OCTOBER 1: SERIES VS. STANDALONES (SUGGESTED BY M.T. WILSON @ LAST BOOK ON THE LEFT)
Prompts: Do you prefer standalones or series? When you read a standalone, do you wish there was more, or are you content that the story has finished? Are series sometimes too long? Do you feel like some genres work better in series while others work better in standalones? What are some standalones you wish had continued? Are there any series you think should have stopped at the first book?
Welcome to today’s Let’s Talk Bookish discussion about series vs standalones! I’ve not be very on top of participating in these discussions recently for a variety of reasons but nonetheless it remains one of my favourite posts to do as I love talking about books in general!
I think I generally gravitate towards standalone books as I don’t need to know any prior storylines or context. Most standalone books I find have a satisfactory ending and, if they don’t, it isn’t that the necessarily need another in a series. And, regardless, if there isn’t a good point to end a book in a series then it needs reworking in my opinion as a story or a phase within the story should come to a satisfactory end. Then again, I’m quite partial to an open ended conclusion.
With series, I will always try to start at the beginning if I can. Even if a book looks great, I find it quite disconcerting that I’ve missed something that might have a bearing on the storyline, even if it could be read as a standalone. I must admit, if I find a book and think it looks great, then find it’s the middle of a series, it will put me off getting it.
If I read a series, it tends to be crime. Some of the series I’m currently in the middle of are: Harry Hole by Jo Nesbo; Will Trent by Karin Slaughter; DS Nathan Cody by David Jackson; DI Kate Young by Carol Wyer. A lot of the time, the books in these series will work if read by themselves, but you don’t get the full character arc which is the thing that I love the most!
So, do you prefer series or standalones?