Our Enduring Love/Hate Relationship With Linked Books
From Dear Author:
Some conversations in romancelandia never go away: accuracy and authenticity in historical romance, whether Jamie Fraser of Outlander is a great hero or the greatest, and whether series books are wonderful or maddening or both. Coincidentally, I was about to finish the last book of an eight-book series when I saw a column lamenting the lack of stand-alone books in romance. I was nodding my head in agreement when I suddenly stopped and thought, wait a minute. I’ve been reading series and linked books in the romance genre as long as I’ve been reading romance, and these include some that were written before I was born. Are there really more series books and less stand-alone novels? Is it that we notice series more because we talk about them as a community? Are they publicized more, by authors and publishers? Or is it just something we have mixed feelings about so the conversation never really goes away?
There are a number of ways books can be linked to each other in a series.
(1) They can feature the same characters over a number of novels, like Eve and Roarke in J.D. Robb’s In Death series, and the relationship develops over the installments. Among non-genre books, the development of Lord Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane’s romance by Dorothy Sayers is one of my favorites.
(2) They can feature a shared world, with different main characters in each books; previous characters make quick or more extended appearances, the way strangers and friends do in real life. Meljean Brooks’ Guardian and Iron Seas series are contemporary examples of these; Mary Burchell’s Warrender Saga books and Angela Thirkell’s Barsetshire novels are blasts from the past.
(3) They can revolve around a family or set of friends, with each member of the group starring in his or her own book. They can be single-authored or multiple-authored. The Bridgertons, the Cynsters, the Mallorens, the Bedwyns and the Black Dagger Brotherhood come to mind immediately when I think family/friends series, and I don’t even read Laurens or Ward.
When I stop and think about it, romance is the only genre among the ones I read regularly where readers complain about too many series. The SFF and mystery genres are dominated by series, and the debate usually rages around issues of quality (Wheel of Time) or time between books (I know, George RR Martin is not my bitch), rather than whether they should exist at all. Characters can grow and change (Rebus, Dalziel, Spenser), or they can remain almost cartoonishly static (James Bond, Mickey Spillane, Nancy Drew, the Hardy Boys).
Link to the rest at Dear Author
, Amazon will pay Passive Guy a small affiliate commission on any of your purchases.
Love/hate relationships are very common in the Romance Community.
So they slip off the page into real life, K.A.?
It appears so.
I stopped reading a lot of the romance book blogs after one of the great “All Indies Suck” flame wars. My Irish temper was up – I didn’t want to make a spectical of myself.
The problem with series for Romance readers is that they’re looking for Happily Ever After. That is the problem of the story is whether the pair will get together. When they do, they’re supposed to stay together. That doesn’t lend itself to a series.
Other genres with a romantic subplot, however, can do anything with that subplot. They can have a stable relationship where the charming characters solve crimes or explore the universe. Or they can have characters who fight endlessly, or compete. Or even drift around in other relationships while forming a friendship with each other.
You just can’t do that in romance. I mean, you can have those other elements as subplots and complications…. but you have to wrap up the romance angle in one story.
Good point, Camille.
Very true – the strict adherence to certain tropes limits what the writer can do.
Break the trope at the writer’s peril.
I cannot read a true series in romance unless the couple takes several books to end up together. Because to me, part of romance is the happy ending, and I have NO interest in seeing them split up or have problems or just be boring and married while they solve mysteries together.
I don’t mind linked series like she mentions, or family/friend groups, except that if they go on for too many books or happen in too short a period of time I get skeptical. I mean…are ALL of your friends and siblings happily married? Mine aren’t. There’s a good third or so of my friends who are not paired off, and of those who are, only about half seem truly happy. There’s happy enough to stay married, and then there’s Westley and Buttercup happy. I just find it hard to believe, say, 6 or 8 siblings/friends ALL found that one perfect partner and it’s sunshine and roses for ever and ever amen.
I think I prefer the very loose series where the different main characters may know each other but are not all part of the same group/family/club. First because those read like standalones with easter eggs for continuing readers, and second because the stories seem more realistic that way. As much as I like to think I embrace the ridiculous ways and means of romance…the truth is the ones I like best are the ones that seem most grounded in real life.
I’ve certainly seen complaints about too many series in SFF–especially too many trilogies. I would think that, if you’re not a fan of series, romance series (at least the two latter types described above) would be more palatable than SFF series. After all, you don’t need to read all the books in the series to get the story, since each romance book will have its own self-contained romance, and there’s a much lower chance of books ending on frustrating cliffhangers.
Of course, this is all speculation, as I’m not a romance reader; I’d be interested in opinions from people who read both romance and SFF.
I read both. In general romance series have self-contained stories, and even those with continuing stories don’t tend to end on cliffhangers. There are exceptions, but in general the trilogy/multiple books to tell one story with cliffhanger endings the whole way through is an SFF trope, not a romance one.
There is a good crossover series “Lord of the Fading Lands” by C. L. Wilson that is Romance and Fantasy. It was supposed to be 3 books, but it ended up as 5. I really enjoyed the series. The first 2 books were VERY good, the rest felt rushed.
That was the last Fantasy I read, because most Fantasy stories end up with too many characters, in too many books. (cough-wheel-of-cough-time-cough)
I grew up waiting for the next installment of Norton’s Witch World, McCaffery’s Pern and Bradley’s Darkover. But those books felt like they had a tighter focus.
Romance series – they feel more like a family or extended family – which is something I miss in my own life. I also miss a sense of place…which I had growing up on Bridge Street. It may be a female thing – going back to small towns and tribes, but I’m sure there’s an archtype in there somewhere.
Great conversation as usual, especially as not all of you are romance readers. I’d like to ask a question: do you prefer a series to be closed or open?
Closed: the author has worked out a story/character arc over a set number of books. The obvious example is Harry Potter, where JKR conceived the story as a 7-book set, and had no intention of continuing once those seven books were done.
Open: the author has got some great characters and will keep writing books about them as long as s/he has the energy. Think Elizabeth Peters or Laurie R. King, or Outlander, or Sherlock Holmes. Sometimes there’s a deliberate “last book,” sometimes not.
I have a strong preference for a series to have an overall story arc, and will eventually abandon a series that just seems to have gone on too long. Authors invariably have to introduce all kinds of secondary characters to keep the series going, and you end up with all kinds of frayed ends. Is there anyone out there who feels the same?