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 shortI also like it when there are lots of trilogies by one arthour all based on one world
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
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.
Personally, I like my books goodIt rarely matters to me whether they're stand-alones, parts of trilogies or bigger series.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Trilogies. And I like the most when its multiple trilogies in the same world, a la Farseer, Liveship, Tawny Man, Dragon Keeper. You could technically read them all on their own, but you get the most out of them, if you read them in order. I HATE LONG LONG series, because they almost always seem to get horrible and drawn out towards the end. I would rather have one single good book, then a long series that starts off great, but by book 6, its trash.
I like books.
I find a lot of negatives in very long series (ie. Jordan), but otherwise so long as the story is good I am fine with stand-alones, related stand-alones, short series and long series.
I don't like stand-alone books as much as I like books that are in trilogies or in a longer series. I find it difficult to just leave a set of characters that I've come to know, especially after just 1 book.
I've not read many stand-alone books, as many authors write as part of a universe or a series. Even Stephen King sometimes writes his books in a way that links to The Dark Tower.
So, that accounted for, I prefer trilogies. I think. Or smaller series. Something the size of The Wheel of Time isn't that appealing to me, although I hope to read it one day. But the same goes for Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire - Whilst he's only released 4/5 books (5 in the UK, 4 in the US), they're all mega tomes and that also isn't too appealing.
Trilogies and longer.
In fantasy shorter works do not work for me.
Expensive.
I prefer stand-alones. With a few exceptions, stand-alones have been the strongest fantasy novels I've read.
Next, and sometimes even more than stand-alones, I enjoy collections of fantasy short stories.
I do read the occasional limited series (trilogies, etc.) and mostly avoid extended series, though there are a few I'm considering sampling.
Randy M.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks