It's beginning to feel like a soap-opera

[BlackoutNights]

I swear to whatever beings there are, sometimes I think the way Lord of the Rings was divided has hurt the fantasy genre. Does EVERY blasted story have to be a part of a series?

Other than the ones I've already started. I'm done reading series unless they've been completed. That makes finding new books in the genre more difficult. Doesn't anyone write stand-alone novels in this genre anymore?

I'll cut some slack to the stand-alone stories have also have other books containing the same characters telling a different story, but c'mon. It's beginning to feel like the genre's becoming a damn soap-opera.

[erazmus]

It has, mostly. I can't help with the book search, not for anything like current writers.

Mike

[SJHigbee]

I have a LOT of sympathy with your point. (Was wondering why you didn't post this under GRIPE, by the way... Might have elicited a bit more reaction if you had!). As a reader, not only do I get more than a bit fed up with the long time-lag between instalments - but there are cases where it stretches... and stretches... Patrick Rothfuss and 'Wise Man's Fear' being a case in point.

But the other grizzle I've got with all these 'episodes', is that while some authors are fairly slick in how they continue with the story, making allowances for those of us who can't or don't read the books in order - there are a whole bunch of them out there who really spoil what should be an excellent read by a lot of clumsy repetition - or (more commonly) giving a very desultory intro to keynote characters whom we're supposed to bond with and care about. If you've read any of my reviews (I've written one or three for SFReader) you'll know that it's become a major peeve of mine!

[alrobe]

I've have been looking for some stand alone fantasy novels as well. It isn't easy. I did enjoy Elantris by Brandon Sanderson. But it seems like he just used it to get his foot in the door, so that he could write his epic The Way of Kings. Which he is guessing will be ten books long.

[David J. West]

I am at a loss to think of a recent standalone I could heartily recommend. Even sort-of standalones like Abercrombies Best Served Cold are better if you read the First Law Trilogy that came before, it isn't necessary but it does make it better.

Glancing over my library for relativly recent fantasies...

Alex Bledsoe's Noir fantasies - Sword-Edged Blonde and Burn Me Deadly are standalones dealing with the same character, you can read them out of order just fine-I am 99% positive the upcoming third novel with the main character Eddie LaCrosse will be the earliest book chronologically.

For myself, I am working on a standalone fantasy right now...BUT...IF I can sell it to a major pub and they ask for a sequel or to turn it into a trilogy I guarantee I will do it. I'll try to keep the story-arc contained in one book (no cliffhangers) but still...

[SJHigbee]

Yes... That's the rub, isn't it? Although I'm not inherently against series - I just wish some authors were more caring of their readership to a) not spoil their stories by assuming that everyone has read Books 1 & 2, when settling down to write Book 3 b) if they start a series, have the common decency to finish it - or refrain from putting it 'out there' until they've got a couple of volumes under their belt if they are slow writers.

[crystalwizard]

Would you guys rather have a 700,000 word book or 7 books of 100,000 words each? Some stories can't be told in only 50K words. or only 140K words.

That's the main reason that you find a series of books that are multiple volumes but only one story.

If you don't want to deal with that, then don't read a series. Read a set of sequels. In sequels, they're all designed to stand along. In a series, you have one story, one book, that has for convenience sake been cut up into multiple volumes.

[Richard H. Fay]

How about one book of 150,000 words? I think some stories could be told in many fewer words than some authors use. I think some authors extend the story too far.

I love The Lord of the Rings, but I don't know if I would read many more novels stretched out to three or more books. It can get tedious after a while.

I read Tad Williams's Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn trilogy. It was a tedious read after a while. The last book in that was actually split in two, if I recall correctly. In my opinion, that was a bit too long.

I always thought sequels that could just stand-alone would be a smarter way to go about it, but that's just my opinion.

[crystalwizard]

>I think some authors extend the story too far.

sure, in some cases. in others, they don't extend it enough.

You can always cut any story down to one sentence if you want to. It all depends on how much detail you want to include, how much adventure or romance, how much...

it also depends on your target audience. If your audience is the type that wants to be able to finish a book in a couple of hours, you don't make it very long. If they want to spend a few weeks reading it, however, they're going to prefer the really thick books -and yes there are a lot of people that DO want books that are well over 150K and do want to take a long time to read and explore a lot of details.

[Richard H. Fay]

I don't know if this is still true, since I haven't read a lot of the most recent fantasy stuff out there, but I know fantasy was getting overly-bloated about fifteen years ago or so. There was one extremely thick tome by Dennis L. McKiernan (either Dragondoom or The Eye of the Hunter) that I read that I remember thinking was way too long, and way too dull. It was a single volume, but it wasn't nearly as engrossing as The Lord of the Rings. Not to mention, it was rather depressing.

The trick about details is to make them interesting or meaningful. Sure, what is actually interesting or meaningful can be different things to different people, but more and more details don't necessarily make a book better. Sometimes, they just make it drag.

[SJHigbee]

CW makes a very valid point - and maybe in this world of constantly shrinking info-bytes, twitters, micro fiction - the looonger, more leisurely approach that many Fantasy writers adopt is filling a much-needed gap in the market. Maybe readers keep returning to this genre BECAUSE the worlds are built over a longer period of time, with the necessary detail and characterisation - and done well, it certainly hits ALL my buttons... Robin Hobb and Jim Butcher leap to mind as a couple of my current favourite fantasy authors.

My particular grizzle was with the authors who start a story arc over a series of books - and then don't finish it. Or botch the admittedly tricky business of stitching the volumes together so that you can pick up a book in mid-series without floundering.

[John M. Whalen]

I suppose its the law of supply and demand. Publishers are publishing multi-volume series because fantasy readers want them. Simple as that.

[Project Corvus]

I'm afraid I don't understand this whole line of reasoning.

You are looking for a book that you will enjoy, but would not be interested in reading more of?


I would think that publication of subsequent books in a series is not just because the author wants it that way, but because readers want it that way.

[Richard H. Fay]

I'm afraid I don't understand this whole line of reasoning.

You are looking for a book that you will enjoy, but would not be interested in reading more of?


I would think that publication of subsequent books in a series is not just because the author wants it that way, but because readers want it that way.

Some people may not have all the time in the world. Some poeple may not have the time to slog through an additional two or three volumes of 400 or more pages to find out what happens in a particular storyline. Others may have the time to spend slogging through a 1,200 page epic.

I guess it could be a matter of priorities.

I guess, following some of the reasoning here, fantasy readers have quite a bit of time on their hands.

[erazmus]

Unfortunately I think it all boils down to accounting and marketing. Risk adversity on the part of the publishers has them looking for ways to hedge their bets, on any given book as well as with every line of books. That is why its always been very hard to get placed as a new author, that is why even established authors have a hard time changing what they do. It costs just as much to acquire a single book as it does the first book in a new series, cost just as much no matter the level of the writer. It costs more to promote a stand alone than it does the second and subsequent volumes of a series, because a series builds on the previous sales of the set. There is less risk in a series, because you can always bail out if its not selling well.
A first time novelist is already a big risk, adding a stand alone with no automatic buy-in on the reader's part to any subsequent book is, for many publishers, too much risk. They have to at least have an option on a series.
Of course this is because those publishers, and to an extent this is all publishers, are not run by editors, or even marketeers or the titular publishers, but by accountants. Its hard to go into a corporate meeting and defend a book line without numbers to explain your actions. Of course, some books fail and some do well, always. Corporations and their leaders want to see not just success instead of failure but proof that every success was maximized for exploitation and every failure properly hedged. With a series even moderate success can be repeated, while a good stand alone has less of a chance of an equally good follow on. Readers don't come into it except as a statistic, books don't come into it except as packages catering to niches and trends.
Its too bad, because most real, lasting success for individual writers has been built on excellent, stand alone novels. Historically, that is. Not that corporations or accountants care what may have been going on five or ten years ago, let alone fifty years ago. Trends over the last five quarters is about their limit. So naturally they think that series, about vampires in the case of fiction, is the most logical thing to publish. Followed by series about wizards, series about . . .you get it. The goal is to get a series that has hooked a huge number of readers who will just have to buy the next book, and the next and so on.
They really and truly are not looking for the classic stand alone novel that will sell and keep selling for decades. they are less definable and in the end, less profitable than a series that manages to do the same thing. They even package successful stand-alone writers as if they were serial novelists, which is why consistent best sellers often get similar cover treatments on unrelated novels.
Of course, an awful lot of writers made good by writing the same book over and over, to the delight of their devoted readers, as well as their publishers. Louis L'Amour, V. C. Andrews, (I'll keep it to two) for example, seem to tell the same story over and over, producing great sales and a following, just like any series of books tries to. Even if the books are unconnected otherwise, they share commonality of plot and execution, which is enough to satisfy the writers fans. This is a lot more common that we readers like to admit.
If I'm enjoying a story, I don't really need it to go on and on forever, but if I am captivated by the characters and world building I think it natural for me to want more. I want to know what happens next, or what happened to X character. Heck I'm hooked on David Weber's Honor Harrington series, I may never tire of it and it is now well past where David intended to end it originally.
But I've seldom been stunned by the excellence of any single volume of a series. (Lois Bujold's "The Borders of Infinity" is the exception.) The self-contained, stand alone novel is still the prize cow of writing, done best it is the top, as good as you can get.

Mike

[BlackoutNights]

Thanks for the pointers folks. For the time being, I've decided to stick with short story anthologies unless I spot something that looks promising.

Heck, I'll probably read Lucifer's Hammer again too.

Unfortunately I think it all boils down to accounting and marketing. Risk adversity on the part of the publishers has them looking for ways to hedge their bets...Corporations and their leaders want to see not just success instead of failure but proof that every success was maximized for exploitation and every failure properly hedged. With a series even moderate success can be repeated, while a good stand alone has less of a chance of an equally good follow on. Readers don't come into it except as a statistic, books don't come into it except as packages catering to niches and trends.
Its too bad, because most real, lasting success for individual writers has been built on excellent, stand alone novels. Historically, that is. Not that corporations or accountants care what may have been going on five or ten years ago, let alone fifty years ago. Trends over the last five quarters is about their limit. So naturally they think that series, about vampires in the case of fiction, is the most logical thing to publish. Followed by series about wizards, series about . . .you get it. The goal is to get a series that has hooked a huge number of readers who will just have to buy the next book, and the next and so on.
...
If I'm enjoying a story, I don't really need it to go on and on forever, but if I am captivated by the characters and world building I think it natural for me to want more. I want to know what happens next, or what happened to X character. Heck I'm hooked on David Weber's Honor Harrington series, I may never tire of it and it is now well past where David intended to end it originally.
...
The self-contained, stand alone novel is still the prize cow of writing, done best it is the top, as good as you can get.

Mike

Great post, Mike. Puts my rant into more logical terms. Love that last sentence. "The self-contained, stand alone novel is still the prize cow of writing, done best it is the top, as good as you can get."

Unfortunately, nowadays that great stand-alone story becomes this..... great story = lots of fans = more money = bludgeon it to death

[Ramon Rozas]

I've adopted the same rule - I don't start multi-volume series unless they are already done.

My biggest disappointment in this area was Tony Daniel's Metaplanetary (1st Volume) and Superluminal (2nd Volume). Although they were excellent books and I was really looking forward to No. 3 (and the conclusion), apparently they didnt sell well and Eos canceled the series. Aargh!

Oh and to the OP - if you like Lucifer's Hammer, you'll LOVE Footfall.

[BlackoutNights]

Oh and to the OP - if you like Lucifer's Hammer, you'll LOVE Footfall.

Wow! I was unaware Niven and Pournelle had written anything else! Seems to be a stand-alone also. (rushes to bookstore)

[TRtheJ]

I find this series trend tends to help save me from buying tons of more books. I go to the book shop, a cover (the art) catches my eye and upon picking the tome up I see "Book 2 of..." and back on the shelf it goes. Two reasons: 1) Never is "Book 1 of..." there; 2) I just don't have the time to plow through who knows how many 500 plus page books, being left with a "?" per book.

I have bought a Book 1 before, not marked as such, and read its 500 plus pages. More, trudged through it, as, agreeing with Richard, it was so full of filler to up the word count it truly was...well, sad. A good 45 to 50,000 word story buried in 80,000 plus.

But it seems that's the state of the business...

[SJHigbee]

I do find our public library a real help. Now that I can order books from all over the county, I can maximise the choice of fantasy & science fiction - and so far (I'm expecting the policy to change in these harsh, cash-strapped times...) if they stock any part of a series, the library undertakes the buy the rest of it...