# When is one book enough?



## Vladd67 (Jun 11, 2007)

Am I alone in hating the growing trend in Sci Fi and Fantasy for the many book novel. It seems you can't pick up a book these day without it being book 1 of a series or even worse book 2 but the shop doesn't stock book 1.
I think the worst example I saw was The Wheel of time, I got books 1 to 9 cheap as the opening offer with a book club. I think I got through to number 5 when I saw number 10 in Waterstones. Something seemed to give in me and I havent read anymore of it since. I'm only asking for a story to be there in one book is it to much to ask?


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 11, 2007)

While I've nothing against multi-volume stories in theory -- say, if the writer has some new ideas occur to them that would be best set in that world, or because they've got more stories to tell about a character or set of characters, or something of that nature -- but I dislike the trend to begin with the thought of multi-volume series, where the story is then built to fill out so many volumes, rather than the other way 'round. This tends to lead to bloated writing and a lot of vacuity, I think. I much prefer it for a writer to simply write whatever stories are knocking around in there, and if a new one emerges later on, then put it out as well. Even long series have been done this way (Howard's Conan tales, Moorcock's Eternal Champion, Cabell's Biography of the Life of Manuel, etc.), but the writer had something more to say, and was concerned with each piece, rather than some meganovel running on a single idea....

By the way... this may be moved over to General Book Discussions, as it is more in line with topics there than those in the Lounge....


----------



## iansales (Jun 11, 2007)

There are plenty of singleton novels available, and more appearing each year. However, series novels sell well - as do standalone novels set within a shared universe (either of the author's invention, or someone else's).


----------



## Pyan (Jun 11, 2007)

And WoT is an extreme example, Vladd - there are many, many posts on the forum about it, both pro and con.


----------



## Vladd67 (Jun 11, 2007)

I know there are plenty of singleton novels out there and single stories set in a shared universe, how ever I am fed up with picking up promising looking books only to see its book 2 of a series and being unable to find book one.


----------



## fantasy noob (Jun 11, 2007)

hahah i had that problem with dune i read dune and had evryone but messiah which i needed and theres only two books stores and the version the library has is garb bt i finally found it and finished it


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 11, 2007)

Vladd67 said:


> I know there are plenty of singleton novels out there and single stories set in a shared universe, how ever I am fed up with picking up promising looking books only to see its book 2 of a series and being unable to find book one.


 
Yes, that's a very common complaint about these. Libraries, for instance, never seem to have the entire series, and a lot of bookstores don't, either....


----------



## Pyan (Jun 11, 2007)

Our local library has ten branches, and an extremely annoying habit of issuing Volume One to A, Two to B, Three to C, etc, etc.


----------



## tangaloomababe (Jun 12, 2007)

I agree that in many cases there is not the need to write that extra book ,or in some cases that extra 5-6 books.  Sometimes though its a case of needing more.
I think it comes down to a couple of factors.  Are there any unresolved story lines from the first book, was book one interesting enough for people to want to read a second book.
I have started a series, read the first book and thought thats enough, but alternatively there are a couple of series where I am just waiting for the next book to be written and published so I can see what happens next.

Luv the new avatar pyan!!!


----------



## Pyan (Jun 12, 2007)

Thanks, tanga - one tries, you know!


----------



## tangaloomababe (Jun 12, 2007)

Pyan its always something to look forward to, your new avatar.  I hope you have plenty to use, still you could probably go back to the original one and work your way through, no one will know!!!


----------



## Connavar (Jun 12, 2007)

I felt the same Vlad.


In the last year i have started reading alot more and i wanted to read so many different type of books as possible. In fantasy its understanding there are alot big series but in SF i want stand alones.

When i searched after books to read i was really annoyed how many SF books were series.  I dont care how good they are sometimes i feel for a stand alone.

Which is why i have read alot golden age SF in the last year.  You can pick up an good stand alone of Asimov,Clarke,Heinlein etc much easier  than going through new SF and seeing series after series.

For example i picked up today two stand alones of Fredrick Pohl and one P.K Dick.

I have read alot of Fantasy and crime series that i want stand alones right now.



I might sound like a newbi to you but i dont like reading more than one series at time.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Jun 13, 2007)

I did my "heavy absorption" reading in SF in the 1960s and early 70s, when stand-alones were the norm (and relatively _short_ stand-alones, as well), and I still prefer that. I would much rather have the plot and ideas packed into an exciting three-hour read than have the same plot and ideas stretched out to fill a book twice the length - or just added on to form a trilogy or worse.

The problem is of course that publishers are not risk-takers, and if the first book sells well, they'll want sequels because they will have a guaranteed market for them.

As has been mentioned, the best approach IMO is to devise your world, and set different stories in it, featuring different characters. Catherine Asaro's *Skolian Empire* series is a good example of that (some books do follow-on from others, but many do not), also Iain M Banks' *Culture* series.


----------



## iansales (Jun 13, 2007)

Anthony G Williams said:


> As has been mentioned, the best approach IMO is to devise your world, and set different stories in it, featuring different characters. Catherine Asaro's *Skolian Empire* series is a good example of that (some books do follow-on from others, but many do not), also Iain M Banks' *Culture* series.



Also Neal Asher's Polity novels, and Richard Morgan's Takeshi Kovacs novels.


----------



## Connavar (Jun 13, 2007)

Yeah i liked that idea,same world but different stories and characters.

I have actually looked into Richard Morgan Takeshi books and the new Black Man/Thirteen cause of that.


----------



## iansales (Jun 13, 2007)

I've only read *Altered Carbon*, although the rest are on my to be read list. And I've heard that *Black Man* is excellent.


----------



## Connavar (Jun 13, 2007)

About Altered Corben is it as Noir like as they say?  I love noir and SF so the combo sounds interesting.


----------



## iansales (Jun 13, 2007)

Yes, it is.


----------



## Vladd67 (Jun 14, 2007)

I don't mind a series of books say about the same characters, but as long as each book is a complete story and it doesn't matter too much if you had read the other books or not. What does irritate me is the series of books that is one long story split between multiple books and unless you read it from book one you don't really know what is happening. I accept that W.O.T was an extreme example but after a while I really didnt care what happened to these people. I thought getting 1 to 9 was the set but the other day I saw book 11 how long did he drag this story out, and can anyone point him in the direction of a good editor.


----------



## High Eight (Jun 18, 2007)

Michael Scott Rohan's 'Spiral' books. 

_Chase the Morning_ was utterly wonderful, the second one limped along but was at least readable, if unmemorable (I've even forgotten the title). _Cloud Castles_ went in ever-decreasing circles and vanished up it's own behind the moment poor old King Arthur was brought on like some sad old variety act that had long outlived it's relevance. I didn't bother with the fourth (and mercifully last) in the series.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jun 18, 2007)

As far as I can tell, this thread is mixing (with no particular organisation) a number of quite separate subjects.
Multivolume works (where a single story is too big to fit into one book, and minimum effort made to cover the joins. (Lord of the rings)
Planned series, where each book tells a story, but characters and environments carry over (Honor Harington)
Spinoff series, in an established universe, using different characters (sometimes not by the original author)(Saganami, with the precedent)
Developing series, where the author wrote the first book leaving enough loose ends that, when it sold, there could be later volumes (Dune)
Sequels, where an author is persuded to go on writing after a story (or series) has had its loose end tied up (Dragonriders of Pern)
Multiple stories told in a developing, growing universe, which may have common characters, but whose only necessary consistancy is that they not contradict each other (Known space)
Convenient universe stories, using a setting and occasionally characters to tell a number of different stories wthout building from scratch, frequently written by fans as well as the original author (Valdemar)
Fexible universe stories, where consistancy is not required, and an occasional contradiction is par for the course, which can generally be read in just about any order (Discworld)
Any of these (even the fan-written ones) can turn out good books; or fail to. It's not because a series was meticulously pepared from the start that it's going to maintain it's original quality. But the differentsituations have different pitfalls, and should not be judged by the same criteria.


----------



## JDP (Jun 19, 2007)

Wow, that's a pretty comprehensive breakdown, eh? Great stuff.


----------



## Vladd67 (Jun 19, 2007)

Just one thing Chrispenycate Lord of the Rings was written as one book not three.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 19, 2007)

Vladd67 said:


> Just one thing Chrispenycate Lord of the Rings was written as one book not three.


 
Yes... if Tolkien had had his way, it would have been published either altogether or in seven volumes (one for each book, plus one for the appendices). Essentially, it's like those sprawling triple-decker Gothic novels in many ways; but it is a single novel, not intended as a multiple-novel tale...


----------



## Anastasia (Jun 19, 2007)

I agree. There are very few sequels I've ever enjoyed and an awful lot of writers these days who seem to find a formula and just write a dozen books to that formula, churning them out year after year, like baked beans.

The best authors in my experience, don't do this. They might come up with a new book less often, but when they do, it's nothing like the previous book. I don't mind the occasional series, but really, its getting to the point when my children read a book and immediately look around for the next in the series. When I saw "That's the only book", they look confused, like the author must have been nuts or something.


----------



## manephelien (Jun 20, 2007)

If you've gone to the effort of building a world, why not reuse it?

I particularly like works, where the author revisits the world, but in a different era or setting, certainly with different characters. A good example of this is Elizabeth A. Lynn's Chronicles of Tornor trilogy, where earlier events are seen as history or even myth in later works, and treated as such.


----------



## areader (Jun 30, 2007)

Er, as far as I know Tolkien's LOTR was published as separate books due to economy factors/paper and cost. Ultimately an affordable book is what is needed. Some multiple book series are now being released in the same way as a complete book and this can be nice. Wheel of time is probably due for some brave and expensive compilation for those who would buy it. I'm probably going to read it out of order. 

Personally I like prolific writers and as I read quickly I launched into Terry Pratchett 6 months ago and am now up to date with over 30 of his books. 

I don't feel the need to read volumes in order if I can't obtain them that way. If its a great series I'll reread them in the correct order, but its not essential. I read through Pratchett and Feist that way and it was all fine. 

An example of this is the debate over which order to read the Narnia books in. It doesn't really matter. Readers can cope with being told things in non-chronological order..though sometimes its a spoiler it does give you a different story altogether and is fun to do when rereading.  

Somehow I think e-reading might become less clunky eventually...and carrying around a library in your hand sounds brilliant to me...less need for bookshelf space and the ability to get books in the order that you want them as downloads. Volume chasing might be nostalgia oneday so I'm somewhat philosophical about it. Part of the fun of collecting and reading...if I like stories you can immerse in for a looong time then the logistics are preferable to the alternative. A good story is still a good story, even if read differently. Which doesn't mean that a stand alone isn't a great relief every now and then.


----------



## TK-421 (Jul 3, 2007)

One book is enough when the author is named either Robert Jordan or Terry Goodkind.


----------



## ironvelvet (Jul 29, 2007)

I appreciate that alot of fantasy and SF is about boys and their toys but could I suggest that sometimes a series of books allows for character development and a move away from the 'ring, go fetch' routine at the heart of some (nameless!) classics. Of course the 'ring, go fetch - long way around' stable has alot to answer for and Robert Jordon should feel nervous walking any dark street......


----------

