Friday, April 20, 2012

Discussion: I Miss Standalones Part 2

The plague of the cliffhangers

I think everyone knows what I’m talking about. After book 1, there is an Epic Cliffhanger of Epicness of Total Proportions That Leaves You Dying For Book 2. I’ve noticed a few things from before I began book blogging to after: for one, I don’t like all the books I usually would. I’ve read and reviewed enough books to know what kind of books I would and wouldn’t like.

Some of the books that receive a whole bunch of hype are books that I didn’t enjoy or books that I didn’t even finish. And guess what these books had? An Epic Cliffhanger.

I like a good cliffhanger. Sometimes, I LOVE a good cliffhanger. I think Richelle Mead’s Vampire Academy had cliffhangers that were super awesome and well done. The big difference was that Richelle Mead built up to the cliffhanger and put some meat into the book. I’ve noticed that some books go through the story and I don’t feel like there is going to be a cliffhanger…and then there is one. It’s like it came out of absolute anywhere and that is not a good cliffhanger. That’s a cliffhanger that I’m bound to forget about.

Why not have a book that has a good ending but with maybe some loose ends. Not a cliffhanger?

I think cliffhangers are put into books just to guarantee that people will read the next book which I think is super sad. At times, cliffhangers are necessary, but NOT ALL THE TIME. I think authors should write books that can get people to read the next book WITHOUT the use of a cliffhanger. Make your character so good that I can’t stop thinking about them. That’ll make me want to read the next book. Make your world so realistic and unique that I want to read more and more about it.

In a sentence: Don’t rely on cliffhangers for everything.

Established trilogies, series, etc. and why I love them

Richelle Mead and J.K. Rowling come to mind when I think of this. From the beginning of each of these series (Vampire Academy…and Harry Potter), both authors established that they were going to have a set number of books in the series. Both authors followed suite and I was very happy about it.

Richelle Mead wrote a spin off! You say. Yes, she did write a SPIN OFF. It’s the continuous of the story with a different main character. As much as I hate to admit it, Rose’s story ended (like Richelle said she wanted to) with Last Sacrifice. Now with Bloodlines, it’s Sydney’s turn to tell her story. Yes, Rose does (doesn’t she?) make an appearance in Bloodlines but we don’t read the story from her point of view.

For instance, Eragon was supposed to be the first book in the Inheritance trilogy but with Inheritance, it became part of the Inheritance Cycle. I like this series yes, but I would have been happy with a trilogy. I get that he didn’t think he could sum up the story in three books, why is that the case with all the authors?

Another example is the Mortal Instruments Trilogy by Cassandra Clare. I loved the first three books and I was super excited for the next three books to come out. I did not finish City of Fallen Angels and I realized that I liked the ending of the third book in the TRILOGY…that is no long a trilogy. *Sigh*

SO, for those of you still with me, do you agree or disagree with what I’ve said?

Part 1

No comments:

Post a Comment