Series

[Avatar]

Following on from a discussion I was having with Roland of Gilead in the DT topic in the Stephen King forum, I'm wondering whether spending years waiting for a series to come out is perhaps a good thing.

On the one hand, there's the excrutiating wait between books. But on the other, the reading and re-reading gives us a connection to the story and the characters that somebody who gets the cance to read the whole series in one sitting as it were, just doesn't share.

I've seen people complain about having to wait, but I wonder if it makes us appreciate the story more.

And I've seen people grateful for a book that comes out as a single, stand-alone volume too.

My own problem with the stand-alone books these days is that they just end too quickly. I like the story to carry on. I hate reaching the last few pages and knowing that this is it. That there will never be anything new. That the story is now told.

Does waiting for the next installment simply immerse us more deeply in the world of the characters? Or is the instant gratification of our desire for the rest of the story worth waiting for the whole thing before we start?

--A

[Loredoctor]

My own problem with the stand-alone books these days is that they just end too quickly. I like the story to carry on. I hate reaching the last few pages and knowing that this is it. That there will never be anything new. That the story is now told.

I don't experience this. Some of the greatest sci-fi novels ever - Last and First Men, Flowers for Algernon, any of Iain M Banks', work so well as they are self-contained; Like a perfect picture that doesn't need to keep expanding into new artworks or updating itself.

[Avatar]

Hmmm, Flowers for Algernon I'll certainly give you. A truly self-contained and beautiful story.

Of course, it helped that the ending was almost a foregone conclusion...it was the steps toward it that captivated.

Banks, well, the story itself, the greater story that is, doesn't really end in the Culture novels at least. Although is specific story ends, the Culture universe still "exists" in Limbo/potentia. He can return to it and pick up the thread at any point, it's still the same story.

But although we can imagine characters carrying on, after the tale as it were, it's not quite the same. Not to me, anyway.

Seriously? You've never reached the end of a book or series and felt regret that it had to end?

--A

[Loredoctor]

Never. The book lives on my mind, and somethings I think the best books close. Regardless, I am always wary when it comes to series; I rarely read them.

[Avatar]

Interesting...why not?

--A

[Loredoctor]

Sometimes the story drags. Characters also tend to become superhuman (I am into realism - not everything, mind you) because they survive against all odds.

As I said, I just like self-contained books - thematically, they work better. And there is something about being concise.

Interestingly, despite that books were serialised in the 19th century, having sequels to books is largely a 20th century invention. Especially after star wars, every damn new fantasy book tends to be a trilogy. For me, it's not the characters that I am drawn to, but the central idea or theme, or the concepts.

[Avatar]

For me it's the world and the concept that attracts me really. And, the way I look at it, once the story ends, the world stagnates. As long as it carries on, the world evolves.

(Hey...how many volumes will your book be? )

--A

[Cail]

As a rule, I don't like series stories. The exceptions being The Chrons, The Gap, and the DT series. I find that most series go on way, way too long, and are mostly just an excuse for the author to not come up with anything new, like the Xanth books.

Truth be told, I love short stories. I prefer a tight, consise story. Ellison, Dick, and King all do this very, very well.

A sprawling epic is nice if it's done well, but I've found that most aren't.

[Loredoctor]

(Hey...how many volumes will your book be? )

--A

The one I am working on now is just a one-off. My epic, will be around 5000 pages long - so I am expecting the publishers to cut it into four. After that, no more from that setting. As a rule, I wont do series. 'Fixation' upon a story goes against my creative nature, and I'd rather do an Iain M. Banks or just expand into other ideas.

Great post, Cail.

[Roland of Gilead]

I'm series oriented by nature, I think, going back to my young teens, reading Doc Savage, Burroughs' Barsoom, Talbot Mundy's Tros and Jimgrim series, etc.

I like the concept of collecting and eagerly awaiting the next installment in a continuous epic story. However, I will admit that in the case of several long-running series, I'm basically screwed, because they probably won't ever finish and therefore, there won't be any satisfying ending.

Two good examples in the sf/fantasy genre are Ken Bulmer's Dray Prescot series and John Norman's Gor series. What ultimately happens to these protagonists and the world in which they adventure? I'll never know, because it will never be written.

I was actually amazed that we got to see the end of Dark Tower. As much as I loved it, I expected King to perish before he ever finished it. So I'm quite grateful that he bore down and got it done, and perhaps that influences my appreciation of how the plot was resolved.

I do understand why some readers prefer the stand-alone, and I agree that's it has become an endangered species in the genre, which is a shame.

I think the best writer of stand-alone epic fantasy is Guy Gavriel Kay, and even he occasionally succumbs, as witness his Sarantium "duology" and Fionavar Tapestry trilogy.

Tim Powers writes wonderful single novels . . . but prolific he ain't. What's it been now - over five years and counting since his last book?

[Menolly]

Hmmm, Flowers for Algernon I'll certainly give you. A truly self-contained and beautiful story.

But, but, but...

Flowers for Algernon was originally a stand alone short story for a pulp magazine (I'm thinking it was The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, as my Daddy was a charter subscriber and I seem to remember reading it in his collection as a teen) that was then expanded into a novel. So doesn't that disqualify it from this discussion?

[Encryptic]

I can't say I have a preference for one over the other. I've read a lot of great stand-alones and a lot of great series, as well as craptastic examples of both. There are pros and cons to each format, I think.

Stand-alones are good if only that you know that's it and you don't have to wait for the rest of the story to be written. Although, there is something to be said for a series in that (hopefully) it would give an author more room to really work instead of being constrained to one book. Admittedly, this is a double-edged sword...

I'd say it depends on a lot of factors like the author, the story they want to tell, and how they tell the story. The format that story ends up in shouldn't really make a difference if they can tell their story well and not drag it out pointlessly, whether it takes 1 book or 3.

::shrug::

[Loredoctor]

Flowers for Algernon was originally a stand alone short story for a pulp magazine (I'm thinking it was The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, as my Daddy was a charter subscriber and I seem to remember reading it in his collection as a teen) that was then expanded into a novel. So doesn't that disqualify it from this discussion?

How does it disqualify? It's still a self-contained story - one novel, despite its origins.

[Menolly]

I can't really answer that. It just seems to me that it would. But, I'm terrible at debate...

[Loredoctor]

I can't really answer that. It just seems to me that it would. But, I'm terrible at debate...

Well, I respect your opinion, nonetheless

[Menolly]

I can't really answer that. It just seems to me that it would. But, I'm terrible at debate...

Well, I respect your opinion, nonetheless

Thankee sir. You are a gentleman, as always. :::curtsy:::

[Avatar]

Let me try this again.

Like Roland, I tend to prefer series. The main attraction for me though, is the world building. It's the world that I get attached to, rather than the story, or the characters. It's what keeps me reading even when the story itself falls a little flat.

The regret I feel is that the world ceases to unfold when the story is told, and that is the sense of loss that I was talking about.

Of course, stand-alones based in the same universe are great too. Not only "short" stories, with a point/ending, but the world seems far more stable as well. It continues to be developed, despite the fact that the stories themselves end. That's why I like the Culture books so much.

--A

[duke]

For me, its not a choice (or debate) about whether I prefer single novels or a series of novels. For me it is more about whether I like the author's work or not. If I love an author's work I'll read as much of them as I can (best stuff first of course), but I try to set some time aside for trying authors I havent read before, so my reading habits aren't too narrow.

That said, I've decided to not start any new series' until the author has finished it. So yes, I'm sitting here watching everyone enjoying Steven Erikson's work, while I'm going to wait until 2010 or so until he's finished Malazan before starting it. Same goes for George Martin and ASOIAF. There's way too many great novels out there that I havent read that I want to, to spend my time re-reading books. The only exceptions I have to this (apart from classics) are SRD, and JK Rowling - for obvious reasons

[Ainulindale]

I don't have a preference. Quality is important; chosen format not really. That said I don't really care about having to wait for subsequent installments in a series, as there are plenty of great books out there being published and already pulished to fill in that time, that probably exceed the quality of that book anyway.

Secondly, I think as we speak, by far the most compelling stories in fantasy/SF as of late have been stand-alone (in terms of majority). Effort by authors like Jeffrey Ford, China Mieville, Jeff Vandermeer, Lucius Shepard, Zoran Zivkovic, Susanna Clarke, Tamar Yellin, Chris Roberson, Nel Gaima, jonathan Carroll, Ken Macleod (Learning the World), David Marusek, Justina Robson, Ian M. Banks, Jeffrey Thomas, Michael Cisco, Thomas Ligotti, Micahel Chabon, Catherryne M. Valente, Ian Macdonald, KJ Bishop, Richard Bowes, Steve Aylett, Conrad Williams, Charles Stross, Michael Swanwick, Richard Morgan, Sean Stewart, David Mitchell etc, etc, etc represent the best SF/F/H over the last few years.

I also would collections as representable of some of the best work in recent years period by authors like Kelly Link, Maureen Mchugh, Holly Phillips, Jeffrey Thomas, Margo Lannagan, Joe Hill, Ted Chiang, etc.

While I think worldbuilding is altogether overrated, a quality author can do a stellar job in a single novel (which is not to say it can't be done in longer series and well done i.e. I love Steven Erikson'swork), but I would argue China Mieville and Jeff Vandermeer bring as much life to their world as many authors do in 3-6 books series. Indeed Bas-Lag/NewCrobuzon,and Ambergris are 2 of the genre's greatests settings IMHO. Another example would be Jeffrey Thomas's worldbuildimg in his Punktown/Paxton work.

Tim Powers writes wonderful single novels . . . but prolific he ain't. What's it been now - over five years and counting since his last book?

2 years ago his collection Strange Itineraries was released (good stuff), and in the years before tha he had released some other collected works. I'm waiting eagerly for his next book Three Days to Never coming out this year.

I think the best writer of stand-alone epic fantasy is Guy Gavriel Kay, and even he occasionally succumbs, as witness his Sarantium "duology" and Fionavar Tapestry trilogy.

I would add Mckillip writes effective work as well.

[Menolly]

Av, if you haven't already read Pern, would you wait to begin as it appears Ann's son Todd will continue on with the series? Or would an ongoing series of this sort be an exception, since each story is more or less self contained?