I’ve read a few books for which I’m working on reviews, and I’m struggling with something. I want to ask your collective opinions as readers.
There are so many series books out now and I’ve been upfront about the fact that series books are difficult for me and my crap-tastic memory unless the world is surprisingly easy to Rhe-Ehnter even if that world mhakhes mhe whant to phuhl ouht my hhaihr sometihmehs.
I’ve encountered so many first-of-a-series books that at this point I’m not entirely sure how to evaluate them: do I want the books to stand alone so well that the quest for the sequels comes from my wanting to revisit that world? Or do I want the book to function like a really spiffy tv pilot that introduces characters, starts a few plot threads, and solves one while leaving other larger ones unfinished so I have to seek out the sequels to find out What Happens in the End?
Do I then evaluate the larger story arc’s potential, though its unfinished, or do I look solely at the plots within the first volume? Do I ask whether I want to keep reading? And if one book is enough does that lessen the effectiveness of the book itself, because even if I did enjoy it, I may not want to read more. Is that book an effective novel on its own? Is the book an effective pilot?
I am having a hell of a time figuring out how I want to evaluate the first book of a series. It’s both a pilot, meant to entice me to read later volumes, and a stand alone novel, so perhaps I should ignore or discount the unfinished plots that continue into later volumes. What do you think? How do you approach the first book of a series?
I like reading books in a series. Its like getting to know the characters over a longer period and watching them grow.
As for romance novels, I find it really irritating that some romance novelists rely on the backstory of other novels for a current novels actual story. Johanna Lindsey does this all the time! It kills me! If I have to read about a little sister who fell head over heels for some hero, but cant be with him because her older brother (who was in a previous novel) had married his wife to save her and the heroine of this book NEEDS to have the same kind of situation in order to get married. I’ll scream! I hate it when you have to be familiar with the book before had in a romance series, which is supposed to be stand alone!
Starting a series is like opening a box of chocolates. You savor the the first one and and you hope the chocolates in between are just as good. Invariably you pick up one dark chocolate- bite into it and find out its filled with maraschino cherry or some gooey white stuff you dont like. You think about not eating anymore but you dont want the last taste in your mouth to be a bad one so you continue. But you pick up the next few and make sure to look at the picture to make sure its something good inside. You keep doing that and hope hope that the last chocolate in your mouth is a tasty one.
This is how I approach a series. Of course it depends on how the series is to begin with. Some series are like Godiva, Lindt, regular candy bars or Twinkies. I can never walk away from Godiva but Twinkies are easy. I can stop after just one Twinky.
Trumystique, you don’t like chocolates with maraschino cherries inside??! I love those!! Lol.
I agree it depends on the series. For a trilogy I’m willing to wait—although there should still be some sort of completed story arc in the first book—but if that’s the case, for godssakes please SAY it’s a trilogy! I bought a horror novel a couple of years ago listed as “Book One in the ____ Series” and discovered it was actually the first part of a trilogy; not even that. It was one long novel broken into thirds. So I got to the end and there was absolutely NO resolution of anything. I bought the next two books but was not happy.
But for series of the type I write and a lot of my friends write, each book should stand alone. Period. I don’t mean to sound like I’m tooting my own horn here at all, but it’s a conscious decision I made in both my contracted series that the first book has a complete ending. Yes, there may be the Happily-for-now ending, and I certainly hope readers will want to keep reading to see what happens, but what I’m trying to do is create characters and a worl engaging and interesting enough that a reader will want to spend more time with them. Period. But if they don’t they have still read a full and complete story.
So I believe that the first book in a series should be read and reviewed just as with any other book. Did you like it, was it a good story, and would you read more by that author (which for a series could be “Would you read the next in the series?”)
Series or not, a book is a book. Either the characters, story, and voice intrigued and entertained you or it didn’t. That doesn’t change so much if it’s a series.
JMO, of course. 🙂
As with so many others, for me it strongly depends on the (initial) book, and then the series. For me, I have extremely little patience, so I truly hate starting a book only to realize… Wait a minute. This is “part one”. If I like the story enough to immediately want “part two”, I will be royally peeved if “part two” isn’t published yet.
However, as I gain maturity in my older years, I have begun noticing that sometimes it’s out of the author’s hands, and something the publishing house does. Case in point, a series I fell in love with, C.L. Wilson’s “Lord of the Fading Lands” & “Lady of Light & Shadows”. It was entirely clear to me that the publishers took the original manuscript & bluntly chopped it in half to create two books rather than one long epic for a debut author.
Whatever the case, my main gripe with series books is the waiting. Obviously, if I don’t like the book, I’m not going to care or concern myself with reading the others in a series. But for characters I’ve come to love, the waiting is Wicked. A definite example here would be Jean M. Auel’s “Earth Children” series.
ARGH!! This is a favorite pet peeve of mine.
I think that many authors out there allow their writing to become lazy and self serving when they set out to write a series. I believe this to be especially trying in the work of a debut author. It feels like some new authors really love the idea of ‘the great epic’. Who cares that book one has incredible plot holes and a will-o-the-wisp ending? Take care of those in the follow up!
So I agree with December Quinn/Stacia Kane—- The book needs to stand alone.
I absolutely love a well written series- I am often sad when my favorites end… but each one should be a coherent, well written piece of work. the end.
I like to read books in order, and prefer series if I enjoyed the characters and want to know them better. Having spent years with inadequate library systems (will have Book 2, 6 and 7, but none others, for example), however, I am used to reading what ever I can find. I picked up two of Brenda Novak’s and found I had the first of one trilogy, and the last of another! Talk about confusion as I searched for crossover characters!
A book MUST stand on its own in order to be satisfying, no matter where in the series it falls. And the ending should never feel like a set-up for the next book – the arc must be complete. However, I think there is nothing wrong with reviewing a series as well – I have found that many authors turn ‘series’ into a synonym for ‘formula’ – there is nothing wrong with a reviewer pointing that out.