Talk to Me Tuesday: Series or Stand-alone?

Talk to Me Tuesday is a great new weekly meme for bookish discussion, hosted by Melissa of I Swim For Oceans. 

This week's question: Do you prefer series or stand-alone novels and why?

Argh, I can never decide on this — I feel like it really depends. If there is discernible progression in the storylines and character development, then I don't mind if it's a series. But there has to be that sense of an overarching story arc that spans the series, and it has to feel like each book gets noticeably closer to culminating in the big climactic scene in the final book that will tie everything together. Furthermore, within each book in a series I like there to be some sense of resolution of a smaller storyline, so the reader isn't just left hanging. I think a good example of a well-done series story arc is the Uglies series by Scott Westerfeld (just the first three, not Extras, which is, as it sounds, an extra book that doesn't fit in like the others do). Tally changes significantly through each of the 3 books, in a way that is memorable and distinctive and yet still retains the mystery of how she's going to survive the next book. 

This doesn't, however, mean that the book can't end in a cliffhanger. Catching Fire, for instance, had everyone holding their breath for Mockingjay. I think there's a lot of necessary progression in characters and storylines that goes on in Catching Fire. Mild spoiler alert: But Catching Fire doesn't just end in the middle of the arena with half a book's worth of plot still to go. The arena part of the storyline gets completed. 

I also think it can work when books are companion novels. Though the first in Shannon Hale's Bayern series (The Goose Girl) is still my favorite, all of these books have been quite successful and I think it is in part because each book gives a new character a chance to shine.

 

However, if making a book into a series means drawing everything out and leaving a book with not much of a plot just so you can set up the next one...I am not so much of a fan. Then it starts looking like the author just wants to have more books published so they can make more money, when really they could write the whole story in a single book. Another common scenario is that the first book works quite well as a stand-alone, but then everyone loves it so much they want a sequel. So the author writes an unnecessary sequel that flops, because there isn't a compelling reason for a continuation of these characters' lives.

Plus, sometimes I just want to be able to savor an entire story - beginning, middle, and satisfying ending - in one book. That means I don't have to haul a six-book series with me if I go somewhere, or wait impatiently for a year until the next book comes out. Delayed gratification is not always worth it!

So, in short, I guess I like both...as long as they're done right.