What really is the reasoning behind using multiple books to tell a single story?
I have read the first books of I don’t know how many book serials (and I’m using serial here instead of series, I’ll explain in a minute) and quite frankly, I don’t see why the author thought it a good idea to break the story into multiple books.
I like complete, fully told stories between the covers of the books I read. Those stories are fine if they are part of a larger book universe and make up just one piece of the time line but for goodness sakes, let them be stand alone stories in and of themselves, please. For example, the Southern Vampire series by Charlaine Harris; The Dresden Files books by James Butcher; Anne Rice’s vampire books ( while not considered a “series” takes the same characters, and the world they live in through a series of books and places in time), the Hollows series by Kim Harrison, etc. – all great series, yet each book is a complete story unto itself. You can read one, enjoy it and either move on, or not.
This leaving me in the middle of a plot sort of pisses me off. I don’t want to have to spend more money on books 2, 3, or Heaven help us, 4, 5, and 6 until I get to, “The End” of the ONE plot you started off with. Give me a fresh idea with the same characters, okay…I’m good. But seriously, do we need a whole book leading up to the fight, another book about the fight, a third about the aftermath, and a fourth just in case you needed the whole shebang told from the loser’s perspective? Argh.
Personal preference has been stated. Now, back to your regularly scheduled day. Hope you’re having a good one.