I think I have finally figured out why new romance books don't interest me much at the moment. Earlier I thought my 'Books to Buy' journal looks a bit skimpy and that I should beef it up to leave it for Will to use when buying me books.
So I spent an hour, browsing Amazon.com and some sites, looking for books to buy, and an hour later, I'm depressed because almost all that I could find are part of their book series. Take these as an example:
- Master of Wolves - Angela Knight / third book in Mageverse universe.
- A Bite to Remember - Lynsay Sands / sixth [?] book in Argeneau family series
- Three Little Secrets - Liz Carlyle / third of Secrets series
- Even Vampires Get the Blues - Katie MacAlister / third in Beloved series
- The Temptation of the Duke - Eloisa James / third in Four Sisters series
- Simply Magic - Mary Balogh / second [?] in Simply series
- The Book of True Desires - Betina Krahn / second book in The Book of series
- His Wicked Kiss - Gaelen Foley / another of Knight family series
I could go on and on and on and bleeding
on.
There are too many series going around in romance genre at the moment. I don't mind trilogies, but come on, why is it
so hard to find a standalone romance? There MUST be some romances out there that aren't part of a damn series! I'm getting tired of clicking on a book title, only to find that it's part of a series.
I don't want to buy a romance that has
The End, But Before You Go! I want to Tell You that Dash's Best Friend Devis's Story is Due Out This Summer!! And Not Long After That, There Will Be Devis's Brother Tevin's Book!!
I want the one that has
The End. Full stop. Fin. Finished.
Over. No
Maybe about it.
I'm voting with my money by not buying any more 'series' book. I'm going to stick with standalone romances only. I'll probably lose out on some good ones, but I don't care. I'm just tired of it. Yes, I'm cranky. It's because I'd spent an hour trying to find something to
buy. It's like being stuck in a shoe shop and being told that if I want to buy that shoe, I'll have to wait next to get the other shoe.
*sigh* I haven't whined so much for a while. It feels weird. :D Anyhow, I'm all seried out, so I'm going to branch out to see what else is there.
Link of the Day: Romance Novel Cover Generator
[taken from Michele Albert's
blog]
Be good, be bad & be safe.
12 Comments:
IIRC, you've commented before about disliking series romances. I agree with you in many cases. I'll follow a series for a while, but I'm not a rabid follower. Two bad ones in a row, forget it.
I commented a few days ago that I buy some of the heavily hyped books, but then I make sure they sit in my TBR for six to nine months or longer. Simply because I prefer to wait for the hype to die down.
As to popular authors *shrug* I've the 1st MJD & still haven't read it. Garwood, Putney- not anymore. Feehan has one more chance & that's it. No more: L. Sands, M. Balogh, A. Knight, J. Ivory. Haven't read- SEP, Carlyle, Kinsael (2 TBR, but they've been there awhile). On the fence about J. Beverley, loved a few, hated a few. Same with B. Krahn.
The list of on the fences (does that make sense?) is actually longer, but I"ll stop hogging your comments now.
3/10/2006 06:24:00 pm
Amanda - I commented on disliking series before? Oops. Yes, I usually leave hyped books in TBR pile, but it has reached the point where I really can't afford space for it. Yup, that's the aftermath of getting sucked into the dejunking fever. :D Darls, you can hog comments all you want. [That goes for everyone else, too.] So hog away.
3/10/2006 07:49:00 pm
lol I've got hyped books that stay in the tbr pile longer. Hmmmmm.....*thinking*
3/10/2006 08:01:00 pm
Just so you don't feel left out, here is my blog post from Oct. you were on hiatus.
http://cindyl.blogspot.com/2005/10/weird-rant.html
I'm sick to death of connected books. Tired. And yet, I'm into JR Ward
Cindys
3/10/2006 08:20:00 pm
As a reader, I'm frustrated by the endless series as well -- I was going to pick up #3 Liz Carlyle from the grocery store yesterday, but then realized I hadn't read #1 or #2, and I won't likely in the near future due to my (lack of) reading time lately. So I left it there and picked up a category instead.
Have never bothered with Kenyon, as I don't want to pick up a backlist; the same with Sands and MacAlister (actually, I had a terrible experience with one of her contemp comedies, so I probably wouldn't anyway).
J.R. Ward? I have the first, haven't read it yet. Eloisa James, I read the first, couldn't find time for the second, and I'm aware that it pretty much means I won't be bothering with the rest of them now in the series. In fact, once one book in a series doesn't work for me (or I miss it) chances are I won't bother with others.
I like connected books and series...I just hate coming in late, and having to spend a huge chunk on backlist. So I just don't.
An exception? Lord Perfect by Loretta Chase. I'm going to pick it up even though I haven't read Miss Wonderful.
As an author...*shifty look* I guess I'll blog about that later. I needed a topic anyway.
3/11/2006 12:38:00 am
I get sick of the series too - as I gaze towards Crazy Kisses just waiting to get back to it. There are a lot of books I won't read if I know they are series books. I think we've done it to ourselves though - always clamouring for more. Just look at the hype that goes on about Julia Quinn (who I refuse to read until she moves on from that damned Bridgerton family) and already it's started with the next Kleypas book. But still I would love to see a lot more true stand alone books!
3/11/2006 04:03:00 am
Sometimes I get sick of series but sometimes I'm a series addict. Feehan for example. Her previous 2 or 3 Dark book haven't excited me yet I have this need to stick with this series til the last book. And I kinda like connected books so I guess my money is talking to the writers and publishers. Back in the day they didn't do alot of series. One read 600 to 700 page romances and that was it. No brothers, sisters, friends to follow.
3/11/2006 05:54:00 am
Sooooooooo you were going to buy a Katie MacAlister novel if it stood alone?
I am a complete series!slut so really can't say anything here. I do have five or six Feehan tbr that are off to the ubs if I can find out if they are ever coming out in MM or not. I will not buy the funkysize.
A few not series: Luck of the Draw by Gail Link, The Kept Woman by Susan Donovan, Aussie Rules by Jill Shalvis, One and Only by Alice Valdal, Autumn in Scotland by Karen Ranney, She's No Princess by Laura Lee Guhrke*, The Grail King by Joy Nash*, Lady Danger by Sarah McKerrigan (trilogy), Reckless by Karen Robards (end of the Banning Sister trilogy from forever ago), HOT NIGHT by Shannon McKenna
that is a mix of stuff off my blog but you can find most if not all at amazon the two * I can't recall if they are or not but looks like not....
Hope you find something fun and interesting!
3/11/2006 08:30:00 am
Series romance drives me up the wall! Most of the time, these books would work much better without the series element. Characters from past books turn into personality less match makers. Characters from future books just clutter up the plot. Ugh!
I mind series less in paranormal romance though. The world building element in para rom makes the series element feel less out of place.
3/11/2006 04:52:00 pm
I think I might be the lone dissenter here. I don't hate series because if the writer has a voice I enjoy and creates good characters, I like remaining in the world established in whichever title of the series I've picked up. I'm glad to have a chance to read more.
That being said, I don't like series books that require I read every title - in order - to "get it". If the book is written well, it can read as a stand-alone. Loretta Chase's Mr. Impossible is a perfect example. I read that without having read Miss Perfect and had no trouble with it at all. I haven't read Miss Perfect and don't know if I will or not.
I suppose it comes down to not understanding why reading one book in a series "requires" anyone to read any of the other books in a series. If I pick up Book D in a series and like the story well enough, I don't feel I need to read Books A, B, or C or any that follow afterward, even if Book D's hero had seventeen gorgeous brothers looking for good women to love.
3/11/2006 07:37:00 pm
Nicole - heheh. Same here. There's one hyped book stayed longer than any other books in the pile. I'm trying to remember what that book was. Oh, Adrian Mole! At the time, *everyone* in the UK read it, but I did not get round to reading it until some five years later. :D It's a funny book. Rewards come to those who wait(!)
CindyS - thanks for that link. You have far more patience than I have. I would never stand it. Brava you!
Misty G - absolutely. Sometimes mystery works. Speculation about a side character fires your imagination and sometimes that's just enough. For me, at least. I mean, there have been times when a side character is so interesting in one story that readers might talk about this character, but when he or she gets her own story, s/he is nothing like what s/he was before.
I mean, quite a few remembers Alcott's LITTLE WOMEN, but how many have read or even remember JO'S BOYS?
Meljean - I read your blog post. In your case, I'd not mind because a) it's a trilogy, b) it's tightly connected - as opposite to "oh, here is another because ... well, just because!", and c) your trilogy has a long arc. So it makes sense. It's not as if you're going Robert Jordan on us, are you? :D If you dared, I'll beat you silly with a Barbie doll.
Kristie J - oh, I'm aware that it's a case of supply and demand, but there are some authors who refuse, e.g. Linda Howard who refuses to write stories of two Mackenzie brothers. And I like that. I'm still gutted that A Game of Chance is crap. I still think that he shouldn't have his own story.
Erika - yeah, you're right. I think for many long-time readers, the concept of long-running series that feature different couples is a novelty [as opposite to adventures of Steve and Ginny], but I think the novelty is wearing off. I bloody hope so, anyway!
Sybil - nope. It's just an example. You know I'd not read a Kate MacAlister book again. Thanks for the list. You're a star. :)
Dana - Most of the time, these books would work much better without the series element. *nods* I fully agree. Hm, paranormal rom series? It depends, I think. Like with historical or contemporary, if there is a solid reason for a series to happen, I might go for it, but for the sake of it? Nah.
Lynn M - you're not the lone dissenter! Trust me on this one. If a well-written book can be read as a standalone, why makes it part of a series at all? That's what I fail to understand. I think 'a series' implies that you have to read all books of a series to understand the purpose of having a series. If there is no purpose, then what's the point of having a series? If it's just revisiting a family or a bunch of friends, then it shouldn't be labelled 'series', I think. You show yourself a very flexible reader, which I wish I could be. :D For me, if there is a series, I feel compelled to read the entire series, otherwise it'd feel 'incomplete'. That's a problem I have to deal with. :>
But anyhow, I'm not saying that I'm against the concept of series. What I'm saying is there are *so many* series out there. There are some standalone novels that turned into series, which vexes me. It's a bit like how everyone is tired of having nothing but Regency-era or British-set historical romances.
It's like that for me with series. Give me some more standalones, and I'll shut up and sit in a corner to read them quietly, leaving everyone else to enjoy their series books. :)
3/11/2006 08:26:00 pm
Okay, this got so long, I dithered over posting this to Maili's comments or into my own blog. I decided to let Maili keep it. (G)
Anyway, I don't think you're alone, Lynn. For the most part I tend to like connected books in romance but I also say that knowing full well that the romance genre (and therefore its authors) seems to having problems nowadays deciding what types of connected books they're doing. Or they attempt to do something that really doesn't work for the story or stories they're telling then wonder why readers start rebelling.
Logically, there are basically three ways to connect books:
1) story arcs - these can but not always involve the same characters, HAVE to be sequential and are mainstays of science fiction & fantasy
2) episodic series - these almost always use the same primary character or character, don't have to be sequential and are the mainstay of mystery and suspense
3) universe spin-offs - these involve creating or using an existing "world" wherein multiple stories can happen that aren't necessarily sequential but can be in certain circumstances
If there's another way, I haven't figured it out yet but it is important to remember these three approaches and not lump all connected groups into the same basket. Thing is that romance used to do universe spin-offs almost exclusively, whether we're talking about single titles or category books. And it worked because spin-offs within the same universe and different couples featured in each book go hand-in-hand. I still have absolutely no problem reading an infinite number of these because the stories don't have to be read in any order. Besides that, the author, and therefore the reader, can leave and come back to the universe created, whether it's historical, contemporary, futuristic or even alternate reality, any time they want.
The problem nowadays seems to be that authors want to connect a lot of their books in one or both of the other ways, too, and yet expect readers to buy that the individual books can still stand completely alone. That's just ridiculous.
The only time multiple book story arcs have worked for me in romances is when the "series" is limited to a specific number of books AND the overall arc is IMPORTANT to the stories being told rather than just there to tie things together. Marginalizing the overall arc only emphasizes how much the readers are being strung along when we're talking about a lot of books. Trilogies work exceptionally well, but I can stretch my patience to five or six IF the universe is also an interesting place to be.
Same thing with episodics, more or less. I love mysteries so using the same characters can also work for me but, again the problem is that romance authors seem to want to layer in an overall story arc instead of sticking to a true episodic type story. So, keeping things to a limited number of installments applies even more. After about three books about the same romantic couple trying to reach their happily ever after, I really loose patience.
The point is to ask yourself what it really is that you got tired of in any particular connected romance series. I'd be willing to bet it isn't the universe or even the individual stories but waiting and waiting AND waiting for that blasted overall story arc to play out one way or another.
Okay, I think I'll shut up now and go curl up with a book. (G)
3/11/2006 08:31:00 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home