Stand-Alone, Series or Trilogy?

[Michelle]

Trilogies seem very popular in YA books these days, and I'm getting rather fed up with them. My main gripe is the amount of time between the books - I really don't have time to go back and re-read, and therefore getting into the 2nd and 3rd book can often be quite difficult. I also often find that the 2nd book is the worse, as it just pushes the story towards the final book. I'm fast deciding to wait now until all three books are published before giving them a try.

 

I'm also rather wary of starting a series, as so many of them seem to go down as they go along, or again we're left left waiting with long gaps between. I don't want to spend time on a world, just to get fed up after a few books, or lose interest because the gaps are so big.

 

So which do you prefer, do you like the anticipation of waiting for the next book, or do you prefer your story to be finished by the time you finish a book? Any good or bad examples?

[Janet]

I don't tend to read series very often.   There are exceptions, of course - the Ben Aaronovitch ones being a prime example.  I've loved those and am looking forward to part 4.  I have read others too - I've read all the Harry Potter books and one or two other series, but I much prefer stand-alone books. 

[Michelle]

I actually have a good example of a YA trilogy - I enjoyed Slated by Teri Terry, and was pleasantly surprised by Fractured, the 2nd book. I found it quite easy to remember the 1st book, and got straight into the 2nd, and I actually preferred it. The problem is, I now have very high hopes for the final one!

[rekha333]

Migrating from Series to Trio's... 

[Athena]

Most of the times with series of trilogies I prefer to wait for the whole trilogy or series to be out before I start reading them. There are exceptions, sometimes it's taking ages for a series and I dive in anyway (ie. A Song of Ice and Fire). Other times I didn't know it was going to be a series or trilogy. Sometimes the first book provides sort of an ending so reading the first book isn't too bad. Generally I wait before they're all out.

 

I like both standalone books as well as series and trilogies. Some things couldn't be done in a standalone book, the story is too vast or epic. Other times, I feel the story that is now a trilogy could've fitted into one book. I do find generally in my reading, I'm probably reading more standalone books than series or trilogies, simply because I don't want to be reading too many series at once (too much to remember). I usually prefer to switch up genres, ie. I read one fantasy book, then a contemporary fiction, etc. If it's a trilogy, I may be able to read them all in one go (ie. with Karen Miller's Godspeaker trilogy, the last trilogy I read if I remember correctly), if it's a series then it'd likely become "too much of the same too fast" and I'd switch it up by also reading other standalone books in between.

 

The fact that many books are series or trilogies (especially in fantasy, science-fiction, YA..) leads me to putting them off.. either waiting until they're all out or waiting until I've finished some other series first. I do love all three, series, trilogies and standalone books.

[shirley]

I don't usually like reading books that continue on book after book.  I liked to read it and get on with the next one.

I read A Discovery Of Witches by Deborah E Harkness all 700 + pages only to get to the end and find out that it would be continuing in book 2 and had to wait about a year for it to come out.

Was miffed to say the least.  I was not going to read that one again to remember what went on. Even though it was a brilliant book.  Now waiting for book 3.

[pontalba]

I rarely read YA, but there is one that I've recently read, the first of a trilogy, Life As We Knew It, by Susan Beth Pfeffer.  I have the other two, and am not sure why I haven't followed them up yet.  So, it isn't a question of waiting with this particular series, for me. 

 

Anyhow, that said, I like series, I like trilogies.  Development  and evolution of character, however it is accomplished......whether by introduction of new events or additional characters is essential to holding interest.  But only if there is something new to say, to add to the already written story.  If it's a rehash, no dice. Too many authors try to keep on milking the same old cow. 

[Raven]

I read a mix. 

 

I've read some series (Harry Potter, Rivers of London, the George Smiley novels and I am part way through the A Song of Fire and Ice books); I've read some trilogies (Lord of the Rings and the Tripods!) and I also read a lot of stand-alone books.  It really depends on my mood when I come to pick up a book and what I fancy at the time, really.

 

I've been wary in the past, though, of taking on a long series.  Something like The Wheel of Time series is completely off the table, for example - but A Song of Fire and Ice has me tempted to try something else at some point.  Possibly in a few years!

[dex]

It's not just confined to YA. e.g. Millenium Trilogy. I do remember the Paksenarion trilogy and that also had a weak 2nd book. I agree with Athena, I also prefer for a Trilogy to be complete before I read it.

One off books are fine until they become Generic, This is why I mainly prefer a series as a lot of the set up is out of the way and doesn't need to be reread. (although, there's always a mysterious brother hanging about) Bosch, Skinner)

Not forgetting to mention Trilogies that authors return to and expand, Piers Anthony, Feist, who was writing expansion packs to series in trilogies and then swapped, or seemed to to two book sets.

Edited June 11, 2013 by dex

[Devi]

I read all three, but when reading a series, I try to read a stand-alone between books. Keeps the series fresh, and I feel like I am getting somewhere with my TBR pile.

 

To quote athena:

 

Most of the times with series of trilogies I prefer to wait for the whole trilogy or series to be out before I start reading them. There are exceptions, sometimes it's taking ages for a series and I dive in anyway (ie. A Song of Ice and Fire). Other times I didn't know it was going to be a series or trilogy. Sometimes the first book provides sort of an ending so reading the first book isn't too bad. Generally I wait before they're all out.

 

This is me all over, with the exception of Game of Thrones.

 

p.s. sorry to not quote you properly athena! Currently in a waiting room and I am about to be called next.

[Karsa Orlong]

Most of the times with series of trilogies I prefer to wait for the whole trilogy or series to be out before I start reading them. There are exceptions, sometimes it's taking ages for a series and I dive in anyway (ie. A Song of Ice and Fire). Other times I didn't know it was going to be a series or trilogy. Sometimes the first book provides sort of an ending so reading the first book isn't too bad. Generally I wait before they're all out.

 

 

 

This is usually - not always - my approach with trilogies.  I figured waiting is a good idea after my experience with Peter F Hamilton's 'Night's Dawn' trilogy, where I read them as they were published and, as each came out, I had to re-read the previous book(s), so I ended up reading the first three times, and the second twice, but the third only once.  I've also found with some trilogies that they could quite easily have been condensed into two books but have been padded out, when there really isn't enough interesting happening in the story to actually justify a third book.  But then I'm reading the second book in a trilogy at the moment, with no idea when the final one will be published, so it's not like I have a hard and fast rule for it.

 

Martin's 'Ice & Fire' series is the king of the waiting game for the series I have read.  Five years between books 3 and 4, six between 4 and 5.  He's taking so long to get it done, and the last couple of books have been comparatively poor, imho, that I'm losing interest.  At the moment, I don't know if I'll be back for the next book, when it's eventually published in around 2018.  By then I'll have forgotten everything and have to re-read them again.  I might just wait for the tv show to tell me what happens, instead - it'll probably be done sooner 

 

I am finding series generally a bit wearying these days, though.  I don't mind so much if each entry is a separate story with the same character(s) - i.e. C J Sansom, Jo Nesbo, Lee Child etc - but when it's an ongoing story that requires knowledge of events in previous books, and then having to wait for ages between books (or even just take a break from them when they're all sitting on the shelf because the thought of reading them one after another is . . . just . . . too . . . much   ), I think I am just about burned out.  Erikson's 'Malazan' has pretty much ruined all other fantasy series for me.  I have found that trying any other such series in its wake has seen them inevitably pale in comparison, and I've quickly got bored with them - so I guess that'll save me from too much waiting around in the future

[lauraloves]

Hmm good question! Well to be honest I like all three and at the same time get annoyed by all three. Stand alone books are good however sometimes i wish that there would be a second or third to continue a brilliant story. Trilogy well i like them but sometimes an author seems to have pushed them out for the sake of having three books and they arent so good. And well i do love a good series but my bad habit with this is buying them all in one go and then not liking it any more.

[chesilbeach]

I read all three types, but if I know it's going to be a trilogy, I do now try and wait until all three are published before starting the first one, to avoid the dreaded year long wait between installments.  I don't mind series being longer that just a trilogy if I know the author has an plan and that there is a conclusion to the story, for example, Anthony Horowitz and the Alex Rider series where he always said it could only last as long as Alex could still be classed as a boy and wouldn't go past Alex being about fifteen, or series such as Harry Potter, where it was always going to be one book for each school year.

 

I do love reading a series of books, but the ones I keep returning to are where there isn't a bit overarching story and each of the books can all be read individually as stand alone novels without having to have read the rest of the books that have come before.  I still tend to read these in order, but I do like to know that I don't have to carry on to find out the end of the saga if I don't want to!   I do find that a good series that meets these criteria can be addictive though, so for example, I started the Phryne Fisher series by Kerry Greenwood a couple of weeks ago, and every time I start a new book, I'm itching to go and get the next one in the series instead of picking something else from my TBR.

 

I have given up on a few series where it feels like the author has lost the original thread of the story, or is just expanding the characters and/or story in order to keep the series going, rather than because they have an end point in sight.  I'm getting more and more frustrated with books ending on a cliff hanger - I don't mind and ambiguous conclusion where you have to make up your own mind, but a cliff hanger is beginning to feel almost like a marketing ploy to force the reader to have to read the entire series and keep coming back each time to find out what the resolution is (only to be left with another dilemma at the end of the next book).

[Michelle]

 I'm getting more and more frustrated with books ending on a cliff hanger - I don't mind and ambiguous conclusion where you have to make up your own mind, but a cliff hanger is beginning to feel almost like a marketing ploy to force the reader to have to read the entire series and keep coming back each time to find out what the resolution is (only to be left with another dilemma at the end of the next book).

I'm with you on this one, I really dislike cliffhanger endings. The best trilogies, for me, tell a complete story, but leave enough that the story can be developed if necessary in the next book.

[Athena]

I feel the same as you two, I really don't like cliffhanger endings.

[emelee]

It depends for me. I like all types. Some books are better off being stand-alones. Some are better as series. Many crime fiction are better as series, as you can dig deeper into the main character(s) without having that take over, leaving no room over for the crime story. 

[Kittytn1]

I really like a series as I get very invested in characters and I like to have more to read about them. I do prefer it though when one story comes to an end and the next story picks up the same characters on a different adventure. I don't like having to wait for the next part if it follows a Cliff Hanger. I'm currently in the middle of the Game of Thrones series and I'm beginning to get a little bored of it but after five books I feel like I have to stick it out so that is one draw back of a series. I'm also getting a little worried as I don't know when it's going to end!

[Athena]

George R. R. Martin takes some time to write the books too, so it might be another while until it ends.

[Niamh]

I´m addicted when it comes to series. I like it when charakters get the time to develope, and to see how they change over time. And I don´t mind Cliffhangers. If it was a gripping story, I have something to look forward too next time.

And if you read enough series, the waiting for the next part doesn´t feel so bad. There´s at least one release per month, from the various authors, to keep you busy.

Laurell K. Hamilton could really write a lot faster, though.

 

But if a story is told, I´m the first one to accept that a series has to end. And reading the last in a beloved series, is always such a bittersweet moment.

[Alexander the Great]

It really depends on how much time I have. I prefer reading series or trilogies that are completed, though. The only series I can remember reading as they were still being published, is the Harry Potter series.

 

I also tend to postpone reading trilogies/series more often because I feel like I need to have the time to read them all. It's also always a pain in the library - knowing that it might be a while before you get a chance to read the next book.

[anisia]

I don't mind having long breaks between books - a lot of the times I feel the need to read something else halfway through. I do prefer starting series or trilogies that have been finished or are close to ending. 

[bookaholic65]

I do like Stand-Alone books sometimes, but really like Series because the story continues and expands and you get more involved with the characters etc. I look forward to the next book if its a Series.