This subject has been brewing in my head for some time, and it finally came to a crisis point after reading two books in a row that didn't have endings.
The two books were AutumnQuest by Terie Garrison and Abadazad: The Road to Inconceivable by J. M. DeMatteis and Mike Ploog. Both were fun reads, but neither one was a complete story. The main character racked up a whole bunch of problems to solve, and didn't solve any of them before the book abruptly left off with a "to be continued". What is this, I thought, a weekly comic strip?
I think a big part of this is marketing - more money! But how dare publishers call something a "book" which is only a chapter of the story?! Another good example of this would be The Spiderwick Chronicles, a five-book series by Holly Black and Tony DiTerlizzi. If all five "books" ("chapters") had been published as one book, it would'nt have been a problem.
Take a different series - Harry Potter, for a widely-known example. If someone was to pick up, say, the sixth book (without having previously read any of the others), they might be pretty confused. I decided that I don't think the Harry Potter books stand alone. And everything isn't wrapped up at the end of each book - for instance, Voldemort still isn't defeated even after six books. But each book does have its own plot that finishes up by the end of the book.
So I came to the conclusion that I don't need books to stand alone. I just need them to have their own story. And that story needs to be complete.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Wow Erin, you have ways of putting things that make Perfect sense!
I have read some books that don't have endings. It's very depressing.
Hear, hear!
I know exactly what you mean! My aunt gave me the first book of a series, and it was exciting, confusing, and without an ending! So, I had to buy the second book -- still no ending! Third book -- and no ending. The fourth book wasn't even out yet! They were long books too. That isn't my preferred style at all.
I hate it when a book leaves you on a total cliff-hanger and if it's a book in a series and you don't even have a single clue what might happen next.
It doesn't make sense to write books that way-I agree, a book has to have an ending!
Yeah, but the first three books HP books were pretty complete. By the time you get to book four, you know they are going to be some unresolved issues. Or else why would you want to read the next one?
When I write series, the first book is always complete, but has an opening for more. Because, quite frankly, you don't know if the first one is going to sell, and if anyone is going to even want another one.
Most people, I don't think would pick up a book six and start off. They might pick up a book two or three, and most of those have enough information not to make them confusing.
But I agree that a first book should not leave you hanging. I hope that author has a mulitple book deal and that the first one sold well, or else they're in trouble.
Books like that drive me crazy! I wait till the entire series is out and then I check them out from the library...
Another thing that's abnoxious is books like Eragon that are just a bunch of ideas from other books. And yet, they call the kid who wrote it an author.
I HATE books without endings. It is probably my biggest pet peeve. The worst part is you don't even know it will happen until you get to the end. No warning that says "watch out, no ending!". :)
Yes, Erin! Yes! Welcome to my world!
That's what I mean when I talk about the difference between a series and a serial. A series has a complete story. A serial doesn't. And I do think there's some marketing going on with them.
i just read autumm quest, and i thought the end was great. the girl rescues her brother from being executed, which was what the whole book was about. i want to read the sequel to see what happens next, but the ending made me happy.
Post a Comment