Book series: Yes or no?

More and more often I am finding books that are series. I find these to be frustrating at times. I am a fast reader. A book a day is not unusual. Sometimes I find series books frustrating for this reason.

Do you read series books? Do you like having a series to look forward to? Do you dread having to hunt down and buy book after book?

How do you feel about series reads...

Sometimes I think they are a blessing, other times a curse!

I sometimes find them frustrating only because I don't like to get stuck in a "rut" where I'm only reading one author. I usually will read one book and then move on to another author/genre before returning to the series.

When I read fiction, I prefer series.

I tend to put off reading the series untill I've got all of them, because it could be years untill I get the rest of them. But once I do I read them all in one go, I've just interrupted my reading of Feist's Riftwar to read Ann Brashares, Sisterhood of the travelling pants.

I like having series to read so much I tend to think of my next read as which series rather than which book a lot of the time.

It depends, like everything. If I like the characters and the writing and the story, then I generally like a series and look forward to subsequent books.

If I don't like some aspect of it, then I tend not to bother to continue reading the series anyway, so it doesn't matter.

As long as the books in a series are a contained story, then I have no problem with it. One series I read recently felt more like parts of the same novel broken up into different books, which was odd. Another series that I have the first two books of....the second book ends with a great big reversal/cliffhanger that made me angry when I read it, because it basically negated half of the great big book I'd just read. If I'd known what kind of ending the second book was going to have, I would have waited until the third book was out (I don't know when that will be) to read it.

But those are only two out of dozens of series I have read.

I generally like serieses, but they get very frustrating when they're broken up badly. On the other end of Blue's idea, I don't necessarily like a series that's just a bunch of same-world stories arbitrarily following each other (Saddle Club, Famous Five, etc. style). Some of them are good, but others grate after a while.

i like series usually, and i must read them in order. but i don't usually read then right after each other.

i might read one and then go on to something else and them come back to the second in the series and then go on to something else...

otherwise i find i tend to get tired of the series. i need a bit of variety.

I like a series if I liked the first book. I would never buy an entire series without trying the first book, first. If its good - then I'll go buy them all, or not, as the mood moves me. Fickle reader, I am.

I never buy my books, so that's not a problem...

But trying to find a non-series book to read is a really hard thing to do!

And then of course, my library is missing the first part of the series and has parts 2, 4, and 5. ;)

Unless I really like a series, I'll tend to alternate one series book with one non-series book. Overall I tend to like them because they can add depth and complexity to a storyline and I feel you can sink into the world a lot better than in a single book. On the other hand, sometimes they get too complex and never-ending. It's a balance.

I liked to read books in a series when I first started reading fantasy and science fiction, when I was about eight. When I was about ten, however, I came to the conclusion that most books in a series bored me to apathy.

Ever since then, I am extremely hesitant to read any books in a series, regardless of the author, even regardless if I unknowingly read the first book and liked it. Most authors seem to lose steam, vision, and the story after the first book, in my opinion -- and that probably saddens me more than anything else.

It's like remembering a great book from when you were younger only to re-read it and find nothing about it that is magical to you any longer.

I have a few sets of books in my library that are in series form, but normally I avoid a series like the plague.

I agree.

I do often read series, but I'm not a huge fan of them. I will read all the books in a series, back to back, but I prefer to own the whole series before I do. Unfortunetly when the last book is published 10-15 years after the first, finding the first can be very tricky, and I may end up not reading any of them.

Many many authors fade around book 3, so I tend see what the reviews of that are before I commit myself. I also prefer a series that is planned as a series from the start rather than ad hock ooh I can add a book on here.

The only series' i've read so far are:

-The Lord of the Rings (enuf said)

-Earthsea (5) (love it)

-Narnia (some are better than others)

-Discworld (of course)

-Hitchhikers Guide to The Universe (a must)

-The Enchanted Forest Chronicles (Enchanting)

-Camulod Chronicles (only on the 2nd one)

-Redwall (own & have read several, they are great YA fare for hooking kids on reading)

I have started to read some other series but have not finished as they just seemed too formulaic & contrived. The Camulod Chronicles are very macho & not my usual fare but i'm intrigued by the different approach to the Roman thing i.e. that the stories aren't set in Rome itself but rather take place 'out in the provinces' & the main characters are not all 'gung ho' Roman types.
I agree that if you use the library it is very frustrating to try & read a series.
I have had a lot of luck finding books in a series by frequenting used bookstore that deal in PBs & have acquired many of the volumes @ great prices so not a big investment & when you finish you can turn them back to the store for credit towards another bunch you want to read! 8^)

I'm of two minds on series; sometimes I really enjoy them (Barcester series, Aubrey/Maturin series, Robin Hobb for the most part) and usually it's because either the characters are so engaging I love returning to them or the individual novels are each wonderful to read.

Many fantasy novels seem to be cut up into series simply as a genre convention (and to sell more books). Often there's lots of filler just to make each installment reach a certain page count. I find this sort of thing annoying in the extreme. I prefer fantasy series that are well planned ahead of time and have an obvious ending (Harry Potter, for example). I won't read them if they just ramble on & on because in the fantasy genre you can get away with it.

I hate the ones that run out of steam, but the author is goaded into producing book after book. The Kushiel series is a good example, imho. The first book of the first series was great, but latest book (3rd book of 2nd trilogy) was really, really weak and I think it's just that Carey is over that world. She needs to write something completely different. And don't get me started on GRR Martin. Oy.

I really enjoy reading a series of books. For example I have read the first three volumes of Stephen King's The Dark Tower series and I own the complete seven volumes. I have alerady started and read the first three volumes of the Harry Potter series on a couple of different occasions and have yet to read the 4th volume of that series either. I've been meaning to start reading Harry Potter again from the beginning since it has been awhile since I last finished Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban.

One series I would love to tackle reading is the set of 12 volumes in The History Of Middle-Earth however, I don 't own the complete set, yet so I am putting of even beginning to read this series. Has anyone out there read all 12 volumes to The History Of Middle-Earth? I do own several volumes of this series a couple hard back volumes and also a couple of paperback volumes too. I would like to get the complete set in hardback with maybe a set in paperback too. I would like to know how the 12 volumes in The History Of Middle-Earth stacks up in comparison to other books out there on Middle-Earth.

On a couple of occasions I have tried to get into Tolkien's book Farmer Giles And Ham and could never get into it for some reason. It's a short enough book maybe I should give it another chance. Has anybody ever read Farmer Giles And Ham? Maybe my expectations for this book is too high since I am used to The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy.

beatles1964

I really enjoy reading a series of books. For example I have read the first three volumes of Stephen King's The Dark Tower series and I own the complete seven volumes. I have alerady started and read the first three volumes of the Harry Potter series on a couple of different occasions and have yet to read the 4th volume of that series either. I've been meaning to start reading Harry Potter again from the beginning since it has been awhile since I last finished Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban.

One series I would love to tackle reading is the set of 12 volumes in The History Of Middle-Earth however, I don 't own the complete set, yet so I am putting of even beginning to read this series. Has anyone out there read all 12 volumes to The History Of Middle-Earth? I do own several volumes of this series a couple hard back volumes and also a couple of paperback volumes too. I would like to get the complete set in hardback with maybe a set in paperback too. I would like to know how the 12 volumes in The History Of Middle-Earth stacks up in comparison to other books out there on Middle-Earth.

On a couple of occasions I have tried to get into Tolkien's book Farmer Giles of Ham and could never get into it for some reason. It's a short enough book maybe I should give it another chance. Has anybody ever read Farmer Giles of Ham? Maybe my expectations for this book is too high since I am used to The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy.

beatles1964

I find that I read more series books, but I do like them to have an ending at some point in time. I have also found out that if I buy multiple books out of a series - I never read them. I have two books each of two different series in my tbr pile, and they've been there for years now.... I wonder if I'll ever get to them?

I don't mind series books if the publisher is considerate enough to make it easy for me to determine which book is the first, second, third, etc. If it says in fairly bold lettering somewhere on the cover or immediately inside the recommended reading order for the series, fine. If, on the other hand, I am forced to guess it goes right back on the shelf. I've been burned too many times by picking up what I thought was Vol. I only to discover 30 pages in that I had been dropped into the middle of Vol. 3.

I have some series, and have enjoyed them. I promised myself that after waiting for about twelve years for Stephen Lawhead to get all of his Arthur books out, that I would never buy more than the first book, read it, and decide.
I just broke that rule though with Sharon Shinn. I found out later that one of my sons liked this series so I hope I will too. I HATED every single one of the Lawhead Arthur series except the last one. HATED them. And I am a huge Arthur aficionado. Go figure.

Rather than series, I like the way that many of Charles deLint's books have the same characters, but are not really series books. But I love deLint so madly he can do no wrong in my book...lol I even love his short stories ( and I usually loathe short stories ) and YA fiction.

And to whoever mentioned this... It is sometimes very hard to find a book that is not a series.. I agree feel frustrated by that.frustration.

eta spelling

I also own a 10 volume series at home called The Making Of Britain which originally came out in 80s. I have only read two of the books however it's beens so long since I have read them I should start again at the beginning. This is truly a wonderful,beautiful series. Ursula K. LeGuin's EarthSea is another series I would like to try to get into sooner or later.
And I am certain there are a lot of other series out there I have never bothered to read before that would also deserve my attention to getting around to them as well.

beatles1964

I would think close to 90% of the books I read are part of a series. I really like to dive into a world & get lost in it for as long as possible so series suit me very well. But I wont start a series til I have all the books because I dont like to be left hanging (Robert Jordan's WoT anyone???).

Actually, Brandon Sanderson, one of our occasional GD'ers has been hired to finish the last WoT volume. Now if he'd just finish that last volume of the Mistborn series...

I generally enjoy series, however if I find a book that looks interesting and then discover it's book 1 of 10 or more, it might put me off as if I enjoyed it I'd want to read all of them!

I don't understand getting everything in a series before starting ... what if you end up hating it?

#23 Not very often, but I have done that before, Fiona Mcintosh's Quickening. That's why I try to find standalone novels by writers who's series I want to read, If I like the standalone then i'll probably like the series too.

ditto Muse, I try to do that too. james... sometimes you just take a leap of faith, you know? Sometimes is works out, other times not so much.

22 > The last Mistborn has been completed for awhile, it is scheduled for release (in the US) for Oct 14th.

#26 Best news I've heard all week. I can't wait.

Oh, excellent! Now if I could just snag an Early Reviewer copy...8^}

I like series. They give me something to look forward to. Besides The Lord of the Rings trilogy, I'd say that the Elric saga is my favorite series.

I guess I'm of two minds regarding series. If the author can maintain the quality of writing that got me hooked in the first book or two, then they are a wonderful thing. Some authors just don't know when to give up the ghost, though, and they drag the readers behind them like crack addicts who are hoping the next book will take them back to that first high.

For me, Frank Herbert's Dune books fit the first bill. Unfortunately, his son and cohort killed that series. (I want to read the unpublished notes for the seventh book that were found after Herbert's death. The sequels that were published conform more to the crappy prequels than to original series.)

Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles fit the second. She built these amazing superhuman characters, then drove them into an on-going soap opera romance laced with existential turmoil. Jesus Christ in Cana, Anne, get a damned shrink!

I like series books (done well) for one reason, and one off books, for another.

A single volume can pack a great deal of story into one go, but there is less room to develop breadth and depth. The experience can be extraordinarily successful - and even returned to - but often, they retain less glow when returned to, or they don't "age well" if I return to them later. Obviously there are exceptions. The Horsemen by Josepth Kessel had a richness to it that lasted, for me, but it was a huge fat volume. (I am not speaking of the movie!)

Series allow scope to really develop a huge arc - in depth, in richness, in character growth, and in the pivotal experience of change. Where series fail, is when the author keeps on writing the same character experience over and over, and that character (or characters) fail to change and grow, based upon what occurred in the volume prior. Some series bog, and the writer will jump tracks and shove into new territory just to alleviate the boredom...the better planned series unveil more layers of the world and people and cultures and backdrop as they go. Those layers must continually amaze and surprise. This is hard to do under pressure!

The best series are well planned, but not to the point where they become rigid - the theme gets so obvious, it's a brick to the head.

I think we are caught in a tough period - where many huge series are still in progress, and without the finale, it's terribly hard to tell whether the series is worthwhile or not - imagine if you had to wait YEARS between reading The Two Towers and Return of the King.

The frustration focus of many impatient or angry readers often overshadows the series that are finished, and admirably, too! The Fionavar Tapestry by Guy Gavriel Kay, the nice trilogy by McKillip, Mordant's Need by Stephen R. Donaldson, or his first trilogy that, love it or hate it, rang in at the end of the last volume with a worthy finale.

Sometimes one book just will not fit a huge concept, period.

Now, the trend is to increase profits by making slimmer books - so some books that would do far better as one volume are being split in two to help out the sagging bottom line.

Granted, there appears to be some truly - shallow - stuff being tossed out. There can be immense pressure on an author to "turn in on schedule" - because the release has been budgeted in "this year's P&L" - authors can cave in to that, or not. Some do, some don't. For some series that just don't ring in, well, readers are buying them anyway, or they would not be out there, available.

Without the final pieces in place, it's tough to tell, with a work in progress. We are frustrated, being contemporaries, and not having all the works in hand, and finished. Even the best planned series would fail, cut off in midstream.

I tend to trust authors with large series who can ALSO write one off volumes. If they consistently bring in their shorter works, and the endings don't sag, then, usually, they know what they're doing, and the finales of their series will have a grand payoff.

The number of one off books, either F/SF or mainstream, that begin with a grand premise and fail to live up - are legion! So I see the same flaws in shorter works, too often.

If a series has great characters, if they change over experiences, and if the plots turn and twist and surprise me and are not predictable - I will put up with the wait to get the ending.

I've been very faithful with series by C. J. Cherryh - she knows what she's doing, short or long, and always seems able to fascinate.

Guess I like to take em one by one, and not damn the lot by kneejerk judgment. It takes a huge amount of courage for an author to embark on a long work. There are no guarantees it will take, ahead of time, no guarantees the author's own state of mind will not mature, or change, in the course of it's writing, and absolutely no forgiveness with readers who pick it apart, in progress, forgetting that each book had to be published when complete, with not much chance to go back and amend in hindsight.

It's like any journey - the ending so often determines the experience. Midstream, any project, is always a tough spot to judge.

It seems to me that series were once a natural progression of a story. In recent years it has seemed that more and more often, the are, as someone here mentioned.. planned and padded in order to sell books. I don't mean to imply that this is always the case, but at times it appears to be.

I know you write series, Janny. I plan to commit to one of yours before long, as I liked the book of yours that I read. I need to feel like I have the time to commit though, because I am one that likes to read them straight through when possible.

I heard it said somewhere that LoTR was written as one big book and then the publisher divided it up in three books, to make it easier to sell... And - what is a series? Is a duology or trilogy a series? Is really Discworld a series, or is it a lot of books set in the same universe? I tend not to think of C.J. Cherryh's U/A books as a 'series' - yes, they're interconnected but you can read them in any order, or just one or two.

I think I only own three REAL series - the yet to be finished Foreigner series, by CJC of above; the Coq Rouge series, by swedish author Jan Guillou; and the Martin Beck books by swedish authors Sjöwall & Wahlöö.
(In my library are also the Wallander books, by Mankell (also swedish) but those belongs to my husband.)

Somehow I feel reading series is detrimental *tongue in cheek, OK?* You start to feel like you know the characters, and they threatens to take over your life. A good book is a book that either entertains /makes you feel good/ or one that starts you thinking. But some books starts you thinking not about issues or topics but about the characters and their comings and goings. This is a big "risk" with the good series. Just see what a lot conversation can be made over the Foreigner books (at least over at the Cherryh fan site)!
Time that could had been spent in other more productive ways (kicks my self in my behinds) ;-)

I have neither and aversion nor a love of series books - it really depends how good the writing/storytelling is. As always, my author cloud is heavily weighted towards the series that I have in my library because those authors tend to be prolific (although, to echo comments made above, not always of an equal quality!). For the most part, my series tend to lie in the 'Sci-Fi/Fantasy' genre, same as most people's I guess. I like these series because once a totally new world has been created (hopefully well), it's great to devote time to exploring it thoroughly. I have forced myself to give up on some series that went bad - particularly of note would be some of the crime series I started to read like the Scarpetta books and I ended up getting annoyed with myself for investing in new books just because they came out and having disappointing reading experiences! When I made the jump to stop buying them, it was liberating!

On the other hand, the slightly anal side of me loves series books because they all line up nicely in the bookcase and I can look along them and sigh happily. :)

I think Janny has nailed it. A great writer who can keep creating interesting plot twists while demonstrating his/her characters' growth is essential to a book series, in any genre. I think writing a series must be harder than writing a one-off book only because the author must be gifted enough to show that vital character growth while avoiding formulaic retreads.

I haven't found too many sci/fi or fantasy series that I enjoy rereading. I still enjoy TLOTR, of course; and I reread Bujold's Vorkosigan series every year. I pick through my Darkover books once every few years, as well as my Gate of Ivory series books. I remember loving Harry Harrison's West of Eden series when I first read it -- but I'm not as into science fiction/fantasy as I was when I was younger. Twenty years ago I adored C.J. Cherryh's Gate of Ivrel books, but I haven't reread them in years, though they're still on my shelves. I still enjoy Elizabeth Moon's Heris Serrano series (a trilogy).

I'm very frustrated that David Gerrold seems to have prematurely ended his The War Against the Chtorr books. Aaargh! I wanted to know what happens!

As far as non-s/f goes, I still treasure many series books: the always readable Nero Wolfe series by Rex Stout -- IMHO the master of crafting a well-written, consistently excellent series; the Travis McGee books by the late, great John D. MacDonald -- a tad formulaic, perhaps, but always a fun read; the wonderful Poldark saga by Winston Graham -- I often felt I knew the Poldark clan and their peers better than I knew my real-life neighbors; Lawrence Block's Matthew Scudder books; and all the early Robert B. Parker books -- both those about Spenser as well as Sunny Randall and Jesse Stone. (I must admit to being disappointed with the latest Parker offerings in those series, though.) On the same note, I loved the Robert K. Tanenbaum books about Butch Karp and his maverick wife, Marlene Ciampi -- though Tanenbaum's style changed DRASTICALLY in the past few years -- to the point where his latest books in that series don't at all read as if they were written by the same author. I have wondered if the loss of his partner, Michael Gruber, to whom every book in the series used to be dedicated or at least acknowledged, has had something to do with the change. And going way back to the 1940s, I still treasure and reread many of my Tommy Hambledon books, written by Manning Coles -- the writing duo who in real life actually were British intelligence agents.

Looking back at my list I realize that my favorite series books all have one thing in common -- they can each be read as stand-alones. To me, that is the litmus test of a truly good writer.

I see I've left out one of my very favorite series (hits self on head): Giovanni Guareschi's absolutely delightful Don Camillo books -- which are about an Italian priest in a 1950s small town on the bank of the Po River.

There are a few series I enjoy occasionally, and I make a point of requesting each new book in those series from the library -- but they're not as good, in my view, as the books listed above. I still enjoy the Dave Robicheaux thrillers by James Lee Burke, (though Robicheaux is just about as static a character as I've ever encountered), as well as the Alex Delaware series by Jonathan Kellerman; and I'll read every new Doc Ford book by Randy Wayne White though I may not end up buying it.

I dip occasionally into the continuing adventures of Kay Scarpetta, and less often, Kinsey Milhone (who, as far as I can see, hasn't changed much from the first alphabet book to the last), but I can only read one Stephanie Plum or Amelia Emerson book every few months. Both characters are so static they might just as well be set in concrete -- though Janet Evanovich and Elizabeth Peters can be wonderful pick-me-ups for the occasional attack of the "poor me's".

I don't know if I've contributed much to the discussion, but it was fun to mentally rate the series books I do own -- and to discover that there are far more of them than I realized.

I read one Janet Evanovich ( Eleven) and it was rather laugh out loud funny. For that reason, I may read another. I enjoy sci-fi and fantasy. I find myself reading less of these due to reluctance to commit to a series and being frustrated by a book that seems only partly finished if it is part of a series...sigh.

I guess it is a matter of finding the right author.

Although I've read all The Stephanie Plum books by Janet Evanovich, I think they also work as stand alones. You can read them without having read any of the previous books in the series. (Which is fortunate 'cos buying all fourteen of them at once might be quite pricey!)

David Gerrold frequently 'trails' his continuing books in the 'War Against the Chtorr' series... It must be 10 years since the last one was released though! But don't write it off just yet.

I always seem to be finding new series, and returning to old favorite series rather than favorite standalone novels when I need comfort reading. It's not intentional, particularly with the new authors, but it doesn't bother me :)

I do occasionally get frustrated with the number of series I find myself in the middle of reading at any given time; even though I finish individual books, I never get that real sense of accomplishment until the whole lot has been read.

I'd say that I don't read many series, except I just made a blog page to keep track of where on earth I am with series.

And that's not counting the series starters I have lying around to be read! I seem to be a sucker for the very long series, though.

Series are a lot more fun when all the books are easily available. I have a few where many (most/all/some) of the books are out of print. That's frustrating.

I like series for the prolonged time I can spend with favourite/beloved characters and don't mind waiting for new books to be published. (Well, not terribly long anyway and I get worse the closer to the publication date it gets.)

I share your opinion Shanra.

I prefer series above standalones. Why? Mostly because of the characters. If a character interests me, I want to read more of that character, see how he/she develops, etc. With standalones, I'm frustrated at the end of the book because I want to read/know more, but there isn't any.

And while the wait for the next installment in a series can be tedious, it is always wonderful to reacquaint yourself with your favourite characters once it comes out.

#40 "except I just made a blog page to keep track of where on earth I am with series."

Tim's just added the checkmark, "you own this" to the series pages, including the comprehensive one on your profile. (don't forget the 'all books' link) This might be quicker than looking all the info up on your own. Although there are a lot of less useful series' on the page too.

If I like the first book I usually love the series. There have been a few that it was all I could do to get through the first book. I've also found a few that the 2nd book dropped the ball.

If it's a series with a great ongoing story, like Harry Potter, I love it. I look forward to the next book and am excited when the next one finally comes out. The same is true of a series of stories that feature a great character, like the Precious Ramotswe detective stories, or the Jack Reacher thrillers.

Sometimes it can be frustrating. Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series became quite bloated, ballooning past a dozen lengthy books and still counting (he passed away, but it will be finished by Brandon Sanderson). The series was so successful that I'm sure no editor dared bring some sanity, and cutting, to it.

#42, it sounds interesting, but impractical for my uses, since I don't need something that tells me if I own the book or not. I need(ed) something to see/show which books I've read.

Yes, as long as I like the story then I am happy to read series. In fact, I often feel distressed when I really get into a stand alone story and wish there was a series so I could continue to hang out with the characters.

I generally enjoy series, but sometimes they seem to go on longer than the author is really interested in the characters. I suspect firm contracts.