When is one book enough?

[iansales]

I've only read Altered Carbon, although the rest are on my to be read list. And I've heard that Black Man is excellent.

[Connavar]

About Altered Corben is it as Noir like as they say? I love noir and SF so the combo sounds interesting.

[iansales]

Yes, it is.

[Vladd67]

I don't mind a series of books say about the same characters, but as long as each book is a complete story and it doesn't matter too much if you had read the other books or not. What does irritate me is the series of books that is one long story split between multiple books and unless you read it from book one you don't really know what is happening. I accept that W.O.T was an extreme example but after a while I really didnt care what happened to these people. I thought getting 1 to 9 was the set but the other day I saw book 11 how long did he drag this story out, and can anyone point him in the direction of a good editor.

[High Eight]

Michael Scott Rohan's 'Spiral' books.

Chase the Morning was utterly wonderful, the second one limped along but was at least readable, if unmemorable (I've even forgotten the title). Cloud Castles went in ever-decreasing circles and vanished up it's own behind the moment poor old King Arthur was brought on like some sad old variety act that had long outlived it's relevance. I didn't bother with the fourth (and mercifully last) in the series.

[chrispenycate]

As far as I can tell, this thread is mixing (with no particular organisation) a number of quite separate subjects.
Multivolume works (where a single story is too big to fit into one book, and minimum effort made to cover the joins. (Lord of the rings)
Planned series, where each book tells a story, but characters and environments carry over (Honor Harington)
Spinoff series, in an established universe, using different characters (sometimes not by the original author)(Saganami, with the precedent)
Developing series, where the author wrote the first book leaving enough loose ends that, when it sold, there could be later volumes (Dune)
Sequels, where an author is persuded to go on writing after a story (or series) has had its loose end tied up (Dragonriders of Pern)
Multiple stories told in a developing, growing universe, which may have common characters, but whose only necessary consistancy is that they not contradict each other (Known space)
Convenient universe stories, using a setting and occasionally characters to tell a number of different stories wthout building from scratch, frequently written by fans as well as the original author (Valdemar)
Fexible universe stories, where consistancy is not required, and an occasional contradiction is par for the course, which can generally be read in just about any order (Discworld)
Any of these (even the fan-written ones) can turn out good books; or fail to. It's not because a series was meticulously pepared from the start that it's going to maintain it's original quality. But the differentsituations have different pitfalls, and should not be judged by the same criteria.

[JDP]

Wow, that's a pretty comprehensive breakdown, eh? Great stuff.

[Vladd67]

Just one thing Chrispenycate Lord of the Rings was written as one book not three.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Vladd67

Just one thing Chrispenycate Lord of the Rings was written as one book not three.

Yes... if Tolkien had had his way, it would have been published either altogether or in seven volumes (one for each book, plus one for the appendices). Essentially, it's like those sprawling triple-decker Gothic novels in many ways; but it is a single novel, not intended as a multiple-novel tale...

[Anastasia]

I agree. There are very few sequels I've ever enjoyed and an awful lot of writers these days who seem to find a formula and just write a dozen books to that formula, churning them out year after year, like baked beans.

The best authors in my experience, don't do this. They might come up with a new book less often, but when they do, it's nothing like the previous book. I don't mind the occasional series, but really, its getting to the point when my children read a book and immediately look around for the next in the series. When I saw "That's the only book", they look confused, like the author must have been nuts or something.

[manephelien]

If you've gone to the effort of building a world, why not reuse it?

I particularly like works, where the author revisits the world, but in a different era or setting, certainly with different characters. A good example of this is Elizabeth A. Lynn's Chronicles of Tornor trilogy, where earlier events are seen as history or even myth in later works, and treated as such.

[areader]

Er, as far as I know Tolkien's LOTR was published as separate books due to economy factors/paper and cost. Ultimately an affordable book is what is needed. Some multiple book series are now being released in the same way as a complete book and this can be nice. Wheel of time is probably due for some brave and expensive compilation for those who would buy it. I'm probably going to read it out of order.

Personally I like prolific writers and as I read quickly I launched into Terry Pratchett 6 months ago and am now up to date with over 30 of his books.

I don't feel the need to read volumes in order if I can't obtain them that way. If its a great series I'll reread them in the correct order, but its not essential. I read through Pratchett and Feist that way and it was all fine.

An example of this is the debate over which order to read the Narnia books in. It doesn't really matter. Readers can cope with being told things in non-chronological order..though sometimes its a spoiler it does give you a different story altogether and is fun to do when rereading.

Somehow I think e-reading might become less clunky eventually...and carrying around a library in your hand sounds brilliant to me...less need for bookshelf space and the ability to get books in the order that you want them as downloads. Volume chasing might be nostalgia oneday so I'm somewhat philosophical about it. Part of the fun of collecting and reading...if I like stories you can immerse in for a looong time then the logistics are preferable to the alternative. A good story is still a good story, even if read differently. Which doesn't mean that a stand alone isn't a great relief every now and then.

[TK-421]

One book is enough when the author is named either Robert Jordan or Terry Goodkind.

[ironvelvet]

I appreciate that alot of fantasy and SF is about boys and their toys but could I suggest that sometimes a series of books allows for character development and a move away from the 'ring, go fetch' routine at the heart of some (nameless!) classics. Of course the 'ring, go fetch - long way around' stable has alot to answer for and Robert Jordon should feel nervous walking any dark street......