books from the library now. JD Robb would be incredibly expensive for me if I had to buy every book in the series.

I think series are just always more of a commitment for me. I have to start with #1 no matter what. And I like to finish things. And I could never ever ever ever skip a book in a series.    . No can do. 
I now have so many series started, I am pulling my hair out. . I have 161 listed right now on fictfact which tracks my series for me.


----------



## MartinStanley72 (May 17, 2011)

At the moment, the market seems to dictate that series fiction is the way to go for legacy publishers and self-publishers alike. It makes sense for self-publishers because, for instance, in a three book series, the writer can publish their first novel as a loss-leader for free and then make money on books two and three in the series. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule, and plenty of standalone hits, but a lot of self-publishers especially seem to be going down the series route.

These things tend to be cyclical. In a year or so, people will probably be asking why more people are reading standalone novels.


----------



## backslidr (Nov 23, 2012)

I hardly ever read new indie authors because so many of them now start out with a series. I think they should prove themselves first with stand alone novels before they try to cash in on a series. I've read lot of series but I prefer single books.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

I don't read episodic character series.  Trilogies like Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars or James Ellroy's Underworld books are OK as they are more like one continuous story told over multiple volumes.  But if it's the same character doing something similar book after book -- Why Bother?  David Weber's Honor Harington books come to mind.  Did I read five books in the series?  Or did I read the same book five times?  With Weber it can be hard to tell.  The repetition and familiarity might be comforting to some readers, but I prefer to explore the unknown and relish differences.

And I do think series are becoming more prevalent.  

Here is a true story.  I once asked a panel of suspense writers at a book expo in Seattle why there are so many series in the genre and fewer standalone novels.  The most telling answer come from an author with a popular series who decided to write a standalone thriller.  His publisher kicked the book back and asked it be rewritten as part of his series.  Thrillers being thrillers, he said, they are very much alike, and he did a find and replace on the main character name, wrote a few extra scenes explaining why the main character was out of his normal venue, and walla!  It sounds so easy it almost sounds fake.


----------



## pauldude000 (May 22, 2013)

I think a series offers commitment to the reader. I know that in my favorite genre of sci-fi, series such as the Man-Kzin Wars, The Ringworld, and Xanth all readily come to mind. They offered more than a great story. The offered an expansion of the created universe which I enjoyed the first time, and in many cases the characters or players were different from book to book. 

In writing, I have realized that a realistic background universe is often more difficult to weave than either the interaction or characters. I also realize that this fact may be why many Authors over time either use this universe we live in, or copy a created universe for further novels. I know that many of the space ballads I have read by various authors used the same universe as their other works, which makes sense.


----------



## JenniferHarlow (Jun 8, 2013)

Series are king. Ask almost any writer and they'll tell you it's way, way way easier to sell a series than a stand-alone even in the indie world. I was trying to sell and stand-alone paranormal mystery book and the publisher pushed for it to be a series. I turned it into a weird series where its in the same world but with different central characters each time so really its a "series." Most readers don't want to step out of their comfort zone. They knew the last book was enjoyable so there's a good chance they won't be wasting their money on the next. Of course if the series takes off there's a lot of pressure for the author to keep up the series even when they've run out of ideas. I've stopped reading my two favorite series because the last few were dreadful, but they made millions so who cares if the books are dreadful.


----------



## bhazelgrove (Jul 16, 2013)

monetizing is a by product of the internet where every one can get shopped so authors and publishers will try and streamline and take the guessing out of it more and more....so I would say there is a trend right now if not a wave of series but of course one good book can bury a series.


----------



## DaveinJapan (Jun 20, 2013)

Sure does seem as though the series is king these days, at least on Amazon - many of the top sellers are part of a series, and in fact often take up multiple spots in the top of the rankings!


----------



## skribe (Jul 16, 2013)

I'm not surprised.  Series have lower barriers to entry for the second and subsequent volumes.  It makes good marketing sense at least.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

More and more I am finding myself craving a good series in which I really love the characters. Returning to a series like that is like visiting an old friend with each book. Though I'm still read mostly one-off books, sometimes it takes me at least half the book before I've really warmed to the characters. With a series, you already know the protagonist(s) before you even start it.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I don't mind a series as long as they are all about the same length and don't leave a person hanging totally and please don't lie about what is in the next book.  I had picked up 3 "books" by an author and read them last night.
The first one was about 30 minutes, the second one was about a 2 hour read, the third one was about a 15 minute read.  What totally got my dander up was at the end of the second book, she said we would find out in the third book if the main characters got back together.  There was no getting back together or even thinking about it in the third book and then she put the exact same words at the end of the third booklet.
Needless to say I did not go buy the 4th book and she is on my do not get even if it is free list.


----------



## Trophywife007 (Aug 31, 2009)

history_lover said:


> More and more I am finding myself craving a good series in which I really love the characters. Returning to a series like that is like visiting an old friend with each book. Though I'm still read mostly one-off books, sometimes it takes me at least half the book before I've really warmed to the characters. With a series, you already know the protagonist(s) before you even start it.


Yes ^ ^ ^ what h_l said...

However, cliffhangers and waiting a year and a half for the resolution are a big No! No! That's asking too much of your loyal readers.


----------



## JenniferHarlow (Jun 8, 2013)

Trophywife007 said:


> Yes ^ ^ ^ what h_l said...
> 
> However, cliffhangers and waiting a year and a half for the resolution are a big No! No! That's asking too much of your loyal readers.


Worse is when the publisher drops the series because of poor sales after only a few books and the writer can't finish the story arch. A few of my faves have gone down that road. At least now, if the publisher will give back the rights the author can go indie if they want.


----------



## Daniel Harvell (Jun 21, 2013)

Although it's become more prevalent in recent times, many of my favorite authors have been writing series for years: James Patterson, Patricia Cornwell, Sue Grafton, Janet Evanovich, Jan Karon, etc. It's nice to welcome back old friends.


----------



## nico (Jan 17, 2013)

jmiked said:


> Very few series hold my interest for more than three or four books.


This. I find most series i read to be like eating ice cream: a little tastes good, but the more i eat (read) the less satisfaction i get.

I strongly prefer stand-alones, but then again i've always been an iconoclast.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

cinisajoy said:


> I don't mind a series as long as they are all about the same length and don't leave a person hanging totally and please don't lie about what is in the next book. I had picked up 3 "books" by an author and read them last night.
> The first one was about 30 minutes, the second one was about a 2 hour read, the third one was about a 15 minute read. What totally got my dander up was at the end of the second book, she said we would find out in the third book if the main characters got back together. There was no getting back together or even thinking about it in the third book and then she put the exact same words at the end of the third booklet.
> Needless to say I did not go buy the 4th book and she is on my do not get even if it is free list.


That sounds more like a gimmick or "serial" than a series. Not to mention a ripoff and annoying.


----------



## Mahree Moyle (Jun 19, 2013)

Not with me. Really not a series reader.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

JenniferHarlow said:


> Worse is when the publisher drops the series because of poor sales after only a few books and the writer can't finish the story arch. A few of my faves have gone down that road. At least now, if the publisher will give back the rights the author can go indie if they want.


Yeah, this happened with one of my favorite series - the author is still signed to Berkley and still producing other books with them but for some reason, they dropped the series I love so the author has been self publishing them. It sucks though because she has to prioritize her books for Berkley and is only able to write the self published ones in her spare time so it takes her a lot longer to complete them.



cinisajoy said:


> I don't mind a series as long as they are all about the same length and don't leave a person hanging totally and please don't lie about what is in the next book. I had picked up 3 "books" by an author and read them last night.
> The first one was about 30 minutes, the second one was about a 2 hour read, the third one was about a 15 minute read. What totally got my dander up was at the end of the second book, she said we would find out in the third book if the main characters got back together. There was no getting back together or even thinking about it in the third book and then she put the exact same words at the end of the third booklet.
> Needless to say I did not go buy the 4th book and she is on my do not get even if it is free list.


If you could finish it in 15/30 minutes, it must have been more like a short story/novella/novellette than a full length novel. I mostly stay away from those.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

The series is the oldest form of storytelling and goes all the way back to ancient times when the Greeks, Norse, and Romans told long sagas of main characters or entire people groups on an epic scale. *The Odyssey * was actually the "sequel" to *The Iliad*, and written 3,000 years ago although told orally for longer than that. *The Arabian Nights * is another example of the series, where Scheherazade must spin a tale each night to save her life. The idea was to convey not just the growth of the characters, but how they related to others in their culture and how their decisions ultimately affected their world. Think of *The Iliad * when Paris' abduction of Helen ignited a war that resulted in the fall of Troy the Invincible. Readers who prefer this kind of book get invested not only in the characters but also immersed into a different world than the one they walk through every day. They also come away with a sense that each life is important because we all affect everyone around us. The series in the classical tradition is intended to lift our vision higher and extend it beyond ourselves to the world around us.

Novels are more personal and limit our vision to the experiences of one or two main characters. They usually take place in our own world and time, and are people we can relate to who may inspire us or scandalize us with the decisions they make when confronted with choices. The novel actually only goes back as far as medieval times, and was dubbed novel because it meant "new" so the series is older than the novel in a literary sense.

The way I view the differences is that in a series, our choices affect everyone around us and give us a strong sense of community, whereas in a novel the choices usually only affect one character or a few, and speak to us on a personal level with a similar situation we may be facing ourselves, and may provide us with guidance or warning on a more personal level.

Both art forms of the written word have been invaluable contributions to our world, and one should not be placed higher than the other. While *The Iliad * and *The Odyssey * was a series that related a war that resulted in the downfall of an entire culture, *Uncle Tom's Cabin * was a novel that ignited a war that resulted in the liberation of a people group. The choice of one over the other is purely personal but we need both. In my opinion anyway.


----------



## 71089 (Jul 12, 2013)

Well, series are just easier to sell, especially if they're smaller. For example, if I'd sell 3 books of 30 k, the first book for 0.99, second for 1.99 and third for 2.99 (amounts to 6.00 potentially) that would sell easier, because the reader has to take less risks if he or she doesn't like it, instead of paying 6.99 for a full 90 k novel. It's too risky. Plus, you can market more, as an author, if you have multiple books. It's easier to build a fanbase than just with 1.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

As a reader -- the attraction of a series is, I think, that you already have a feel for the characters. That doesn't mean you don't want some growth from them in subsequent volumes. I've frequently read a book that was stand alone and really really liked it. In some cases, I was really happy to find that the author decided to write further adventures with the same characters. Yay! In some cases, that was the end.  Sadness. Even if I could see that the end was a completley satisfactory ending -- I could still want more.

Also, of course, each subsequent book has to also have a good, complete story. For me, the best _series_ that I follow, are ones that have a good reason for a series of adventures -- as opposed to some dimbulb whosywhats who just 'happens' to fall into difficult situations (usually by having done something stupid) -- and where each novel could, really, stand on its own. You should not have read the earlier ones to figure out what's going on in the later ones. There may be some references, but they're not critical for the plot.

What I really _really_ don't like is a full length novel sold as a 'series' in 3 separate parts. If the story takes 600 pages to tell completely, then just sell it as a 600 page novel. Don't try to sell me 3 200 page novels -- none of which really have an ending. You may get me to buy the first one, but I'm likely to feel shortchanged and not bother to go on to the later parts. If I'm spending money I want to get something complete. If there was a major conflict set up, I want that resolved.

I'm also not really keen on books advertised as 'the first in a planned series of x books'. First of all, how do I know that all books will ever be released. Second, when I see this, I'm usually thinking -- here's someone who's got ONE idea and is releasing it in _serial_ form (which is different to a series). That's not even a little bit attractive to me. And if I look and the first book is shorter than what, for me, is 'average novel length' that confirms it. I don't even start.

All that said, there are exceptions. Michael Hick's "In Her Name" series (First book: Empire (Redemption Trilogy, Book 1) (In Her Name)) does have an overarching plot that is at least as important as each story told in each book. But it's an interesting enough world that I eagerly await each new volume. I also have a feeling that he does have an ending in mind -- rather than that he just keeps writing books and putting off the resolution to make more money. It also possibly matters that I read the first trilogy as a single unit, rather than as 3 separate books -- each of which was full 'novel length' on its own. Also, Ed Patterson's "Jade Owl" series. (First book: The Jade Owl (The Jade Owl Legacy)) Each book has a specific puzzle and adventure, but you know it's all leading up to a final complete wrap up. Each volume is an epic chapter of a bigger story. Again, there was always the feeling that there was a full story already thought out, just not yet written. And the characters are fun to hang around with.


----------



## Ciuri Di Badia (May 3, 2012)

book series are loved by many because they tell a long story in parts. This is very important as it gives one a temporary beak within the books. as a result, you get more energy to complete the story.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Ciuri Di Badia said:


> book series are loved by many because they tell a long story in parts. This is very important as it gives one a temporary beak within the books. as a result, you get more energy to complete the story.


Disagree. It seems to me what you're describing is a serial. I suppose if it was a really intense and engaging story, there might be a need to take a break. . . .but I can do that just as well with one long novel -- I just put it down for a few hours. I don't need a _forced_ break where the author decides to 'end' one book and then I have to wait for months to finish. Frankly, I'm likely to lose interest and never pick up the next part.

A _series_ however, where each book is stand alone and yet incorporates known characters from previous books, is a completely different thing. As I've said, while there may be some overarching story, it's usually well beside the point of each book's plot. As long as each new book has a good plot, I'll keep buying them, even if there are months or years between.


----------



## Ciuri Di Badia (May 3, 2012)

you have a point Ann. we can have a break at a time of our choice. however, most of my friends tell me that they like reading series as opposed to novels since they can focus on one part of the story at a time. that way, they will be able to reflect on it before reading the rest of the part.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Ciuri Di Badia said:


> you have a point Ann. we can have a break at a time of our choice. however, most of my friends tell me that they like reading series as opposed to novels since they can focus on one part of the story at a time. that way, they will be able to reflect on it before reading the rest of the part.


You mean publishing a trilogy of 300 page novels as opposed to one, long novel of 900 pages? Personally, I don't think this should be done unless it's written for it. Sometimes, the story doesn't lend itself to be split up like that. You always have to consider that some people will not read the series in order.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

history_lover said:


> You mean publishing a trilogy of 300 page novels as opposed to one, long novel of 900 pages? Personally, I don't think this should be done unless it's written for it. Sometimes, the story doesn't lend itself to be split up like that. You always have to consider that some people will not read the series in order.


Exactly! If it's one whole story, I'd prefer to have it presented to me that way rather than given in dribs and drabs.

And still, I think there's confusion over the difference between a _series_ and a _serial_.

In my mind, a *series* consists of books that are each stand alone but feature, to some extent, the same characters or setting. Though there may be some chronology, you shouldn't _have_ to have read an earlier book to follow the plot of the current book.

A *serial* on the other hand, is written to be shared episodically. It's one whole story that you only get a piece of every month or whatever -- magazines used to routinely run serials. It's how Dickens made it big! And, in a magazine that I subscribe to anyway, I might not mind so much. But I am NOT a fan of serials that are sold as multiple separate books that will eventually be a whole story. I'd rather just wait for it to be finished.

That said, there is a "Kindle Serials" division that apparently is doing quite well, so clearly there are a lot of people who like it just fine. And, for example, the guy who's doing the "James Potter" series is just about finished the 4th book and he's releasing it in chapters through his blog. Fans are gobbling it up. . . but I'm going to wait until I can just get it complete.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

I like series. Makes it easy to decide on my next read. Miss Julia, Stephanie Plum, etc. 

I also don't mind reading a series straight through. Just recently reread all the Miss Julia books and found I'd missed the last two.


----------



## Ciuri Di Badia (May 3, 2012)

you are right Ann. many people prefer reading series especially when the first book was good. by tasting the first one, they get a feel of what the rest of the books will be like.


----------



## Nimbuschick (Jan 15, 2012)

It's easier to market a sequel, and it's easier to pick books when you know the characters and the story and already liked the one that came before it. With those two points in mind, people write and read series because they are easy to choose and sell.


----------



## Ciuri Di Badia (May 3, 2012)

I've seen your point. Series are more popular nowadays than novels


----------



## Ciuri Di Badia (May 3, 2012)

Yes i get you steve. waiting for too long for a new novel in a series to be released can sometimes cause one to loose interest in the story. in such cases, a stand alone novel is preferred.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

JenniferHarlow said:


> Worse is when the publisher drops the series because of poor sales after only a few books and the writer can't finish the story arch. A few of my faves have gone down that road. At least now, if the publisher will give back the rights the author can go indie if they want.


The real problem here is that if a major publisher drops a series, it's practically impossible to get another major publisher to pick it up. But the author has several options these days -- good indy publishers; PoD; and most certainly Kindle Direct and its equivalents. Except some writers aren't resolute enough, in my opinion ... faced with a cancellation, they just shrug and walk away instead of trying to somehow keep their concept going.

I've always loved a good series by the way, starting with children's ones as a kid and then graduating up through Modesty Blaise and Bond, Chandler and MacDonald. And now I've started to make my acquaintance -- rather belatedly, yes -- with the excellent Mr. J. Reacher.


----------



## Ciuri Di Badia (May 3, 2012)

I concur with you tony. You've said it best


----------



## Ciuri Di Badia (May 3, 2012)

series have short stories that are continuous unlike novels that end with each story. this is why  many people like series


----------



## Sarah Rielle (Jul 8, 2013)

I love a good series! If you enjoy one book - both the author's style of writing and genre / storyline, then it's more than likely you'll enjoy the next I think. Takes the questioning out of buying books. It's more or less the same thing, IMO, as buying based on the author; what many people have been doing for years.

From the authors point of view it's obviously great if readers get hooked on a series, and for the readers, they get books they enjoy. Win win.

Although I appreciate some series are flogging a dead horse, I think in general they're massively successful because it makes sense!


----------



## Ciuri Di Badia (May 3, 2012)

series allows authors to write a very long story and at the same time enabling readers to read this story with penultimates in between.


----------



## Saffron (May 22, 2013)

Pretty much all these observations are true. Publishers like series because they are commercially safe - milking the market place tapped by the first book. I like reading a series when I have enjoyed being in the world of the characters and I want to repeat the experience. For example, I enjoyed The Hunger Games for that reason.

A serial is a different thing altogether, somebody said. 

Authors have to be discerning. As a writer I think three is the magic number and I wouldn't want to spend more than three books with any of my characters, even though I love them dearly. I'm sure readers must feel the same. An exception could be crime thrillers, in which the star detective has a new crime to solve with each book. Those work too.


----------



## Deni (Aug 26, 2013)

I love a good series, but I also love good stand-alone novels. A series with a lot of books like the Songs of Ice and Fire series can be frustrating because I can't stop reading, but I have loads of other books I want to read! I prefer a series where each book can be stand-alone like the Pern books, although I will certainly read a series that is good enough to hold my attention through all those books. It has to be exceptional to do that though.


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

I prefer to read a series. If I like a book, I want to read more about the characters I fell in love with . It's frustrating getting to the end of a good book and realizing that's it. I always want more.


----------



## Ciuri Di Badia (May 3, 2012)

book series are overtaking novels because people are changing the way they read. they are constantly going for books that are long. also, series tend to give then well crafted breaks in between the books unlike full novels.


----------

