Hm... that's a good question. As someone considering that there may be more than just one set of books about Videra, it's one I ought to consider.
There's soemthing else I'd like to point out about the other kind of series, sometime they don't stand alone, even though you can find them that way.
When I was... oh an early preteen perhaps I read the "Queen of Sorcery" by David Eddings. I remember thinking the boy was whining brat and the woman a stuck up pric - or something like it. I read the whole book, but had no urge to read more.
Then one day I found "The Belgariad", which is a five part series by David Eddings. Turns out, "Queen of Sorcery" was the second book in that five book series. And after reading book one I didn't find the main characters as annoying as I had the frist time I read book two.
Given this (and what you've stated) - when done well any series is awesome, whether it's a continuous tale, or differnt stories set in the smae 'world'. (I also happen to be a fan of such things, as expensive as that can get if you start in the middle of a big one.)
But if they are done poorly, they will be detrament to themselves. If I had known "Queen of Sorcery" was part of "The Belgariad", I might not have read the whole series. So that's four books I would have ignored, because of one.
I remember the Belgariad . . . I only got as far as book two, couldn't find book three, and then we moved house.
That said, you make some awesome points here! Any series worth its salt can't afford to rely on being related to another one in order to be successful - it has to be a decent story in its own right, or it just falls flat on its face and, possibly, detriments the other series by making it look like a money-spinner.
Every time I listen to one of these videos, I have to go back and read an earlier post in your accent, just for fun.
I have already told you my views on the subject, I believe: if you've made the readers fall in love with the world, they will be fine with another series in the same world. If you've made them fall in love with the characters, they will not be fine with another series, unless it's about the same characters. We can read the Silmarillion with only one mention of Frodo, but we couldn't read another Inkworld book about anyone other than Mo, Meggie, and Dustfinger. (Because he is the best character. I will not relent on that score.)
I think it really depends on the author. Some authors can pull this off better than others. For example, at the moment I'm reading Son by Lois Lowry, a sequel to The Giver. There are some good parts and interesting new information, but it's very much like the first book and I wish it were narrated by the original main character and not this new person.
The Giver has a sequel!? I never knew this! Then again, The Giver didn't exactly set itself up for a sequel did it - I know it ties in vaguely with another book of hers in the same ilk, which I've forgotten the name of, but . . . I think I agree with you, the author has to know what they're doing, and the book has to be suited to being sequelled. Otherwise it just looks silly.
He he Pern got a mention. *grins*
ReplyDeleteHm... that's a good question. As someone considering that there may be more than just one set of books about Videra, it's one I ought to consider.
There's soemthing else I'd like to point out about the other kind of series, sometime they don't stand alone, even though you can find them that way.
When I was... oh an early preteen perhaps I read the "Queen of Sorcery" by David Eddings. I remember thinking the boy was whining brat and the woman a stuck up pric - or something like it. I read the whole book, but had no urge to read more.
Then one day I found "The Belgariad", which is a five part series by David Eddings. Turns out, "Queen of Sorcery" was the second book in that five book series. And after reading book one I didn't find the main characters as annoying as I had the frist time I read book two.
Given this (and what you've stated) - when done well any series is awesome, whether it's a continuous tale, or differnt stories set in the smae 'world'. (I also happen to be a fan of such things, as expensive as that can get if you start in the middle of a big one.)
But if they are done poorly, they will be detrament to themselves. If I had known "Queen of Sorcery" was part of "The Belgariad", I might not have read the whole series. So that's four books I would have ignored, because of one.
I remember the Belgariad . . . I only got as far as book two, couldn't find book three, and then we moved house.
DeleteThat said, you make some awesome points here! Any series worth its salt can't afford to rely on being related to another one in order to be successful - it has to be a decent story in its own right, or it just falls flat on its face and, possibly, detriments the other series by making it look like a money-spinner.
Every time I listen to one of these videos, I have to go back and read an earlier post in your accent, just for fun.
ReplyDeleteI have already told you my views on the subject, I believe: if you've made the readers fall in love with the world, they will be fine with another series in the same world. If you've made them fall in love with the characters, they will not be fine with another series, unless it's about the same characters. We can read the Silmarillion with only one mention of Frodo, but we couldn't read another Inkworld book about anyone other than Mo, Meggie, and Dustfinger. (Because he is the best character. I will not relent on that score.)
I'm sure any Inkworld fan would agree with you - a Dustfinger-less Inkworld would not be one I would want to go back to without serious coercion.
DeleteI think it really depends on the author. Some authors can pull this off better than others. For example, at the moment I'm reading Son by Lois Lowry, a sequel to The Giver. There are some good parts and interesting new information, but it's very much like the first book and I wish it were narrated by the original main character and not this new person.
ReplyDeleteThe Giver has a sequel!? I never knew this! Then again, The Giver didn't exactly set itself up for a sequel did it - I know it ties in vaguely with another book of hers in the same ilk, which I've forgotten the name of, but . . . I think I agree with you, the author has to know what they're doing, and the book has to be suited to being sequelled. Otherwise it just looks silly.
DeleteIt has three sequels now, actually. :D The only problem is that I don't think Lowry totally knew what she was doing with the middle two books...
ReplyDeleteHoly crackers! The mind boggles!
Delete