Series or Stand-alone?

[rkvincent]

I’ve been getting a lot of reader mail lately about Pride. (Which is out, now, btw. Forgot to mention that earlier.) More than I got with either of my previous two releases, which is awesome (and good for the faltering ego). And I’ve noticed a pattern with these messages: everyone wants the next one. Now.

This may have something to do with the

Comments

[eldestmuse]

I hate feeling unsatisfied at the end of the book. I do like "threads" that carry over from one book to the next. A book should have a coherant plot arc, with a beginning and an end that don't leave a reader hanging, but elements can and should pop up later in the series.

I think the Dresden Files is one of the best examples for this -- the fallen angel in his head is there, and the resolution of that arc takes several books, but at the end of a particular book you're never left feeling like you were gyp'd out of "a" whole story.

[rkvincent]

I agree. You definitely want to complete the main plot in any one book. But you're okay with subplots being carried over?

[eldestmuse]

It depends on what you define subplot as

[ewokallie]

I totally agree with you. Do not like it when they end the book with the massive plot being carried on. Sucks. I also feel they don't need to do that for me to buy the next book. Jim Butcher is a perfect example. Charalaine Harris is also another.

[kimberly_frost]

I love fantasy and mystery series. It's fun to follow characters book after book. They become like friends.

Since the point of a romance is for the characters to get together and live happily ever after, most of the time, the main characters from one book can only put in cameos in future books, but I like that as well. It feels like there's a little community of players.

[rkvincent]

But does your eagerness for the next romance by an author build as strongly as for the next book in a series that has left open questions?

I'm trying to decided whether I want to try a stand-alone in my werecat world, and I'm afraid readers might not be as eager for it. What do you think?

[kimberly_frost]

I have more authors on auto-buy that write series than those who write stand-alones, so my vote is for you to do a series.

The only thing that I'll add is that I believe that every book in the series must have a satisfying ending. I don't like reading hundreds of pages and finding that the ending is a "To Be Continued" cliff-hanger. And actually one of my friends said that she stopped reading one of her favorite authors because the author had a habit of ending the last chapter of her books with a hook for the next book in the series. It left my friend unsatisfied and made her furious.

Does that help?

[edgyauthor]

I adore series; it's actually harder for me to get into a book if I know it's a stand-alone. Besides getting attached to characters, I'm simply addicted to overarching plots and cliffhangers (especially of the WTH?! variety). I write the same way most of the time, so if I'm ever published, readers will probably smack me over the head with my own books for answers. XD

[rkvincent]

Based on what I've heard from readers, most people tend to prefer that only minor threads or character conflicts be carried over from one book to the next, rather than major plot points. Would you agree with that? Or do you prefer being tortured by what you don't know? ;-)

[edgyauthor]

I like both forms of torture, although unresolved major plot points are a guilty pleasure of mine, I must admit. The not-knowing is just so much fun!

...Yeah, I'm weird. :P

[megancrewe]

I can't comment as a writer *yet* (since my first book hasn't even come out yet), but as a reader...

I tend to prefer stand-alones. Mostly because trilogies and series tend to disappoint me. I'm always eager to read more about characters and worlds I've come to love, but way more often than not I find that the quality (IMHO) of the plots and sometimes the writing declines sharply after the first book. I like books with strong plot and character arcs that resolve within the one book, and I find that trilogies often drop the ball in the middle book, and series often become episodic and repetitive.

But that's all about my personal quirks and preferences as a reader (and I am a pretty picky reader). :) I have trouble getting really into any TV series for the same reason, if you think of each season as a "book".

[rkvincent]

Interesting. So you've been burned by several disappointing series. Do you ever have the same problem with consecutive stand-alone novels by the same author?

[megancrewe]

Well, it's not just that I've been burned (though that's definitely part of it), but also that the way series tend to be structured isn't to my tastes (the episodic thing rather than strong, separate arcs--which is totally understandable, I just don't find it as appealing as a reader).

But anyway, I'm burned a lot less often by authors who write stand-alones. There are few authors where I can say I like everything they've ever written, but if I love one stand-alone book by an author I usually enjoy the next book I pick up on them--and sometimes I love it even more. I guess the sorts of things I like in stand-alones are skills that transfer pretty easily to another stand-alone.

[winters_queen]

I read both and don't mind either twists and turns a book may take.