CONVERSATION: On Series
DISCLOSURE: In addition to reviewing for DA, I am a writer of romance manuscripts. I wrote a standalone in the past and my current project is part of a series. -Janine
Janine: A while back Rose, who was once a reviewer here at DA, suggested that “series vs. standalones” might be a good topic for a conversation post. It sounded good to Jayne and me, and I decided to add a few other questions on the topic of series and invite Rose to participate. These were my questions to the group:
What do you see as the pros and cons of a romance (or romance-adjacent) series vs. a standalone book? Do you have a preference between the two?
When it comes to series, do you prefer for them to have a set endpoint or to go on indefinitely?
There are multiple ways of connecting books in a series. The main character can be siblings, friends, members of the same community, share some other kind of connection, or the series can follow the same central character(s) from book to book. Do you have a preference among these? Are your preferences different from genre to genre?
Standalones
Sirius: If the romance is central theme with the same romantic couple front and center I vastly prefer stand alone. I am not talking about let’s say Ilona Andrews “Kate Daniels”, because those series have had fantasy/adventure storyline front and center and romance worked for me as part of the whole, but in the m/m world I am yet to read series that have worked for me.
I however feel like no-one writes stand alones anymore (of course cannot account for every single book written, but that’s how it feels), especially if the book had a little bit of success, my God, sequel and another one is coming.
Kaetrin: Stand-alone books seem like rarities these days but I like them too.
Rose: I remember seeing complaints about series and connected books in old AAR reviews (+15 years) but it does seem to have gotten more extreme – longer series, and so few standalone novels. I sometimes recommend Sonya Clark’s Good Time Bad Boy as a standalone, and that was published in, what, 2015? I’m well aware that there’s a marketing component to all this, but at some point it’s time to move from one series to the next.
Janine: Absolutely. I like to read series from beginning to end so that I can follow the characters’ growth arcs. That’s true for me even with series where each book is about a different couple. The growth and development of the characters whose books are coming up is important to me and I don’t want to miss a piece of it or read about it out of order. There are authors I will probably never get to because to find a proper starting place I’d have to backtrack twenty books.
Layla: My two cents: I like stand alones and I like series! But I’m not the type of reader who feels a compulsion to keep reading books in the series if they are not good. I also read things out of order!
Series that Follow the Same Couple
Sirius: By all means, if you have enough material to stretch the relationship of the same couple for several books – go for it, but more often than not I feel like the author does not have nearly enough material for good believable tension between the couple and we get the conflict which does not feel genuine and believable instead.
I remember SFF/ mm series by Jean Burke and Kelly Jensen that we reviewed here. I consider both of these authors to be good writers and I loved the first two books in the series, but then as much as I liked the characters, I could not help but think why is it still going on?
“Adrien English” by Josh Lanyon is an example of perfection as far as series about the same couple go. Nothing else however comes to mind.
Janine: Manufactured conflict can be annoying, I agree. If I care about the couple then I want them to reach a point where they can be adult enough to make it work.
Rose: It’s a matter of how much story there is to tell and how much tension can be sustained. Some of it may come down to whether it was meant to work as a multi-book arc or not.
Janine: The first three books in Ilona Andrews’ Hidden Legacy series are an example of a same-couple series that works but I think that’s partly because there’s a clear structure leading from Nevada and Rogan’s first meeting to their HEA. I never feel the authors are extending the series to sell more books or that they don’t know where they want this relationship to go next.
Sirius: Janine I agree the Hidden Legacy series works because there is a clear structure in it.
Kaetrin: For Urban Fantasy (Mercy Thompson, Alpha & Omega, Kate Daniels), I’m happy with a long arc featuring the same couple because the romance isn’t the main thing (even though it’s entirely why I read it!). I loved the Hidden Legacy books too but I’m all about the HEA so I prefer when the couple are together and happy at the end of each book. I’m allergic to cliffhangers and romantic cliffhangers are the worst!
Sirius: To go back to Kate Daniels I believe they mentioned that they extended the run of the series with two books or maybe three but they did it mostly because they build up Roland too much and needed more time to deal with it so it worked for me. They also very openly talk about starting to write for commercial success so [though] I tend to believe them that these series were extended more for plot specific reason I guess commercial success didn’t hurt either.
Example of what kind of series would not work for me would be quite popular mm series where I jumped the train as soon as I read that author mentioned that series were extended because readers were asking for more. That’s nice but if you didn’t have the plan for your couple in mind eventually you won’t have any conflict between them to work with.
Jayne: My preference for a series, regardless of whether or not it’s primarily a romance, is for it to have a definite end point.
Kaetrin: I’m probably in the “never say never” camp really. It depends on the story and whether it deserves more than one book.
As an example, one of my most anticipated releases of 2022 is The Long Game by Rachel Reid. I absolutely think there’s more to Shane and Ilya’s story and I don’t get the impression the author plans to split them up – I think the story will be about them coming out as a couple and I’m so here for it. Could be famous last words I suppose!
Rose: I think KJ Charles always planned the Will Darling books as a trilogy, and it works. I don’t think Diana Gabaldon planned to write ten Outlander books, and the more recent entries in that series are so meandering I’ve lost interest. This isn’t to say that something that wasn’t planned can’t work, but in my experience a lot of the time it doesn’t feel necessary, and it may require retconning characters.
Series that Focus on a Different Couple in Each Book
Jennie: The historical series I’ve read that come to mind are like those of Kleypas and Balogh – families and friends series that might go on for seven books, tops. The obvious pro in this is if you like the family the author has created, you’re happy to dive back in; it feels comfortable, you know what to expect, and you’re glad to see “old friends” again. The main con is too many deliriously happy couples hanging around by the end of the series.
Rose: We’re all romance readers, so we obviously don’t object to happy endings – but the premises in romance novels can be outside the common experience. So if you have a group of siblings/co-workers/friends who all have meet cutes, meet Dukes, or fall in love while spying or investigating crimes… eventually it becomes too much to suspend disbelief.
Here too, some series likely started out as either single titles or trilogies, and authors may have used their best ideas early on. I think the Bridgerton books are a good example of this – the second half of that series is weaker, with the exception of When He Was Wicked. Pamela Clare’s I-Team also comes to mind; the early books draw a lot on her work as a journalist, which was a really cool premise for romantic suspense and felt authentic. As the series progressed, and in her later work as well, it became less original and often more far-fetched.
So I tend to like series that conclude within a set amount of books (like Miranda Neville’s Burgundy Club) without spinning off a new set of friends, the next generation or the previous one, or having a parade of past characters with their many children.
Layla: I loved Lisa Kleypas Wallflower series, and I’m not a huge fan of her current series which is itself a continuation or return to that original set of characters. I loved MJP’s old series, the Fallen Angels books. Generally I’m a fan of a series that is connected through friendship or about a series of friends, more than of family ones. I did like two out of the three of the Evie Dunmore series (or trilogy) which is about female friends (that does seem rare, I mostly recall books about male friends like the MJP ones.) I have been a fan of Jo Beverly’s Malloren series, and Miranda Neville series also.
Jayne: If authors merely include information about a past couple and their fecund happiness, that’ll do me just fine. I don’t need every past paired off character to actually be in sequential books. If an author wants to build on the success of a series (and milk it for all it’s worth) then pivot to friends or coworkers rather than unearthing more relatives. There are no large families like some of these series ones who are wildly happy in every way.
Kaetrin: For me it depends. I tend to like series in historical and contemporary where each book is a stand alone but they are connected by family or friends – like in the Westcott series by Mary Balogh or the Hot & Hammered series by Tessa Bailey.
I also love the books by Susanna Kearsley which have connections to other novels that many or may not be overt because ultimately they’re all set in the same world. Finding all those Easter eggs is part of the fun but you don’t have to understand them to enjoy the books. They’re just extras.
A really cool thing that Elle Kennedy and Kristin Callihan did in their respective Off Campus and Game On series’ (& subsequent spin offs) is to include mention of each other’s characters so they’re inhabiting the same world. It was a fun hat tip. Both series have the same vibe as well so it fit together even better.
Jayne: I agree with what Kaetrin says about Kearsley’s “Easter egg” placement of characters from past or future books.
Layla: I like paired books and trilogies more than series–for example Mary Jo Putney had two books about twin brothers that I liked a lot (and they were themselves related to an older historical she had written). I love that the heroine in one of those books was a descendant of a hero in the previous book, and the way that connection was made was lovely little pleasure for me as a reader.
Rose: I also enjoy characters interacting within a believable fictional world rather than being part of an official series. Sherry Thomas is someone who does this really well, and it makes sense that these characters would know each other from school, social events, gossip etc. I agree that when it’s more of an Easter egg, it can be fun.
But as I wrote – clearly this is working from a marketing and sales perspective, or authors wouldn’t be doing it. I just wish there was more out there for readers who don’t go for long series with equally long spinoffs :)
Jennie: The only series I can think of reading that has just gone on and on is Nalini Singh’s Psy/Changeling series. And though I haven’t given it up, through – is it 20something books now? – the nature of the series and of Singh’s style means that there’s a lot of repetition and characters that feel somewhat recycled. About the only way she’s branched out is in Changeling species, and that’s not always been successful (I mean, I liked the bears more than Janine did, but still…). I don’t anticipate giving up on it before it ends (if it ever ends?) but I can see why other readers might have had enough.
A pro that can become a con – again in my experience mostly in historical romances – is the Anticipated Hero. It’s great to have an anticipated hero; everyone is looking forward to his book (I don’t think this happens nearly as much with heroines, but that’s another post). But more often than not, there’s a letdown, mostly I’m guessing due to high expectations but also maybe somehow authors just have trouble delivering when there are those high expectations? I don’t know. I remember The Legend of Lyon Redmond by Julie Anne Long being a prime example of this.
Rose: Sam and Alyssa in Suzanne Brockmann’s Troubleshooters books were highly anticipated, though as a couple rather than Alyssa individually.
Since I mentioned Pamela Clare’s I-Team series earlier, I think a lot of readers were looking forward to Holly’s book.
Janine: Since you brought up Nalini Singh, Jennie–recently I realized the difference in my feelings about her Psy/Changeling series and her Guild Hunter series has to do with the expansiveness of the worlds. The Psy/Changeling world doesn’t lend itself to many conflicts—it’s pretty much one brain-related impending death after another. Things were a bit better when the psy and the changelings were at war, but not much. With the Guild Hunter books, the possibilities are wide open because of multiple factors. The only thing that’s consistently repetitive is the presence of the series’ biggest villain. I’m still excited about what’s going to happen next in a way that I haven’t been with the Psy/Changeling series since the wait for Kaleb’s book (an anticipated hero if there ever was one).
That makes me think about how the first few books in a series determine, to an extent, what readers can expect from it, and after that series is locked in a way, and the author can only venture as far as the range he/she/they have given themselves. Series can be wonderful when the author finds a good balance between freshness and familiarity.
What about you, readers? What do you view as the pros and cons of a series vs. a stand-alone? Do you have a preference between the two? Do you prefer for series to have a set endpoint or to go on indefinitely? Would you rather read a series about friends, family members, community members, and/or the same couple? And how does the genre affect your preferences?
I love stand alone books but also like series when they are done well and when they end in a reasonable amount of books. To me that’s maybe 5-7 books. After waiting for them to be published, I’m just usually at a point in life where I’m ready to move on. Life goes on and so does my reading preferences.
I’m still reading and loving Patricia Briggs’ Mercy Thompson series but every time I start a new one I kind of wish she would wrap it up. She’s the only author I can think of that I’m still reading that many books laters. I didn’t finish Kate Daniels, but I loved Hidden Legacy and switching characters in book 4 made it feel like the start of a new series.
My biggest pet peeve of reading a series is having the characters from a previous book hi-jack the current book. I’m fine if they appear and have an actual part of the plot, but I hate when they only appear to show how happy they are and how much they still can’t keep their hands off each other. I can’t remember author or book, but I remember reading a series where the previous characters appeared and were having a rough patch maybe do to a pregnancy or something? I just always remember the feeling that it was so nice to see someone working through problems along with the HEA. There could be a lot of series doing that, I don’t read much straight up romance these days.
Opinions, I have opinions!
I think series work better for mystery novels than romance novels, especially when each individual book is a mystery. When there is a romance which begins and continues though the series, for example, the John Pickett mysteries, ah, those are my favorite. They seem so right. Or, a series like Ovidia Yu’s The Frangipani Tree Mystery featuring Chen Su Lin where a romance may be slowly (very slowly) developing.
Next, I enjoy series like The Troubleshooters; a more recent (and less fraught) example is Janet Elizabeth Henderson’s Benson Security Series, with a new couple and new problem to resolve in each novel, with characters who weave in and out of each book as required by the plot. This works well without Jennie’s “too many deliriously happy couples hanging around”.
In romance, I have mixed feelings. Partly because I am incapable of reading a series out of order and the blasted romance publishers are haphazard about putting ebooks on sale. Some languish on my kindle. But more because each romance novel is a small closed universe, and having school friends or former army buddies continually popping in and out of one another’s lives stretches my credulity. Sibling series are enjoyable, especially those of Grace Burrowes, and easier for me to accept the group being together.
What makes me crazy, though, is romance spin-offs and prequels because they require more memory space than I seem to have available and I can’t flipping keep them straight with e-books. Often, the author, Amazon, and Fantastic Fiction sites disagree on how series fit together and I mulishly (immature, I know) don’t read any.
The only series I’ve started and abandoned are Janet Evanovich’s Stephanie Plum when they turned into slapstick and Sara Paretsky’s V.I. Warshawski because whoo boy, did they get dark. Recalling a couple of mystery series where the author killed off beloved characters, you’ve led me to consider that perhaps that was a way to renew the series. Tears from me, in a couple of cases, and another series I stopped reading just in case the author had something similar planned.
I’ve thought of many series I’ve enjoyed as I wrote this – thanks for the memories. And authors, are you reading? THANK YOU for writing these books which sustain me.
@LML:
“I think series work better for mystery novels than romance novels, especially when each individual book is a mystery. When there is a romance which begins and continues though the series, for example, the John Pickett mysteries”
That’s a good point. I’ve found that once a couple is paired off and has their HEA in a romance, I’m fine with them just being background players in the next book or just being mentioned but not actually there.
I would prefer more standalone books but I can also understand the reasons authors go for a series. Once they’ve created layers secondary characters to back up the main couple, it would be hard to just set these characters aside.
I like stand-alone romance but I’m a huge fan of mystery/thriller series. There aren’t as many babies. Actually one of my favorite books this year was Win by Harlan Coben. It featured a long time secondary from Coben’s sports agent series and was different from and yet very similar to the original. I hope we get another book.
@Misti:
Oh, that sounds lovely. I would love to read more books like that, with some post-HEA tension that gets resolved. To me the mark of a great marriage isn’t that you never disagree but that you find good ways to work through your disagreements. I have more faith in that kind of relationship than in a relationship that is never tested, and I find it more believable too.
My friend and critique partner, Meredith Duran, had a pair of interconnected books, Bound by Your Touch and Written on Your Skin, where the heroes moved in the same social circle but weren’t good friends. When you get to the second book you realize that the hero of the second book doesn’t have the highest opinion of the hero of the first one. The books are set concurrently and in the first book the hero of the second helps out the hero of the first. Throughout the second book, the hero of book one is asking for that help, and it’s not until late in that book that the hero of the second book realizes he’s been too harsh on him–that the man has been a friend, and deserves his help, and that he should help him. I think you also see a conversation that they had in the first book but this time from the second hero’s POV. I try not to pitch my friends’ books at DA but I loved that there was some tension there, that they weren’t best buddies but the books were still connected.
@LML: I feel somewhat similarly about Patricia Briggs’ Alpha and Omega series. They are essentially mysteries, even if set in a world with werewolves, vampires, fae and witches. The main character meet in the introductory novella and are firmly a couple by the end of the novel that follows, and all the books after that are about them solving additional mysteries, but their relationship remains just as romantic as do relationships in most romances.
The Ovidia Yu book sounds good. Have you kept up with the series and would you recommend the more recent books as well?
Speaking specifically of romances, I’m fine with a series as long as it’s finite. I think six books is about the maximum number for a series to be realistic about the connections between the MCs (a group of siblings, friends, coworkers, roommates, etc.). One thing I dislike is too much time catching up with couples from earlier books. Some of Mary Balogh’s later series books seem to spend an inordinate amount of time bringing readers up to speed on every couple in the series and their numerous progeny. Just let each couple have their HEA, with maybe a brief sentence or two about where they are and what they’re doing. A writer who does series really well is Claire Kingsley: each book focuses one a specific couple, but she’s really good at giving you just enough information about couples from previous (or future) books. She also has an overarching mystery of some sort that winds its way through the all the books in a series and it finally gets resolved in the last one.
When it comes to following a single couple’s romantic arc across multiple books, I think a trilogy is the realistic maximum. After three books, I’m wondering if this couple will ever get together and I start losing interest. I’ve noticed recently that a lot of darker romance (including mafia/bratva/MC) seems to be heading to the duet or trilogy formula with the first book(s) ending on cliffhangers.
I like some free standing books and series but not all (no surprise there, eh?!) The problem with some (different couples) series is when ALL the prior main leads show up in subsequent books. I read a Mary Balogh book recently and almost put it aside in Chapter one when great gobs of past characters all made an appearance. On the other hand, one of the joys of JD Robb’s …in Death series was the building of a community over the course of many books. [We won’t talk about the fact that I haven’t read that series since about book 35 though I do intend to return one day!]
One male/alien male series I quite like is Lyn Gala’s Claimings series. The first four books featured Liam and Ondry. The fifth book featured a different pair and was a pleasant read, but I really wanted to see more of Liam and Ondry.
@Janine: I’m reading the second in a series right now (by a new-to-me author). I haven’t read the first book, but the h/h of that book have recently experienced a miscarriage as the second book starts. It would probably have more impact on me if I’d read their story, but I appreciated a glimpse into an HEA that isn’t perfect.
I agree with Rose regarding an excellent standalone book, Good Time Bad Boy by Sonia Clark.
Standalone or series? This is what it comes down to; how well is it written. I find that often even well written Siri start recycled materials and ideas after about five bucks. I often lose interest but can usually persevere through two more books and then I’m done. Kate Daniels, I’m talking to you. I often like when the author uses the same world. And example of this is The Grand Valley Series by Liora Blake. Each book is about a person in a town, all loosely connected. Often in historical romance series, I find it hard to suspend my disbelief when, in a series, the fourth friend has found yet another handsome, young, amazingly good in the sack duke and everybody has an a incredibly wonderful romance and marriage. But when it’s done well, I’m fine with it. I thought Mary Balogh’s Simply series worked well.
I grew up reading fantasy and mystery, and the way those genres approach series has affected how I feel about romance series.
I quit reading epic fantasy, because the stories kept going on and getting bigger and with no end in sight, and I hated needing to reread the two or five or whatever earlier books to remember what is happening in the current book.
I too never finished the Kate Daniels series, mostly because Life happened, and I fell behind and I haven’t the time to do a reread so I wouldn’t be completely lost. On the other hand, I have kept up with Faith Hunter’s Jane Yellowrock series, because I love the narrator of the audio books, so that has kept me from falling out of that world.
I love mystery series, because for so many of them you can pick up a random book and read, and move back and forth in a series without a problem. When I was in college and picking up whatever books I could find at the Used Book store, this was perfect for me, and I still very much appreciate a series that allows me to do this. I can pick up almost any Robert Parker Spencer book and just reading and be content (the exception is Valediction and A Catskill Eagle, which are the books the books where Spenser and Susan have troubles. I almost always skip those two.)
I’ve read several historical romance series, and the ones I’ve loved the best are the ones I can read out of order (and in fact have started with book two or three). I read Courtney Milan’s The Countess Conspiracy because I love historical female scientists, and that drew me into reading the rest of the series.
I started with an Unnatural Vice when I read KJ Charles Sins of the City series, and then went back and read the first book, And I did the same for Michelle DIener’s Regency London series, picking up the second book, Banquet of Lies, because it was about a cook / chef and then going back to the rest of the series.
With romantic mystery series it’s far more complicated. FREX, as much as I enjoyed Josh Lanyon’s Adrien English series, I don’t think it’s a romance series, because there are definite issues with the romantic partnership in the series (they split at the end of one book and don’t speak for… a couple years?) I also don’t think those books can be read out of order–nor can CS Poe’s Snow & Winter series, since each book builds on events in the previous book as far as the relationship goes. Same goes for KJ Charles Slippery Creatures series although Josh Lanyon’s newest cozy series has the relationship in the background enough reading out of order wouldn’t be quite as much as a problem.
But if I’m going to read a straight-up romance, I think my favorites are ones that are loosely related, but can really be read in any order. I already mentioned Michelle Denier’s Regency London series, which I read 2 – 1 – 3. And I’m not quite sure what the “correct” order of CS Poe’s Lancaster series is and I don’t think I’ve ever reread the series in the same order.
For an example of what I don’t love, I quit reading the Tempe Brennan / Bones series, because every single book ended with them together, and the next book would have the NOT together for whatever reason she made up that happened between books. As much as I loved the mysteries, I got so irked by the secondary romance I gave up on the series entirely because I just wanted to smack the couple.
I’m reminded of something that Sarah from SBTB said at the start of the pandemic, that rereads–and books in a series you already know–are easier to read when you don’t have a lot of spare bandwidth, because you are already familiar with the world the characters inhabit. So the heavy lifting of the world building has already been done in your brain, and you can just sink in and enjoy the ride.
@Kareni: See I loved Lyn Gala’s series but even as much as I loved first three books and loved the characters overall, on reflection book fourth was probably a bit much for me.
I have a lot of opinions. I like stand alone romances and I also like loosely related romance series with stand alone romances. I don’t care for the more interconnected ones, mostly because I don’t want to have to work too hard to remember past characters or past events from a series in order to enjoy the book that I’m reading.
@Random Michelle: I also grew up reading mysteries and fantasies and I also prefer series where I can read them out of order if I want to.
@Janine, Ovidia Yu’s series is among the most enjoyable I’ve read. The time and place is a rare setting, vivid under the author’s pen. The characters are varied – multi cultural and multi dimensional. I didn’t realize the book I finished one evening was the last available (to date?) and was crushed because I was looking forward to one more. She has another series but I thought I’d let a bit of time pass while recovering from good series hangover before I begin reading.
There’s also the difference between planned series and series that just seem to happen because the author likes a world or a set of characters so much and they keep writing about them. Or they have a planned arc and then keep writing – see Nalini Singh and the psy/changeling series. I read ALL of the first arc (all 18 books) but haven’t kept up with the second.
One romance series with stand alone romances but an overarching mystery plot that worked for me was Kris Ripper’s Queers of LaVista. It doesn’t work very well to read out of order, but the portrayal of queer community, warts and all, was worth it in my opinion.
I agree about getting tired of reading about relentlessly happy couples as romance series go on. There have been a few series / worlds were I though it was time for the author to move on to something new.
I like the way that K.J. Charles has connected some of her series – you have characters from Think of England showing up as secondary characters in The Will Darling books, where the 2nd series is set maybe 20 years after the first series. And the same with her trilogies set in Regency and Victorian England.
There are a couple series (more sff / romance adjacent) that other readers with similar taste love that I’ve never been able to get into, partly because the entry points seemed so complicated. I’m thinking of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld and Lois McMaster Bujold’s Vorkosigan Saga.
@Random Michelle: @Random Michelle: I agree that Lanyon’s Adrien English cannot be read out of order, but to me those still primarily romance series . Developing of the relationship even if as you say they did not really have contact for couple of years, but I felt like Jake was always at the back of Adrien’s mind and as we learn later on – vice versa. I did try her cozies, I do agree that in those relationship is more of the background.
@DiscoDollyDeb: Claire Kingsley’s approach sounds like a good one.
@DiscoDollyDeb and @Kareni: It seems so many of us have that problem with Mary Balogh’s later books…
@Jennie: What’s the name of the book, please? Are you liking it?
@Mag: Thirding Good Time Bad Boy. It was one of my favorite books of 2015. So good.
Funny, I had the opposite experience with two of the series you mentioned. With Kate Daniels, I quit after book one, then restarted again because people insisted I should. I didn’t really get grabbed until late in book three. Then I stuck around for quite a while. I’ve pretty much enjoyed them all through book nine (I haven’t read the last one yet) with the exception of the one that was set in Europe (Magic Rises) where the conflict was contrived and irritating. I have taken a couple of breaks in the middle though. I’m not that into reading all the books in an entire series back to back because it gets monotonous, but if the series is good I can enjoy it as long as I intersperse other books in the middle.
The other series I had the reverse experience with was Balogh’s Simply series (unless you are confusing it with the Slightly series, which kept me reading pretty easily). The first book, Simply Love, had so many characters from earlier and future books–all the Bedwyns from the prior series, plus the three other schoolteachers from upcoming books, and at least one other character (a guy) who was clearly being set up as the hero of a future book–that I never read the subsequent books in that series.
@Random Michelle: Epic fantasy is much more manageable these days than it was in the 2000s and early 2010s (I didn’t read them then either, for the same reason). It’s mostly trilogies now, and many of the books aren’t as long as they used to be. A long epic fantasy series has to be damn good for me to commit to finishing, and the same is true of 700-page books.
@LML: Thank you! :)
@cleo: +1 on the Vorkosigan series. My husband and I recently tried to start with Falling Free, a prequel set 200 years before the books. It was incredibly didactic so we quit. We then went to Shards of Honor, the first book about Miles’ parents, which I’d read in the past. I wasn’t that engaged and then I had to put it down to keep up with a review commitment. We may or may not get back, but now I’m wondering if we can just skip ahead to the first Miles book. From what I understand you can also skip some in that series or read them all. Bujold has a page on her series on the book order, and if it weren’t for that I don’t think I would have tried at all.
@Janine: You would be fine skipping ahead to the first Miles book, Warrior’s Apprentice. The series wasn’t all written in chronological order, and you could skip the ones written out of order if you wanted to, but the rest should be read in order.
@cleo: Discworld gets complicated because there are multiple subseries about different sets of characters. Mort, Equal Rites, or Guards! Guards! would all be good starting points. I don’t think most of the Discworld books really need to read in order though, and I’m usually a stickler about reading a series in order.
@Janine: It’s A Perfect Equation by Elizabeth Everett. It’s pretty good so far!
@Jennie: Ooh, it looks good. Keep me posted!
@GeriUpNorth: Thank you! :)
@cleo:
GeriUpNorth is correct. Any of the earlier Discworld books can be read in any order. My recommendations are generally to pick up one of the Death, Witches, or Watch books and see if it hooks you.
You can also read Monstrous Regiment without any DIscworld knowledge, and it’s an excellent story.
I just recommend not to start with book one or two, because I really can’t stand Rincewind. :)
Men at Arms is a good one to read, solely because it gets referenced A LOT. (https://moneywise.com/managing-money/budgeting/boots-theory-of-socioeconomic-unfairness). Pratchett was a freaking genius when it came to social commentary.
But as much as I love Vimes, my favorite character is the Librarian (OOK!) followed closely by the Death of Rats. (SQUEAK)
@Janine:
Yeah, I think I quit reading Epic not long after the first World of Time book as published. And I read the first GRRM Song of Fire & Ice (?) and was all no thank you that is way to much rape for me and never looked back.
I’ll go in cycles and still sometimes pick up a straight-up fantasy or a reread, but even that tends to be more YA. (I just finished Mackenzi Lee’s new Montague Siblings book and adored it, and husband and I are listening to the Lady Trent series.) But right now, at least, I really need lighter fare, where I know things are going to work out in the end. Which fantasy often doesn’t do.
@Sirius:
I think some of the later Adrien books were more squarely in the romance category than the earlier ones, mostly because the relationship between the two was pretty toxic in earlier books. I think her Holmes & Moriarity series did a better job of each of the books being a romance. At least they are trying to find healthy ways to make their relationship work, even if they have ups and downs. (I think that I have a hard time categorizing a book that has super unhealthy relationships as a romance. ie, for most of Robert B Parker’s Spenser series, the relationship between Spenser and Susan is romantic. Except the two books where she runs off. But them in Small Vices? Totally a love story.)
@GeriUpNorth: Thank you!
@Random Michelle:
That actually hasn’t been my experience at all. The vast majority of the fantasy novels I’ve read in recent years have had happy endings—it’s one of the reasons I turn to the genre. Naomi Novik, Tasha Suri, Zen Cho, Katherine Addison, Seanan McGuire, Alix E. Harrow, Silvia Moreno-Garcia, C.L. Polk, are all authors whose happy-ending adult fantasy novels I’ve enjoyed in recent years. Once in a rare while the romance doesn’t end in a HEA but the ending is still hopeful for the world and the main characters. Mind you, I don’t read that much in any one genre because I’m not a fast reader and I like to read in multiple genres. I’m curious now what other readers of adult fantasy here think about how happy or not the endings are. It’s very possible that I have a false impression based on trying too small a sample.
I like series books but don’t read the Regency historicals like Balogh, Kleypas, etc. I only read half of the Bridgerton series. The only ones of that type on my keeper shelf is Loretta Chase’s Carsington series. (I love Rupert!) I do enjoy many of Nora Roberts’ trilogies. I adore In Death. Most of the series books I love are in other genres (mystery, fantasy, sci fi) except of course the Guild Hunters and Hidden Legacy.
Re: the Vorkosigan series. It’s an absolute favorite of mine but for me the series gets strongest about midway through. I enjoy the earlier books but don’t reread them as often. The truly fantastic books for romance lovers begin with Memory (the ultimate in hero-as-screwup and SUCH a fantastic book!), and go through Komarr, Civil Campaign* (Regency romance!), Diplomatic Immunity (honeymoon!), Cryoburn (not as strong but can’t be skipped), Captain Vorpatril’s Alliance (AKA the Ivan book, a romance and caper story), and the most recent (possibly the last) Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen (the ultimate older woman/younger man fantasy romance). Bujold never writes the same book twice and in many different genres but with a sci fi setting.
That said, you do need to read the earlier books in order to get to the fantastic ones. In my opinion, Warrior’s Apprentice is one of the weaker ones, but it’s worth reading just to get to the truly incredible stories to come. Other readers probably love some of the earlier books just as much as I love the more romantic storylines. The story definitely builds, Cetaganda planting seeds that don’t come to fruition until much later, for instance. If you got bogged down in Cordelia’s story, skip it and go back to it later, when you’ll see what a fantastic plotter Bujold is. It will mean more for you then.
* Dedicated to Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, Georgette Heyer and Dorothy Sayers
@Janine:
I recently read two fantasy books that were part of a series whose endings aggravated me.
Sarah Painter’s “the Silver Mark” that deliberately ended on a cliffhanger heroine received a piece of mail she opened in the last chapter) and since I was already meh on the previous book I’m done.
The other book was David R. Slayton “Trailer Park Trickster” which also ended on a cliffhanger AND I read it the month it came out but I’m enjoying the series, and I don’t think there was a way to end the book cleanly, but… UGH. I hate cliffhangers.
Oh. Yeah, the last couple Jane Yellowrock books haven’t ended cleanly. I’ve held of reading the last book because I can’t handle another bad cliffhanger.
There have been other books but mostly they are from series that are already published.
Mind you, I own the most recent Jane Yellowrock book, I just haven’t read it, and I will pre-order the next David Slayton book as soon as it’s available. But… those have been hard endings for me recently.
@Random Michelle: Ah! I understand better now. I didn’t realize you were talking about cliffhangers. There are a lot of trilogies in the genre but I think of them as one long story and if the third book has a happy ending I’m content, even if there are cliffhangers in the middle. I think it’s because I trust things will turn out well, though.
I did think of one book whose ending I hated after I replied to your comment, though. The Queen of Blood by Sarah Beth Durst. For the whole book the heroine is striving for something and in the end, she gets it but at what cost. Ugh. I understand it was a prequel, though. Her publisher suggested that she write it after what was originally intended to be the first book was written. Naturally, things start out in a bad place in the original book, so the prequel had to end in a bad place. I wish I’d known before I started because it was a horrible ending. I’ll never read the author again.
@Kari S.: The Carsington series is a good one if you can only choose one. Lord Perfect is probably my favorite. I wasn’t wild about Mr. Impossible because I’m originally from the Middle East (Israel) and I thought she got it wrong. Thanks for the Miles Vorkosigan tips!
@Rose and @Mag, after seeing your mentions of Sonya Clark’s Good Time Bad Boy in this thread, I read it with pleasure. Thank you for the recommendation!
@Kareni: It’s a terrific book. Sunita wrote a great review of it for us:
https://dearauthor.com/book-reviews/overall-a-reviews/a-minus-reviews/review-good-time-bad-boy-by-sonya-clark/
Lord Perfect is good, too. But Rupert is adorable, and I’m relatively ignorant about the Middle East. (Of course, most of the authors who write Regency historical aren’t much more accurate in their depiction of Regency England.)