Books in a Series: Keep Up or Keep Away?

A series of books is a delight and a weighty responsibility.

I have four collections going right now, and I've almost surrendered. Each book in every series is heavy with plot, character development. Tiny frayed threads beg to be woven into the larger tapestry of the rich brocade of, say, A Discovery of Witches or A Map of Time. And yet —

How can I resist such luscious stories?

I began the All Souls Trilogy in 2011. When the second book, Shadow of Night, hit the shelves in 2012, I nearly jumped at the opportunity to read the first book again so I was properly acquainted with the nuances of the story.

Until I read the author's website.

Seems there was no release date for the third book. Honestly, I can't remember what I had for breakfast most mornings, so I am wont to begin a series without a strong enough commitment to re-read as necessary — particularly such a rich novel.

I waited until I knew the release date for The Book of Life. It's in five months' time. Now the decisions must be made: When do I start the first novel again? When do I start the second tome? And how do I prevent author repeat-itis?

It may seem silly to worry about such a thing. I've read every Stephanie Plum book without a problem. I know what Grandma Mazur is up to, and I'll find out whether Stephanie is on-again with Joe, or off-again. Karen Marie Moning's Fever series also is easy to pick up after a hiatus: Mac tells us what we need to know to get back up to speed.

However, therein lies the difference between a series and a trilogy. A series will remind you that Stephanie drives Big Blue when her car is blown up (or stolen or crashed or...). Mac will remind you that she fed un-Seelie to the police officer, who now hungers for more.

A trilogy, in contrast, is finite, hopefully tight and spare. One doesn't expect to have too many prompts and reminders in such a "short" collection. I re-read Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children in January in anticipation of the second novel's release. Now that it feels like a series, I am almost sorry I did: I could have been reminded of all of the important stuff as the book went along. Don't get me wrong: the novel was a great read, but I have plenty on my nightstand to finish in this lifetime without unnecessary re-reading.

I discovered Margaret Atwood's apocalyptic trilogy after The Year of the Flood, the second book, was released, so I'm biding my time now that all three are available. I'll weave all three into my regular list so I can enjoy each one in its own time.

However, the Witches series felt denser, more complex. I enjoyed it too much to miss out on any subtlety in the books that followed. (Plus, time travel!) I want to read the third as soon as I can, but I can't figure out how to squeeze in the first two in the short time I have. I may have to pace myself more slowly, much to my dismay.

And The Map series? I have teased myself with it long enough. It will be mine this spring or summer. Yes, it will be mine...

UPDATE: In related news, Powell's Books asked an important question: where do you begin in a "new to you" series?

Classics, Past and Future

I have been devouring junk food for a while, and that's fine. I can gorge on chocolate as easily as Brussels sprouts, so consuming Stephenie Meyer's novels was very easy.

I do not mean to disparage Twilight, New Moon and Eclipse, all of which I devoured this past weekend. I loved every moment of these books. These novels are second to none in heart-beating romance. I shan't wax on about them now, but suffice it to say that I enjoyed them.

Then I stumbled across a quote from Madame Bovary and skipped over to Wikipedia for a reliable link to the novel. My, oh my, I do believe it could give Twilight a run for its money.

Gustave Flaubert's novel was known as scandalous in its time. When the story originally was published in 1856 (serialized in a magazine), it was put on trial for obscenity. Of course, that guaranteed its bestseller status the following year when it was published as a novel.

In 2007, contemporary authors cited Madame Bovary as one of the two greatest novels ever written.

The greatest novel, according to contemporary authors? Anna Karenina.

I don't know if I can agree because I'm ashamed to admit I have not read Tolstoy's masterpiece, and I am sure Madame Bovary was one of the novels I gave myself permission to skip as an undergraduate.

So, to cleanse my palate before reaching for Breaking Dawn, I will read one of these novels.

Or Janet Evanovich. I haven't decided which.

Hey, if 1800s popular culture can be considered among the best novels of all time, who's to say Stephanie Plum isn't destined to be a romantic heroine in the future?

By the way, Bella Swan's reading of Wuthering Heights in Eclipse apparently has stimulated teen interest in the classic. I am glad to see that good stories never lose their luster.