Megan > Status Update

For me, it's more of if I like the 1st book, I expect the follow-up to suck 95% of the time. Have you noticed how few series actually gain readers with each installment? Normally, it's the opposite, each book in a series gets worse and worse and never lives up to the original.

Yeah. Sometimes I don't read books because they are part of a trilogy. I love Guy Gavriel Kay because he is able to wrap up a story in one book. Occasionally it takes two but usually just one.

Yes. So much so that I had to create a shelf called "series-still-to-read" to keep track of them all.

What also bothers me about the series is that once an author is locked into one, if you don't like the 1st book, then you won't read the follow-ups and it will be years until you will give this author another chance. For instance, I liked Lauren Oliver's debut, but then she wrote Delirium, and now I won't be reading her for another two years, if ever.

I agree with Tatiana, I don't think I will read Oliver again unless she goes back to realistic fiction. Delirium, Liesl & Po... I just didn't care that much for them.

My pet peeve, however, is when an author stretches a series out over - let's say - five books, when they really only had enough story for three. I will also admit that I'm really anxious about what KMM is going to do to the Fever series when she returns to it. I want more Fever, but I'm not sure this is the best idea.

It seems that more and more when a book is a planned trilogy, the first is nothing more than an introduction. Or ends on a huge cliffhanger. It is rare to get a complete and satisfying story in the first book. After having read the first book, curiosity makes me want to finish the series, yet practicality makes me want to skip it and move on.

Or book 1 is fantastic, book 2 is filler and book 3 gets the plot back on track. So many of these could really be put into one (albeit slightly long) novel.

Emily wrote: "Yes. So much so that I had to create a shelf called "series-still-to-read" to keep track of them all."

Oh! That is a fantastic idea! Again, the first book is okay ~ neither fantastic nor horrid, and I seem to lose track of when the subquentent books in the series are released. Perhaps a sign not to continue with that particular series/author ;)

I feel OK about Fever for now, no bad premonition yet. Hope KMM won't disappoint us:)

Megan, I am not even sure all these trilogies are planned. I feel like most of the time an author just has an idea or outline, and then is encouraged by agents and to split it up into 3.

At least Under the Never Sky had a respectful ending, so that there is a full story arc and if one doesn't want to read further, there is closure.

As long as JZB makes an appearance in Iced I will be a happy reader :)

I agree that a lot of these stories are not planned trilogies. This is so evident by the inconsistent pacing that is found in so many 2nd novels.

Under the Never Sky was all kinds of awesome! Just hope the remaining books hold up to the first. Like you, I almost expect to be disappointed by any 2nd book in a series.

I agree with everything written (view spoiler)[except about Under the Never Sky (hide spoiler)]. I feel like way too many YA series don't have enough material to be a series. And Megan, your patterns are spot on. The first book is either fantastic and the second is filler, or the first book is a long introduction and things pick up in the second.

Too many of these series are really one long novel that's just been chopped up. With some series, each book is a complete story in itself. I'm thinking of the Song of the Lioness quartet by Tamora Pierce. The first two books each come to a natural conclusion so that if you don't want to continue on with the series, you still feel a sense of completion after reading them, which is great because I hate the second two books with a fiery passion so it's easy for me to pretend they don't exist.

Yes, Jillian, I wonder why there is such a shortage of YA series where each book has a self-contained story arc. Are authors (or publishers) that insecure in the quality of their product that they feel the only thing that will bring a reader back is a cliff-hanger? If I like an author, I will read her/his next book regardless.

Yeah, for me, I prefer a series with some level of self-containment in each installment unless the cliffhanger feels natural and conducive to the overall story arc and characters. I think there are too many series where there are many threads left untied and end on an obvious "plotted" spectrum that it feels like the series is being drawn out or milked for emotion/drama.

Jillian -always aspiring- wrote: " think a lot of publishers noticed how the speculation factor (of where the story would go, of what awaited in the next book, etc.) occurring between releases of the Harry Potter books helped to garner more conversation between readers and more buzz for the books themselves."

The funny thing is that the Harry Potter books, at least in the beginning, were pretty self contained in that there was a distinct conclusion to each book. Yes, there was a sense of wanting to know what would happen to Harry, yet, at the end of each novel the big mystery is solved and dealt with and Harry is safe for the time being. At the same time there are carefully planned loose threads that remain unresolved. Too many YA novels either end with the main mystery unsolved, or with the characters in some dire situation, or without the overarching loose ends that need to be tied up over time.

I don't think you're being cynical, just realistic because as much as reading enriches lives, that's not why publishing houses exist. They're here to make money and they'll do whatever it takes to get it.

It's not just trilogies, it's series in general.

I think the problem is that nowadays an author often writes one book and makes contract with the publisher for sequels. More often than not, they are under pressure to write the next book in a year's time. Technically, it's possible. But do they have the inspiration? How much time did it really take for the first book to form in their mind?

And I fear that even when they plan the trilogy, they don't plan much further than the idea of writing the trilogy. As in, they haven't really planned what will happen next beyond a vague concept and maybe the ending.

Of course, there are authors who published novels in parts in newspaper, and they still work out well. But I suspect those were more-or-less half-written when submitted, just published in parts rather than as one book. And they are still one book, not three.

In fact, I can't really recall "trilogies" as they are now existing that far before. Ancient trilogies were somthing else. There were series with same main character, but they would have separate plots for every book. The trilogy that I suspect started the fad is actually one book split into three parts for publisher's convenience. Trilogies of today are merely series (in TV-style) in three parts.

I could abide cliffhangers, but the rush and lack of planning mentioned above are killing the quality as the series progress.

I can't really condemn serial writers. I imagine it is more lucrative to sign the contract for more books than give one by one to the publisher when you're done. I realise that many of them don't really have a steady job or a very well-paid one otherwise and that books are their livelihood.

That doesn't mean I have to like it.

Jillian -always aspiring- wrote: "Personally, I think the TV show formula (of certain episodes ending on a cliffhanger to get the viewer to more-than-likely watch the following week's episode) has seeped into book series storytelling. Cliffhangers are just the easy storytelling way to help instill in people the desire to "keep tuning in..."


That's an interesting point. I think Lost had to have been one of the worst! Despite likable characters and a strong story line, the show was nothing but one giant cliffhanger and sadly that gained & kept viewers.

You also make a good point about Harry Potter. It's true that waiting for sequels gets people talking about books and interested in reading. But while I believe J.K.Rowling had the entire series planned in advance (more or less) I seriously doubt that is true of most YA authors. There is so much consistency and depth to each HP novel. And, of course as Lisa pointed out, each novel is a self-contained story line.

Helen wrote: "It's not just trilogies, it's series in general.

I think the problem is that nowadays an author often writes one book and makes contract with the publisher for sequels. More often than not, they a..."

Agreed! It seems that either authors are encouraged to spread one book out over three, or they simply have taken the time to create one good idea in one book, and aren't able to create something equally well in the time alloted by the publisher to finish the second book.

I wonder if someone has started one of those Goodreads lists to keep track of stand-alone YA novels... I should take a look.