The fact that I have to be ready to wait for continuation of story just because the books are not out yet, have to get three or more books in order to finish a story or have to double or triple check if I’m really buying the fist book in the series (and if the story is serialised) has been bugging me for a long time. What is the point of having books serialised, if each book is 300 pages in large font and the word count is really low? I am not working or in any way related to the publishing world, so all my musings here are guesses only, yet I would love, if you would give your pros and cons to my theories as well as introduce your own and tell me, if you share my (small) frustrations.
As I said, very often something that could have been one book is stretched into three… and stories that could have been a trilogy are turned into six books. I haven’t read all the series obviously, but this tendency is a quite recent one and I am wondering why it is so that I have to buy three books instead of just one.
First things first: more than often I have heard from many reviewers that the second book in the trilogy was the worst in series and felt like a filler book. Which might be just right! I have heard that the Hunger Games, The Twilight Saga
, Fifty Shades
and Divergent
could have been one big book opposed to trilogies. But nevertheless, new series are springing up like mushrooms after rain and I have to check every book to see, if I will be alright by reading ‘just this one book’ or that I haven’t by mistake bought the wrong part of a book… And it is all fun and games, because I am following releases and partially can remember series and stand-alones I’m interested in, yet there are many casual readers, who just buy a book based on its description and might not look out for series. Or is it by design? A casual reader will buy the second book in the series and then realize he has to buy the first one?
I have a few guesses, why series are so popular among publishers in the modern days and more or less it all comes down to money.
So, if a publisher agrees to publish series by an author (even if author intended it to be a stand-alone), the publisher still has the emergency exit… If the book is published and it doesn’t take off, the publisher can just decide not to publish the rest of the parts and not lose money that those extra 600 pages would obviously be. That is one of my guesses, but it doesn’t seem to hold true because some of the unpopular series have gotten all the books out and even the Throne of Glass series are known for getting better with each book.
The next guess is the author’s popularity. If the author writes a splendid masterpiece, selling it in small chunks keeps him popular and afloat for few years, thus the readers will want to know and make a fuzz and buzz two more times (for trilogy) and the author will still have time to write something new for his fans once the first series end. Waiting is part of the excitement and excitement is part of the liking!
But if it would be just in one big book and the author doesn’t write a new story to captivate his audience, author’s popularity would eventually die out. Also, if a big story is divided in parts, the reader will associate himself more with the writer and want to read the next book. For some readers it is also easier to read short books, which means that by publishing one big story, the author kind of writes himself off for those readers who are up only for short novels.
Could it be that some books have not been written and that’s why they are serialised? I highly doubt that it is such a life or death situation that it couldn’t wait. Besides I’m pretty sure that most of the second parts are in progress and some even in editing, when the first one comes out or is announced. What’s the problem in waiting?
And my last guess goes back to the publisher, which is a fairly obvious assumption in my opinion – the more books, the more readers have to buy – the more money for the publisher.
If I would have to buy one book (lets imagine Hunger Games), if we reduce the font size (at least my copies were in large fonts), we get probably 600 pages (we might even ditch some of the filler text and reduce it more, but lets stick with 600). That would be what? About 10, alright… maximum 15 quid? Yet, when serialised, I have to buy three books, which is at least 7-10 quid each, that makes it to be minimum of 21. Of course, if you don’t buy the books straight away they get cheaper, but most readers don’t want to wait, they want to know what happens to their heroes and loved ones. So obviously the publisher has to make a separate PR campaign, design and print a separate cover, yet they earn more money, if, of course the series have been widely appreciated.
But all this doesn’t mean that fair share of the books that are published in series shouldn’t be series, no, there are series that wouldn’t really work as one book, for example, A Song of Ice and Fire (obviously)…
So what do you think, why books are serialised so much nowadays? Do you have any thoughts on the topic or maybe some insights from the publishers? Do you feel like some of the series you have bought were not worth the money? Or series you think could have worked as one or maybe even two books? Have you ever given a thought to this type of publishing that has become mainstream? Let me know your thoughts and if it frustrates you too, not as much because you can’t read them, but because you have to double and triple check, to not buy the wrong part or because of the long waiting time…
July 18, 2016 at 13:29
I hate series and actively avoid them unless the entire series is written. Even then, I am far less likely to pick one up. I don’t mind, and sometimes even enjoy, books written in the same world. Might get a cameo appearance from a previously loved or hated character. Fine. As long as the book stands on it own and I haven’t had to read the previous 12 to get the full story.
Nothing makes me angrier than a cliffhanger between books, either.
Frankly, I sort of feel like publishers are doing it because then they can sell 3 books instead of one. Authors do it because publishers tell them to. I can’t help but think books like The Stand would now be a trilogy.
Wow, I sound bitter. And maybe I am. Too often I feel like I’ve been burned buying a book, getting 1/4 of the way in and thinking WTF? Then going online and learning its book 2 of the series or book 7. Amazon has been getting better about denoting series or trilogies before I buy, but sometimes it’s hard just to find a stand alone book!
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 18, 2016 at 15:08
I so understand you! And I also feel like saying that you can’t squeeze everything is sometimes whining. It’s not like Game of Thrones each book is 300 pages in large font, yet somehow people still read them, don’t they?
And saying that the author continues series because fans want more seems silly. Author should never continue series, if he/she doesn’t feel like it, because, if only the fans want it, then that usually means that the book is not going to be too good.
LikeLike
July 19, 2016 at 05:38
I do think money is a part of it, but also sometimes there is a lot of world building in a story. Usually the first book has to set the foundation of a story and if it were a standalone it would feel incomplete and rushed.
I really like to read series and trilogies. I like staying with the characters over a lengthy period of time. I think that is also why I refer TV shows to movies. It takes a lot for a movie to captivate me and love it so much I’ll watch it again and again. Most of the time I see it once and then forget what happened a few months later. But a TV show I will follow for years and years and memorize quote and storylines.
I am definitely a serial reader. Not to say that I don’t also read standalone novels but what I love about a series or trilogy is the anticipation and speculation. One of my biggest regrets was waiting till all of the Harry Potter books and films were released to marathon-read-through the books. I still fell in love with the story but I was a bit spoiled for some major plot points and I’ll never have the memories of waiting for the next book and midnight book releases.
As for the second book of a trilogy being the worst and a filler I can think of two that were my favorites of their trilogies.
Catching Fire (from Hunger Games) and Golden Son (from Red Rising).
I can think of one series that should have only been a standalone and I disliked the first book so much I didn’t continue. Dorothy Must Die, by Danielle Paige. That I see as an example as a publisher trying to milk it. When I was reading it I thought it would be a standalone but then it dragged on and on and there was a cliffhanger. I got so frustrated.
The Mortal Instruments books should have stayed a trilogy. Books 4-6 were not really necessary and now the universe is expanding into a new series set a few years later. I don’t think I’ll keep up with that one.
The best thing about living in a digital age is that if you’re unsure if a book is part of a series or not, all you have to do is look it up. Then from there decide if you want to invest in the series.
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 19, 2016 at 08:05
When I read the Hunger Games, I didn’t follow much book news, so I thought it’s just one book, I liked it and well, it wasn’t perfect, but still I liked it, yet then I found out about two more books coming up and I was wondering what new could she do. I hated the second book. 😀 The story wasn’t even that bad, but I disliked the idea of dragging the same thing again. My mom, who was a fan of the first one (and the reason I read it), disliked the second one so much that she didn’t even read the last one.
I don’t say that no series should exist, I just think that necessary series shouldn’t exist. And authors shouldn’t care, if the readers want more, but write, if they feel like it, so it is not forced.
Mortal Instruments is on my TBR list sooooo long, I think because of all the good reviews I don’t want to be disappointed.
LikeLike
July 23, 2016 at 03:08
Good discussion. I agree that the bottom line is money (as with most things these days), not artistic integrity. Some series deserve to exist but many seem drawn out to no good purpose. A good author doesn’t have to have a series to keep readers coming back. I think of John Grisham right off the bat. Even some writers who have the same character in multiple books don’t always serialize them so they are interdependent. Agatha Christie is a great example of that: any Hercule Poirot or Miss Marple book can stand alone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 25, 2016 at 17:39
I reckon it’s definitely the extra money from having 3 books to buy instead of one. (Obviously I’m talking about all these short-book trilogies, rather than genuine series like His Dark Materials)
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 25, 2016 at 22:03
So cool that you are calling the publishing industry out on this! I also feel like the series have just taken off lately. You make fair points, but I don’t think it’s all about the money. At least I’d like to think that.
But it also seems authors are afraid of duologies (which would be more fitting for a few of the books you’ve mentioned), because the world of story telling revolves around three part structure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 26, 2016 at 14:57
I’d agree that the bottom line is money, but I’ve also always wandered if it’s to do with size. Shorter books tend to appeal to more people (because let’s be honest, a big chunky book is intimidating) so I’ve always thought that if an idea is published as a series, more people will read it because it’s more digestible and you get that yearning and excitement about reading as you’re waiting for the next instalment to come out. Does that make sense to anyone but me?
Having said that, I still get a great sense of achievement from reader a heffer of a book than I do from completing a book series!
LikeLike
August 5, 2016 at 19:56
I’ve actually gotten to the point where I won’t start a series until the publication date of the final book of the series is within 3-6 months. I’ve just now gotten around to Harkness’ All Souls trilogy because of this.
LikeLiked by 1 person