Fantasy Book Club discussion

Hi fellas. I was thinking about something so I thought I should ask - how do you feel about stand-alone books? Most of us don't like starting unfinished trilogies and series because who knows when they'll be finished and whether we won't have to just leave them. But how about stand-alone books, even if they are still a part of a larger (possibly unfinished) world?

Do you view them as a chance to quickly read something new and refreshing without the obligation to read 1000+ more pages to find out what happens, or do you view them as a waste of time if they are not part of a bigger storyline?

While in theory I do love the idea of a standalone, in practice I don't think I've read very many of them. The standard practice in fantasy is still the trilogy, and I have a hard time finding standalones I'm interested in.

Well, two of the best books I've read this year have been standalones -- The Goblin Emperor and American Elsewhere.

I agree with both those picks, actually!

Though I'm tempted to agree with Celine that, while i like standalone books, I read very few of them in comparison to series.

I feel that the authors of these seemingly endless series novels, does not have anything to say, so they just go on and on and on from one hanging climax to the next. I am a big fan of one volume stories.

I like stand-alones just fine. I also like it when they turn out to be part of a larger world

I probably prefer standalones over series tbh, but they are few and far between. I usually end up reading in series anyway.

Stand alone books are great! I don't even see there's an issue here. Also the work of many great authors whose books appear as a series - let's take Terry Pratchet's Discworld as an example (one of my favourite authors) - can be read as stand alone's. You don't need to read them all.

I like the stand alone as well. I don't mind getting involved in a series if it's really good, but the stand alone is always short and sweet.

Brandon wrote: "I like the stand alone as well. I don't mind getting involved in a series if it's really good, but the stand alone is always short and sweet."

I agree. There's something satisfying about reading a stand a lone. The book in front of you is the journey you're taking! I like that.

Series are cool too. It's great to pick up on a new author you like and know there's another book waiting out there when you're ready for it.

That's how I feel, Stephen. I don't necessarily need the same plot or characters. If the author knows what the hell he or she is doing, I don't care what kind of book it is. Lay it on me.

I usually prefer short series (2, 3, or 4 books). If it's a world and characters I enjoy, I want more than one book. On the other hand, I don't have the patience for long series that go on and on and on. The only really long series I'm into is the Malazan Book of the Fallen, which has so far held my interest over 5 books (and the really good thing about it is it's finished! So no waiting decades of my life to find out what happens.) But if a standalone tells a really satisfying and well-filled-out story, I like that too.

What I don't like, whether it's a standalone or a series that goes into double digits, is padding and an ending that doesn't fit with the rest of the story. Those are the things that, whether the book is short or long, make me feel like I've wasted my time.

I love stand alone books the most! (after manga and short stories)
I have a deep respect for authors that can write a stand alone book.

I avoid series as much as I can, but if it happens I'm interested in the series, I'll first read the last book released, or some in the middle. I rarely read the 1st book in any series anyway

@Lara: Hm, that's interesting. I don't think I've heard of someone starting a series from the middle/end before. :)

Yordan wrote: "Hi fellas. I was thinking about something so I thought I should ask - how do you feel about stand-alone books? Most of us don't like starting unfinished trilogies and series because who knows when ..."

At the rate with which publishing industry is going. Especially fantasy, I will take any standalone just to not spend hours agonizing over the next book release.

I like stand alone but it does feel short. Which gives this feeling there should be more! Depends on what youre used to reading really..

I quite like them, provided they're well done. It's nice sometimes to know that the story is finished and you won't be waiting years and years (possibly decades) for it to finish.

I like standalones. On top of knowing you won't be left hanging, in some ways a series is too long to have a nice shape.

I really like standalones. I prefer standalones and short series (trilogies) best. More than that and I start to give the author the side eye: how much of my time do they think should be allocated only to them??

I do make exceptions - we all have to in order to stay fantasy readers - but I've noticed that as the number of books in series goes up I have cut back on my fantasy reading in favor of romances. I really like resolution and I don't really get much of it any more.

Hay fellas, thanks for the input! I recently wrote a blog post on the subject - largely thanks to your opinions - and today I finally translated it into English:
http://yzfantasy.com/2900/long-fantas...
Cheers!

Hey just like to say I enjoyed your blog deffintly somthing to think about

Yordan wrote: "Hay fellas, thanks for the input! I recently wrote a blog post on the subject - largely thanks to your opinions - and today I finally translated it into English:
http://yzfantasy.com/2900/long-fant..."

I liked your blog. What do I think? A good storyteller tells his story in the appropriate format. The genre should make no difference. If that means a stand-alone (my favourite) that's great. If it needs to be a trilogy, that's great too. However, personally, I feel cheated by books that simply end on a cliffhanger and stretch the story into an additional three or more volumes. Readers invest a lot of valuable time in the books they read and deserve a well rounded payoff!

Tough question!

It doesn't turn me off completely, but it is a big disappointment when the book is so good, that you want to read more, yet the author has confirmed they won't be extending the standalone. It is their choice though to do what they want with their story, I don't fault them for that or get snobby.

I do feel it is unfair to look the other way, to favour a trilogy or epic saga over a one-off, so I give them a chance. I tend to look at the author's attitude first.

I love standalones. To me they make the best vacation reads. When one finishes then their finished. With series' one feels compelled to immediately start the next one. Especially if it's good.

Wolfrott wrote: "Tough question!

It doesn't turn me off completely, but it is a big disappointment when the book is so good, that you want to read more, yet the author has confirmed they won't be extending the sta..."

Ah, but consider how disappointing some extensions are.

Mary wrote: "Wolfrott wrote: "Tough question!

It doesn't turn me off completely, but it is a big disappointment when the book is so good, that you want to read more, yet the author has confirmed they won't be ..."


True. Kate Danley's The Woodcutter began okay, I had to put it down halfway because it just got dull and 'made up as she goes along' It became popular enough for fans to plague her with questions for a sequel or a trilogy, but she insisted she's not continuing it, so that was also a big buzzkill for me.

I like standalones, but have read very few in the fantasy genre except of Neil Gaiman. I've added those two recommendations by Joseph to my TBR as they do sound interesting.

I do find a tend to read more series books. For series I prefer them to be trilogies. I just love the view (in my mind anyway). The first book sets the scene for what is to come and we meet the characters. Plus world building is going on. Book #2 is full on action and Book #3 brings all the strands of the story together.

I find if a series goes beyond five books I tend to get series fatigue. This is so true for urban fantasy. I've abandon a lot of urban fantasy series.

It's been observed as long ago as Aristotle that a story is worse for being longer if you can't keep it together as a whole.

“There is nothing an author today has to guard himself more carefully against than the Saga Habit. The least slackening of vigilance and the thing has gripped him.”

― P.G. Wodehouse

Mary wrote: "“There is nothing an author today has to guard himself more carefully against than the Saga Habit. The least slackening of vigilance and the thing has gripped him.”

― P.G. Wodehouse"

Great quotes Mary!

Personally, I think a book is a book, and can be enjoyable whether or not its a standalone or part of a larger series - I think overall quality is what counts. 100 words well written are better than 100k words of nothing.

Some genres lend themselves to series better than others. When an author thoroughly creates their own world they will want to explore so many assets of it that a series makes sense. Contemporary settings don't often have this characteristic. There is a big difference between a series and a big story. Robert E. Howard's Conan stories are a series of stories. A Song of Ice and Fire is one huge story.

The sword-and-sorcery genre was rather more episodic than the currently popular epic fantasy. For one thing, the story stakes were smaller, so it made more sense for similar problems to arise. For another, the hero was more often an adventurer who would seek out danger wherever he found it.

I love books from series that can be read individually. That way you have the option to continue or not and you don't feel like your left hanging. This list https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/8... has such type of books.

The fun thing is that a series that starts out episodic often develops continuiyt.

I've been reading series for as long as I've been reading SF&F. Probably my first was the old Tom Swift Jr. series. No real overarching plot, but a couple dozen sequels. After that it was Burroughs Mars, Venus and Pelucidar books. I still enjoy a good series, if done right it gives the author lots of time for world building and character development. I still read stand alone novels when one catches my interest, but like some others have said most of my reading is series these days.

Stand alone books have advantages as well as disadvantages. But overall I like them. I didn't think there would be so many stand alone fantasy books!

My personal favourite is Tigana which is very well written. Great story, characters and GGK manages to wrap things up without a need for sequels.

Anirudh wrote: "Stand alone books have advantages as well as disadvantages. But overall I like them. I didn't think there would be so many stand alone fantasy books!

My personal favourite is Tigana ..."

I have to agree Tigana was a great read. I also recommend Talion: Revenant by Michael Stackpole. Really good story.

Michael wrote: "After that it was Burroughs Mars, Venus and Pelucidar books.."

One notes that Burroughs switched protagonists there, That's one way to keep a series fresh.

@Tnkw01 thanks, will check it out

I love when an author continues a series, especially when the characters are well loved.

Lately however, I have been wishing for more stand alone books. I've fallen so far behind on my favorites, that I spend more time rereading books more often than reading something new. I feel my self hesitate to try newer authors (to me), because of series so long...8 plus books. Robin Hobb's style of writing in trilogies (mostly), helps make it more feasible. Even at that, I've been having trouble lately. :/

Brenda, you really hit the nail on the head. I have a hard time with books that pretty much go past a trilogy. For me the only exception was the Dresden Files (and maybe a couple of others that don't come to mind right now). Anyway, it's good to know I'm not the only one.

My exception is The Stormlight Archives.
Even Sanderson's other books have not been finished on my shelves. Course he is nowhere near done.
; )

I actually have one series I´m following now and that´s Scott Lynch´s The Gentleman Bastard.

I bought The Lies of Locke Lamora simply because I wanted to buy something and was really positively surprised when I realised I want to read more, so I bought book 2 and 3 the month after and wasn´t disappointed in the slightest.

Can´t wait for the 4th one to come out!

If want to read thriller then I prefer standalone books, but in fantasy genre I prefer series.

I love both standalone books and larger series. Both have a time and place. Though I will say I more often pick up a standalone than a book in a series for a couple reasons. The first is that with multiple series already on the burner I sometimes finding it daunting to start another without finishing a previous one (I like to have 2 maybe three series going at most at a time). The other reason, is that with a new author that I am unfamiliar with I am more willing to devote a couple weeks to a book to test their works than several months to decide if I like them or not. And with a series it can be tough to gauge especially. Some series pick up pace nearer the end, and the first book is more of an intro, while in others the series loses steam near the end, maybe because the author tired of writing it or because the need for a hook is less prevalent in the third book than it would be in the first.

I prefer reading stand alone or novels set in the same universe but not strictly part of a series.

I think part of it is down to having so many books to read, id rather flit between scifi & fantasy than be stuck reading 6 books of harry potter in a go.

Also due to past poor health my memory sucks so sometimes i have to go back and read wikipedia on a book i maybe read a few months back.

I rarely read stand alone books. For me, the most enjoyable aspect of reading is getting invested in the characters. If I find characters that I really enjoy, it's disappointing to only have one book about them.

With a trilogy or short series, the characters that I love just might show up in a couple more books. That'll give me a chance to read even more about their adventures, and that makes me happy.

That being said, I'm typically not a fan of a series that span more than five or six books. After a certain point I just start to lose interest and need to turn my attention to something totally different.

I love a good stand alone book but there's few of them in the fantasy genre. I do tend to love trilogies and series more, since in general the world building and character development are far more extensive.

However, four favourite stand alone fantasy novels that I love and reread are:

Tigana - Guy Gavriel Kay
Good Omens - Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman
Elantris - Brandon Sanderson
Warbreaker - Brandon Sanderson

And of course most Terry Pratchett Discworld books are stand alone for all practical purposes.

Also love some of Stephen King's supernatural horror stand alone novels such as The Shining, IT, Pet Semetary, and some of his short stories and novellas are excellent.

Ditto for George RR Martin, several of his short stories / novellas are fantastic stand alone stories.

Jingizu wrote: "I love a good stand alone book but there's few of them in the fantasy genre. I do tend to love trilogies and series more, since in general the world building and character development are far more ..."

Pet Sematary does have a movie sequel.

Also King did come out with a sequel to The Shining 2 and half years ago called Doctor Sleep, if you did not know.