This is one thing I like about my forays into science fiction, much less in the way of shelf-breakers and more novellas and stand-alone novels. I don't have time to read these absolutely huge series and, frankly, I usually get bored with them. I absolutely adore Guy Gavriel Kay for he proves that fantasy can be one book and still be excellent.
AAAARRGGGHHH!!! (Or "Enough with the trilogies already!!!")
- Thread starter Mouseferatu
- Start date
But his best work is a duology (the Sarantine Mosaic books).ShadowX said:
I'm trying to stay away from any more series where the last book is more than six months away (excepting loosely connected works like Pratchett's Discworld books or Brust's Vlad Taltos books, where there are multiple novels involving the same characters in the same world, but there's no grand over-arching plot).
Designed-for trilogies don't bother me too much; they usually are actually completed in three books, and except in rare circumstances, they don't take too long for the writer to finish (because they're usually not working on anything else, and few writers need more than two years to complete a book unless life outside of writing gives them a lot of trouble). It's when the target length is four or more that four turns to six or seven or eleven. So with a trilogy, I can be patient and buy it in paperback.
Particle_Man
Explorer
A good new book: "The Curse of Chalion" by Lois McMaster Bujold. While there now has been a second book set in the same world with different characters, I would say the books are not intended to be a series, and I fully expected the first book to be the only book set in that world. (The second book was good, but is certainly not necessary).
GeorgeFields
Explorer
The only stand alone novel I can even recall reading was "Nightwatch" by Rose Estes. It's part of the old Greyhawk series, but it isn't tied to any of them.
Dyir
First Post
I was impressed with "The War of the Flowers" by Tad Williams. Especially considering that his "Otherland" series was four books long, and that "Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn" should have been four books long. But "War of the Flowers" is a complete work all by itself, and I really enjoyed it.
RobJN
Adventurer
I would suggest some of Dennis McKiernan's Mithgar novels -- yes, they're mostly set in the same world, but in such a way as to jump around in different eras. I really enjoyed much of his later Mithgar works, much more so than the first trilogy (Iron Tower) and duology (Silver Call) (both of which have been collected into single volumes now).
Check out: "Dragonstone," "Voyage of the Fox Rider," "Dragondoom," and "Eye of the Hunter."
If nothing else, you might get some great new villain ideas like I did...
Good reading,
Rob
Check out: "Dragonstone," "Voyage of the Fox Rider," "Dragondoom," and "Eye of the Hunter."
If nothing else, you might get some great new villain ideas like I did...
Good reading,
Rob
Dimwhit
Explorer
I tend to prefer trilogies. However, I also prefer to know how many books will be in a series before I start reading the first. Nothing more annoying than getting a cliffhanger you weren't expecting. I am shamefully to blame for doing this, however. I published a novel (I'm not the author) that had a planned sequel, but we didn't tell people. Oops.
Aust Diamondew
First Post
Most of Terry Pratchette's Discworld novels take place on the same world but many are stand alone books that have characters who may or may not appear in another book or if they do they don't necessarily have much if anything to do with the original book the character was in (such as Death, he appear in every book but not necessarily as major character but generally just becuase somebody died.)
Similar Threads
