Let’s Talk Bookish – Series That Could Have Been Standalones

Aria @ Book Nook Bits is the new host for Let’s Talk Bookish! If you aren’t following her yet, good check out her blog and give her a follow!

March 1: Series That Could Have Been Standalones

Prompts: Are there any series that you think could have been standalones? Or series that just should have ended sooner? Do you like having long series, or do you prefer to have a story more condensed?

Welcome to another week of LTB here at DTRH, everyone! Today’s topic will probably be contentious, and it’s all about series that could have been standalones. Can’t wait to see what you all have to say about which sequels probably should not have been made.

I don’t think I have a strong contender in my mind for series that I think should be standalones. But certainly a lot of fantasy books in my opinion would be just fine as one book. I totally understand that sometimes the fans want more, or the authors want to explore more, and that’s totally fine. In my mind though, I don’t mind an open-ended ending as long as there was a complete story within it, and I think a lot of book ones really deliver on impact and story, and their sequels will often fall short. Assuming no cliffhanger endings or untied loose ends, I feel like books like Six of Crows, Ninth House, and Caraval would have done just fine without a second or third book. Not to say that their sequels were bad, but it is just really hard to have the same impact as the initial book.

As for series that should have ended sooner…I try not to read series that are too long in the first place (too much commitment)! But a long series that comes to mind is Stalking Jack the Ripper, which had 4 books, but I felt that that one was well-timed and well-paced for a 4 book series. I often read mysteries and thrillers though, which don’t have much of a propensity for having a sequel, so I don’t have too much to add on that particular point

I think there’s really a balance that needs to be done when it comes to an entire story arc. Sometimes it feels like a book is dragging on and on, and nothing is being accomplished. Other times it feels like scenes and events are passing by way too quickly and not enough detail is being divulged on them. Finding a balance can be hard, as I suspect most readers have a different expectation or ideal length of exposition for different scenes. So I don’t think a series necessarily needs to be long or short, because it really depends on the writing within. A long standalone is just fine if everything can fit within those pages. Where it really gets frustrating is when you have to read sequel after sequel hoping for the storyline that you want to see, and possibly not finding it. Can anyone else relate to that?

Overall though, I don’t think I have strong feelings about something I wish was cut down. However, there are books I definitely would have been fine with even without their sequels. One duology that I really appreciated as a pair was The Ivory Key series though, so if you’re looking for an impactful one-two punch, I suggest that one!

What do you all think about sequels (or prequels)? Any in mind that strongly give you the “wish they hadn’t” feeling? Or are they generally okay despite expectations? Let me know in the comments below!