Books
Group avatar

Science Fiction

Science fiction includes such a wide range of themes and sub-genres that it is notoriously difficult to define. This is a list of definitions that have been offered by authors, editors, critics and fans over the years since science fiction became clearly separate from other genres. Definitions of related terms such as "science fantasy",...more »
  • Category: Genres | Started February 2007

« more discussions

  • Kevin H

    Series or Stand Alone Novel?

    Save Changes Cancel
    Which would you rather read? It's almost impossible to find a fantasy book, these days, that's not part of a series, and
    science-ficition seems to be heading in the same direction. I understand that, for the writer, that's where the money is,
    creating interesting characters and worlds that the reader wants to return to again and again.
    Kevin H started this discussion 1 year ago. ( reply | permalink )

48

replies
expand replies 
Sign in to participate in this discussion.
  • Mark W. Tiedemann
    Save Changes Cancel

    It's interesting. 40 years ago I could devour series SF. Over the last couple of decades, I just can't. Not open-ended. Trilogies stretch my patience (even though I'm in the middle of writing one!) and I find my favorite authors do stand-alone or at least stand-alone-like novels. Love Iain M. Banks Culture novels. It's only a series in that the background universe is the same, but they're all stand-alones otherwise.

    BUT.

    I've found myself chewing through mystery and detective series like candy the last few years. I have no idea what the difference is on a practical level. Philosophically, it may be that in SF, where the Idea is supposed to rule, once an interesting idea is worked through, there's not enough left to hold me to those characters, and I want a new background and new characters for the next cool idea. In mystery, the idea is always pretty much the same, it's the psychology of each murder that drives it, and in that sense with each novel we have a new set of characters in the victims and killers, etc.

    Dunno.

    posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    show 4 replies
    • mark s
      Save Changes Cancel

      :) its just a change of pace;) Maybe it comes from writing SF yourself? BTW Dangerous intersections seemed to be down the other day.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • Mark W. Tiedemann
      Save Changes Cancel

      Possibly. In fact, likely.

      Dangerous Intersections is back up now. I didn't notice if it's been down lately, but sometimes it gets an unexpected surge of hits.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • Bejami
      Save Changes Cancel

      Most detective series are stand alone novels with recurring characters I would say. Sometimes developments between the main character and a love interest or partner are carried from story to story, but you rarely have a series where they work the same case over the course of multiple books.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • Jerry M
      Save Changes Cancel

      The detective stories rarely have cases where they work them over multiple books so in that regard they are stand alones. But a lot of times they are anything but stand alones since there is also an over-arching storyline going on. One of the earliest works that I can think of doing this, loosely, is Dashiell Hammett's Sam Spade stories. Hammett wrote a book of Sam Spade short stories called The Big Knockover and all of them are independent stories with Sam Spade as the central character. But as you read them together, there is a sense that something is happening to Mr. Spade, he is battling becoming jaded at what he is doing. Separately, the stories work fine, but together, there is a much richer tapestry set forth. I also see this in Tony Hillerman's Joe Leaphorn/Jim Chee detective novels, the changes a character can go through. Also, I have just started the Dresden Files (2 books so far) and I can see it happening in that one as well.

      I see the opposite of this in the Edgar Rice Burroughs, The Martian Tales. The characters change names from book to book, but the hero is still the brawny courageous, polite, fair-minded person who always ends up on the side of right. The women are all beautiful, also courageous and loyal (and all seem to get abducted as well). And the bad guys are all craven, ugly, mean-spirited that always get it in the end. It's a good model and it still works, look at the movie Die Hard, same idea. The thing that changes for Burroughs is his ideas both of the science, technology and cultures of the various people on Mars.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
  • Lizzie N
    Save Changes Cancel

    I like books which are related and set in the same world but which each are stand alone. Each book has a complete plot arc and can be read in any order. As a writer I don't want to do the work of building a world for only one story. It's too much work and also I want to explore the many possibilities of my fictional world. As a reader I also want to come back to the same world I've enjoyed before. I admire how Lois McMaster Bujold structures series.

    I share your view toward open ended series which never seem to resolve but like comic books or soap operas entice the reader to the next book in hopes of resolution, resolution which is never delivered. I do enjoy very long series such those written by Kate Elliot or Robin Hobbs, but I few these as single novels published in multiple volumes.

    I don't know that I particularly enjoy SF stories where the idea rules. I like to see what people do in reaction to the weird situations which can occur only in a SF world. After doing the work of setting up a weird situation, I want to see what will happen to different people living in that situation. And that approach leads to multiple books set in the same world.

    In my writing, I've been working with the same world for about twelve years and haven't run out of possibilities for that world. It's a maritime world with a matriarchal society and with "three girls for every boy." That makes for some interesting conflict.

    Going back to the foundations of worldbuilding--climate, ecology, economy, religion, architecture, social mores, world view, and so on--is just too much work for a single story. I feel that if forced to do so the world would come off as nothing more than a background.

    posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    show 5 replies
    • Richard
      Save Changes Cancel

      Three girls for every boy. Your copying my fantasy world. :)

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • Lizzie N
      Save Changes Cancel

      Well, it might not be as good as it sounds, and that makes for fun writing. The imbalance results from men having less education and taking dangerous jobs. They tend to die young. That also means that most of those three girls are older. I might men three old ladies for every man. The society also uses artificial and arranged insemination so the guys with good genes get a lot and the guys with what are perceived as bad genes aren't getting at all.

      I've got two stories in process at the moment. One about the guy with the great genes who gets auctioned off as a stud. He's not doing so well because the girl he's in love with stole his semen to sell on the black market. The other story is about the guy with lousy genes and no girlfriend. Pretty sad for a guy on a planet with more women than men. Of course things look up as the story goes along.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • Richard
      Save Changes Cancel

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSS5xujeRaY

      Is this what your planet is like?

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • Jerry M
      Save Changes Cancel

      Wow, if there were two girld for every one (guy), how come they had a car full of guys? That was odd :)

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • mark s
      Save Changes Cancel

      This beginning to sound like a Beach Boys song....

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
  • Kevin H
    Save Changes Cancel

    I perfer stand alone books, but if it's a series I try to wait until 2 or 3 books are out so it won't be too long a wait until the next one comes along. That's the main reason I stopped reading George R.R. Martin's Fire and Ice Series. I loved the first 3 books, but then it took foooorevvver for A Feast of Crows to come out that I had forgotten alot of what I had read. I perfer stand alones in a common universe too.

    posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
  • nina d
    Save Changes Cancel

    After reading a good book I always regret not being able to continue on.
    Being a slow reader, a good series can carry me for months, though looking at the series page count up front can be daunting. Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series is a good example.

    But there are a few hurdles. One is that I prefer books that can stand on their own,
    and are not highly dependent upon a prequel or sequel for the gratification that should come
    with each book. The Vampire series by Anne Rice for example began with Interview with the Vampire
    which opened up a whole can of worms but didn't address one. I was actually angry at the end
    reading. A friend said to read the next, and Lastat did at least answer important questions.
    There needs to be a warning label on books like Interview with the Vampire..."Beware: No Gestalt"

    Another problem seems to be the need for a trilogy. Each book in the series should have enough
    substance to stand on its own, yet often times there is too much fluff and filler. The second book
    in the Hunger Games is a simple rehash of the first, and I suspect was written simply to complete a
    set of three. It's gotten to the point that I'm afraid to pay for a book, and instead wait for it to
    get to the library where my money won't be chewed up by the monsters of publishing.

    It does seem that the trend is the series. More money for the sale of the books, and more
    content for possible movie deals. Hollywood definitely prefers deals like that.

    posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
  • the Ink Slinger
    Save Changes Cancel

    I love something that will challenge me and hold my interest, whether it's a series or a stand-alone novel. I guess it just depends on how good the writer in question is. If he's really worth his salt, I think he'll hold my fascination in one book or three.

    I do understand the frustration with reading a series and having to wait a long time for the next installment, though - you feel like you have to re-read everything just so you can fully appreciate the latest addition to the series.

    posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
  • Richard
    Save Changes Cancel

    I prefer stand alone books most of the time too. The last series books I have read was the first four of the Ender's Game cycle. I probably will not read any of the other spinoff books. By the time I got to the last book, Children of the Mind, I was getting very tired of them. If I had just read Ender's Game or knew what the sequels were like, then I probably would not have bothered. I read all three of the Hunger Games books at Christmas time but they are quick reads so reading them all at the same time is pretty much just like reading a fairly thick book. The year before, I read The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo books and really enjoyed them.

    Previously, I had read all of the Necroscope books by Brian Lumley. If you are not familiar with them, they are vampire books as if written by a dirty minded H.P. Lovecraft. These are definitely not your Twilight Vamps. There are about 14 of them all together. The farther down the line you read them, the more you know they were written for money. It does not progress the storyline very well at all.

    I read Jim Butcher's Dresden novel Storm Front last year because it was a group read. I have no desire to read all of them at all. The first one is enjoyable but I don't want to spend half a year reading only those books.

    I am reading William Kent Krueger's Cork O'Connor mystery books from time to time. I don't plan to read them all at once but just maybe one or two books a year as a change of pace since I don't really read mysteries. These are probably more like outdoor adventure books with a bit of mystery added to them.

    posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
  • mark s
    Save Changes Cancel

    I prefer to read a series when all its books are out....although sometimes like with GRRM and a few others I get sucked in and have to wait like everyone else for the next one. Inbetween series, I do read stand alone novels....If it is well written I find myself grumpy sometimes because a world has just one novel in it. On the other hand an author can screw up a decent series with "just one more" book tagged on the end...I feel that the Riverworld series is much the same way(for anime geeks, the second series of FlashGordon where they introduce a pink dragon...blech!). So I read in a pattern of sorts...because some stand alone works say what they need to say and there really isn't much more that I need to read( at times this is good others bad). I hate getting trapped in a long series that I have lost interest in, because I always hope it will get better or I want to find out what happens to a character. A bad series though is like a train wreck for me. I can muddle through a single book I don't like....put it down when it is done and run away....but a series makes me feel like a hostage.

    I also enjoy a good short story to pass the time...but I guess that wasn't part of the question.

    posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
  • Kevin H
    Save Changes Cancel

    As I mentioned on another thread, DUNE is an outstanding stand alone novel, that would recommend to anyone who enjoys an entertaining complex story. However, after the original trilogy (CHILDREN OF DUNE and DUNE MESSIAH), the series became less and less interesting more pedestrian. I haven't read all the prequels and sequels by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson, but it seems more of a money making enterprise now instead
    of something that builds on Frank Herbert's legacy.

    posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
  • Kevin H
    Save Changes Cancel

    I just finished book six of the Amberverse Series, and now I'm reading book six of the Temeaire series, after that I think it's time for some stand alone novels or short story collections, just for a change of pace.

    posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
  • Matt Bauer
    Save Changes Cancel

    On a related note, when you are reading a series that has already been completed, will you finish one book and move straight into the next, or will you take a quick break with a shorter unrelated book in between? I'm looking for advice on this!

    posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    show 11 replies
    • Jerry M
      Save Changes Cancel

      That depends on how I am feeling and the book. I am reading the Martian Tales of Edgar Rice Burroughs and I have to space them out or I will easily burn myself out with the language and campy plots. But spaced properly, they hold up. But I have read trilogies where I wanted to read the next one almost before I was finished with the previous book.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • Richard
      Save Changes Cancel

      I probably will always go back and forth on this. I wish I had spaced out the Ender books now that I finished them. I know if I read the Martian Tales that I would space them out too. I probably won't but I have been thinking about reading all the Tarzan books at some point and I know I would space them out.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • Matt Bauer
      Save Changes Cancel

      Thanks for the advice. I'm thinking that for me it will be better to at least read some short stories or a short novel in between series books. I'm planning to read either the Dune or Hyperion novels soon (and both eventually), and it will be the first time I've ever really read anything in a series, other than a couple of Banks's culture novels which are stand-alone.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • mark s
      Save Changes Cancel

      Usually I read all the books in a series at once, then read a few stand alone books, then another series...sometimes, however, when I am reading a series which is unfinished I read the books before it again to refresh. There are a few where I just jump in though.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • Jerry M
      Save Changes Cancel

      What about the Gor series, Mark? You are spacing those out? And how many more do you have?

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • nina d
      Save Changes Cancel

      Sometimes you have no choice but to take a break.

      Remember waiting 2 years for the next installment of a series to be printed. Uh...the agony.

      Does anyone wait to start a series until at least two are printed?

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • Matt Bauer
      Save Changes Cancel

      Well as of now I'm not planning to read any ongoing series, but if I were I think I might wait to start the series until the second book was out. I would try to avoid having to reread any of the books while the series was still unfinished.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • ScoLgo
      Save Changes Cancel

      I tend to take breaks but, like Jerry, sometimes can't wait to see what happens next.

      Another related question might be, 'when is a series finished?'. Seems like authors, (or their descendants/peers in the case of death), have a built-in incentive to churn out more (sometimes unnecessary) material to follow up books that have sold well...

      Dune
      Wheel of Time
      Riverworld
      Rama
      etc...

      If it's part of the original plan, then there is probably no harm done. But many times, we the readers end up with excess books that drag the concept down from its lofty beginnings. Dune, especially, was like that for me. After the first 2 or 3 books, I just didn't care any more.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • mark s

      mark s (edited)

      Save Changes Cancel

      *groan* I finished number thirteen, I believe there are 25 books total, Jerry...

      Nina, I usually lean that way...I like to pick up a series when all the books are out as well.

      ScoLgo FOr some series it works well...Wheel of TIme was already mapped out by Jordan, so the guy had his permission....Zelanzy made it quite clear that Amber was his playground alone, so all the "new" Amber novels can go into a landfill as far as I am concerned...yet, there are also novels like Psychoshop that started with one author and was finished by another that I quite enjoy...I guess it has a lot to do with the author's wishes. I mean Lovecraft let lots of people play in his stuff so his editor's stuff and derelith and the rest really doesn't phase me. Howard on the other hand...one begins to wonder so many people have played in his realm...

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • nina d
      Save Changes Cancel

      The trick of it is to wait long enough for most of the books to be printed and read but before
      the first movie comes out :D

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • mark s
      Save Changes Cancel

      ;) Or avoid the movie like the plague and pick up the new omnibus version of the books....

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
  • Roger Elwell
    Save Changes Cancel

    My first two books are in a series (and there will probably be more to come) but the one I'm working on now is not in that sequence, as I thought that it wouldn't look good to stick to one 'universe', so I am very interested to see people's opinions on this topic. Although my serial work will probably stretch quite a way, I have a pretty good idea of where it's going to take me and I hope I don't end up dragging it out beyond its natural 'life'.

    From a reading perspective, I quite like some of the serial work completed by Peter Hamilton and Alastair Reynolds, but they do tend to restrict the series to between 2 and 4 novels, which I think is a good length.

    Matt: I tend to read all of the books in a series, rather than break into something else - simply because the storyline has got me interested and I want to see it to the end. I guess it's down to individual preference, really.

    posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
  • Jerry M
    Save Changes Cancel

    In a perfect world, what I like doing, if I am reading a new author, is find a stand alone book and see if I like his/her writing. Then I will feel more comfortable going after the series seeing as I have this urge to collect everything in that series before I start reading (kind of makes it hard when I am looking for OOP works, but that's half the fun).

    posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    show 1 reply
    • Melanie Terry
      Save Changes Cancel

      I agree. When I've never read something by an author I like to read a stand alone first to see if it is worth pursuing.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
  • Melanie Terry
    Save Changes Cancel

    I prefer series when they are only written in 3 or 4's. I don't even bother anymore with series that just won't end. I like knowing that there will be an ending. I also wait until all of them are out before I start, because otherwise I will have to reread it when the next one comes out. I do prefer series though, for the same reason that authors write series. I like that when I have grown accustomed to the world and the characters that there is more fun to be had! One-shot books are a good break in between series, but I don't read any other books if I am in the middle of a series.

    posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
  • Christine Brown
    Save Changes Cancel

    I almost always avoid movie versions if I really have a connection to the novel. Invariably the film disappoints. However, I did find Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy superior but only as a stand-alone work.

    posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    show 8 replies
    • Jerry M
      Save Changes Cancel

      That's a good phrase that I've been looking for; a stand-alone work when it comes to movies made from books. I assume the movie will not be like the book for a practical reason and a stylistic reason. The practical reason being, if a movie were to be goose stepping to the book, even a small book would be a very long movie. Some cuts would have to be made. The stylistic reason stems from the artistic mind who creates the movie. The LOTR movie was a Peter Jackson work. It's his version of the LOTR trilogy and this Dec, it will be his version of The Hobbit. It's his version and not mine, therefore there will be some things in it that I may or may not agree with. In order for me to see a movie that follows a book to my satisfaction, I would have to do it myself, and then you wouldn't be 100% satisfied. But that's cool, like you said, it's a stand-alone work.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • mark s
      Save Changes Cancel

      I kinda liked the cartoon of the Hobbit in the 70s...

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • Richard

      Richard (edited)

      Save Changes Cancel

      I can already see in the trailer, how the new movie Hobbit is going to be completely different in style to the book. It does seem much more serious like the Lord of the Rings movies were. Also, Thorin Oakenshield looks like a biker in it and wasn't he suppose to be the oldest dwarf or one of the oldest?

      I liked the Hobbit cartoon too! I remember liking all those cartoons when they came on.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • Jerry M
      Save Changes Cancel

      I still have my vinyl LP of The Hobbit soundtrack :)

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • Mark W. Tiedemann
      Save Changes Cancel

      Never did like the Rankin-Bass cartoons---too cute. I admired Bakshi's version of LotR, which took the story up to the relief of Helm's Deep. But apparently disputes with the Estate ended Bakshi's relationship and Rankin Bass did the second half of the animated LotR and it absolutely sucked eggs.

      But I did like John Huston as Gandalf.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • Richard
      Save Changes Cancel

      I missed the song "Where there is a whip, there is a way" fromPeter Jackson's Return of the King.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • Jerry M
      Save Changes Cancel

      ah man, me and my friends used to sing that all the time.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • Christine Brown
      Save Changes Cancel

      I still do! I love that song and missed it from LOTR!

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
  • nina d
    Save Changes Cancel

    For the most part I agree with your statement. But because there are those rare
    occasions where the film meets or, can it be?, exceeds, the written word, I do
    see the films, usually with some initial trepidation. Examples are Accidental Tourist,
    Jane Eyre (1996), Blade Runner, 3:10 to Yuma, to name a few.

    posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    show 4 replies
    • Richard
      Save Changes Cancel

      I just avoid novelizations of movies because they usually are very bad. An exception is the novel for Star Wars (episode IV) which is credited to George Lucas but was really written by Alan Dean Foster. It's probably because there were no preconceived notions so he had more liberty in his descriptions.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • Shakatany
      Save Changes Cancel

      I liked the ones Vonda N. McIntyre wrote for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Star Trek movies aka "The Wrath of Khan", "The Search for Spock" and "The Voyage Home". She is a terrific SF writer and added quite a bit of her own outlook to the scripts.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • ScoLgo
      Save Changes Cancel

      Movie versions of books are usually disappointing. Book versions of movies even more so. I found Fight Club to be an exception to that rule, (I know, I know... not really sci-fi, but it is an apocalyptic type of story in its own way).

      In this instance, I saw the movie before reading the book. Even though I knew the big reveal ahead of time, the writing style kept me engaged all the way through. It was my first Palahniuk book and it remains one of my favorites by him.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
    • nina d
      Save Changes Cancel

      I don't read novelizations of movies. The one exception was Alien, because a friend lent it to me before I ever knew a movie
      existed. Liked the Star Trek original series, but have no desire to read those books.

      ScoLgo...did you read Rant by Chuck P. Really good. Surprised I could like it so much, especially since the main character
      is so offensive (at least to me), but he somehow Chuck brings you around to caring for Rant.

      posted 1 year ago. ( permalink )
  • To reply to this discussion, please sign in.

Return to top