August 5th, 2010, 04:50 PM
How do you like your books?
So what do you prefer epic series of 5+ tome stones, trilogys or stand alone novels? I like trilogies because there quite short but not too short I also like it when there are lots of trilogies by one arthour all based on one world
August 5th, 2010, 05:24 PM
Despite the almost inevitable dip in quality from long series I prefer them. I've - unusually apparently, lol - enjoyed every WoT book, love GRRM's work (I love all the books and for me they just keep getting better god's speed George!) and even managed to make it through the first 8 books of Goodkind's SoT before giving up in disgust. I've only just started on Erikson so can't really comment on the series as a whole.
A good trilogy will almost invariably leave me wanting more, and while I enjoy further trilogies in the same world I don't find them as satisfying as the continuation of an epic tale with characters I have come to know and love.
August 5th, 2010, 06:27 PM
Personally, I like my books good It rarely matters to me whether they're stand-alones, parts of trilogies or bigger series.
August 5th, 2010, 06:58 PM
I like series of stand-alone books. Same characters, same world, evolving relationships but different adventures. I just don't have the patience for overly long overly epic series of bricks.
August 5th, 2010, 07:10 PM
I don't really have a preference though if the book(s) is really good then I don't want it to end so sometimes stand alone books aren't so great coz I keep wanting the story to continue iygwim.
August 5th, 2010, 08:32 PM
I prefer a longer series. Trilogies are wrapped up too quickly. I've only started reading scifi and fantasy recently so most of the books I've gone thru came years ago. I've never had to wait 3-5 years for a sequel.
August 5th, 2010, 08:36 PM
I think that's the only type I don't like tbh. It reminds me too much of a never-ending soap opera...
Originally Posted by Jimmy Magnusson
August 5th, 2010, 09:00 PM
Lol, well I kinda thought that good went without saying, but then perhaps not. Honestly I think I would generally read a poorly received addition to a beloved series before an acclaimed new effort - though I would almost certainly read both. I guess there is something of a comfy trainer factor in that, lol.
August 6th, 2010, 11:46 AM
The yoyo of the universe!
I prefer series like this when I can find good ones, but they seem a bit rare. I like them just because I get to spend so much more time with the characters.
Originally Posted by Jimmy Magnusson
That said, my favorite book of all is standalone, so it's not an absolute kind of thing.
August 6th, 2010, 12:49 PM
Jimmy Magnusson and Toma, you should give Dennis L. Mckiernans Mithgar series a try. It's a longer series that has stand alones and trilogies within it. If you want to give it a try without commiting to a trilogy read "The Eye of the Hunter".
August 6th, 2010, 11:02 AM
I prefer standalones or trilogies. A longer series would have to be extremely good for me to read it.
I never read more than one book at the time and I usually read in very long sittings, because I like to feel that I'm giving the book my full attention and, I suppose, because I'm the sort of reader who likes to analyze and pick things apart.
If a series goes on for more than about 2000 pages I lose track of all the details, which is frustrating, and I start to get impatient and distracted, thinking about all the other books I want to read.
When I have read long series/books with mysteries or lots of details, I find myself taking notes
I try never to start a series if it's still a work in progress for the same reason. Partly the wait is too frustrating, and it makes me feel like I ought to start from scratch when a new volume comes out to make sure I remember everything.
I'm actually waiting with starting A Song of Ice and Fire for that reason
August 6th, 2010, 03:32 PM
I always enjoy reading a series again in the run up to the release of the next installment, I think the number of times I have read the WoT books would horrify some of those here, lol. That being said I suppose I've only actually done this with WoT and asoiaf.
Originally Posted by Oubliette
August 6th, 2010, 03:54 PM
It never entered my mind
i prefer trilogies.
if the story cannot be contained in the 3 books, i think 5 or 7 is the longest i could contemplate [Dune, Crown of Stars]. I liked it very much how Bakker and Tchaikovsky for example have managed to write a self contained storyline in 3 or 4 books within the larger epic canvas, as opposed to Erikson or Jordan who by the time you read the 9th or 12th novel you barely remember where you started and need novel length synopsis.
I am still undecided on the stand alone serialization: I like Discworld and Vald Taltos, but trying to read them all in sequence can lead to burnout.
August 6th, 2010, 06:20 PM
Rather series to not take 20 years to be finished or have some ungodly page count :P And now that I have a Nook, I'd prefer them to be electronic as well. Or not too pretty so that I wouldn't feel guilty from unbinding them & running pages through a sheetfed duplex scanner
August 6th, 2010, 12:46 PM
I prefer stand alones as many authors struggle with trilogies and crash with longer works.
Originally Posted by dan95 DL=<3