This came up in a recent review (cough::Rachel Morgan::cough). Book series are big business in publishing these days. More come out every week. Series give a reader a chance to get to know characters and worlds in a way that just doesn’t happen with single-title books. This is particularly fun with complex worlds and large casts of characters. And I’ve read somewhere (on DearAuthor.com, I think) that romance readers prefer series romances above single title. And in an industry totalling a little over $1.5bill per year in sales, that means a lot of series.
But with series comes involved story lines. And with that comes details, details, details.
What is an author’s responsibility to bring a reader up to speed with each entry in a series? How much ‘real estate’ should authors set aside to rehash characters and plotpoints in subsequent books? At what point should an author rely upon the reader to simply follow along on their own by reading all the books in the series?
I’m in the camp that minimal “catch up” space should be allocated and that the reader should follow along on their own by reading the series. If an author is going to make all of the books in a series a stand-alone, then it isn’t a series. I hate being told something over and over, though (just look at my reviews).
What do you folks think? Rehash or rely?
My favorite books tend to be stand alone. One of the reasons why I liked Penelope Williamson (while she was still just a historical romance author) was that she had stories that stood on their own. The Passions Of Emma, Once In A Blue Moon, Keeper of the Dream, etc. All those stories were strong and people remember them.
I think the only reason I read series romances now is because there isn’t much choice. I’d just like each story to have something that makes it stand out from the others in the series.
About the only one I have truly liked is Lynn Viehl’s Darkyn series. I like that there is a continuing theme and mystery to the series, but there is a defined lead couple with their own individual story that isn’t confusing to follow. (at least for me). I have hard time with Tara Janzen’s series because the supposed lead hero and heroine to each story gets lost among all the other previous or future characters.
To me, make the new lead characters the dominant storyline. The secondary characters (even if they starred in the first book or will have their own soon) should only add to the story that the hero and heroine have, but not take up half the book. I don’t like feeling like I’m reading commercials for other books as I’m reading the one I have just bought. Some authors are really good at not pushing too hard all the other books in the series. Others need to work on in it still.
Well, I recently picked up the Nalini Singh series book, Caressed By Ice, which totally fulfilled my romantic requirements in a book. I really loved it. After the first three chapters. She droped me whole hog into a world I didn’t know and told me to swim or die. I generally prefer that, but the Psy series reads a lot like Sci Fi at first. So, it took a minute. And I was totally into it. Later, as the book progressed, I got filled in on quite a bit of back history. Some was needed, a lot was over-defined.
I think it really comes down to minimal real estate should be spent. If there’s a story there, hint at it. Make the reader want to look for it. But don’t fill her in. Why would she need the book then? CBI did a good job with that, for the most part, and I’d like to find the first book. But I’m also aware I probably have most of the answers.
It’s a fine wire and authors are asked to tap dance up on the trapeze. You’re just not going to satify everyone.
And yet, we keep on buying those series, so someone’s doing a great job.
Dee
Good topic.
I also don’t like to be told things over and over, but what I dislike even more, is picking up a book, not knowing it is part of series, and then feeling lost because all the explanations are in the first book.
Publishers can fix that very easily though. Mark series books VERY CLEARLY ON EVERY COVER.
But they don’t. Ugh.
Yeah! What Dee said!
😉
Thanks for the comments, Ladies! I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Ooo! Chantal, you’re totally right! That’s a pet peeve of mine – piss-poor labeling on the cover. This is one of the reasons I like buying books online to a book store. I can do so much more research online – figure out if it’s a series or not.
And what is with blurbs being inaccurate? Authors – don’t copy writers have to read the book first? Or are they just given highlights and told to write?
I prefer series but I have to read them right from book 1.
I also prefer there to be a limit with and end in site. I usually can do up to 7 books but when the author starts writing a book for every freaking character and losing track of the initial world builing/plot than it becomes just a cash cow.
Can anyone say Sherrilyn Kenyon?
If I see a new author that looks interesting I’ll do the research first to see if its part of a series before buying.
I personally like the the way that JR Ward has done it in her Black Dagger Brotherhood books. In there are explainations of the terms which give alot of back ground and such without putting it in every story.
Like you (Lauren) I also have to read a series from the beginning. Doing research on books to see how many and what order is much easier then it used to be, but I agree that series books should be marked very clearly that it is a series. Especially when I’m out and just looking for a new author or series to read.
The best series have enough rehash blended into the narrative that familiar readers don’t mind (and are sometimes glad for the reminder) while still bringing new readers up to speed.