Dear /lit/,
Is there a good way to find out if a book is readable by itself?
i.e. even if it's part of a series, by the final page it will have a reached some sort of story "conclusion"?
>>7860648
Not without doing alot of reading, which would be better spent just reading the whole series.
Are you asking for Hobb?
Start at Farseer if you're looking to read her for a longer period at time and like to follow one POV, or if you only want to read a single series of her and want multiple POV read Liveship Traders. Everything else comes afterwards.
>>7860680
it was prompted by Hobb, but I mean in general
I've just finished Ship of Magic, but I can't think of a single thing that concludes by the end of that book.
I finished Ancillary Justice before that, which did at least wrap up a little bit by the end (even though it's obviously lining up the 2nd book)
>>7860688
Well it depends on the book/series. For example, Lies of Locke Lamora is the first book in a series but it wraps up well.
Just read standalones if you aren't in the mood for something longer / something that leaves up questions to be answered in later books. You seem to like fantasy so check out Guy Gavriel Kays Tigana or Lions of Al-Rassan.
If the name of the author is bigger than the title it's usually garbage
>>7860710
>Just read standalones
that's my basic problem.
I'm having trouble spotting the stand-alones.
I read a huge chunk of Iain Banks' stuff, and they pretty much all are stand-alones (with a 99% shared universe).
>>7860713
if you're repeating memes you're probably boring
>>7860743
he's right tho
>>7860740
What? If you're in a book store it tells you on the first page if it's a series or not. If you have access to the internet, just look up goodreads.
>>7861202
>Are you looking for books that are parts of a series but have their owncontained storylines?
basically I want to read books, but don't want to have to find the next book just to have a satisfactory conclusion.
Not specifically bothered if it's a standalone, or part of a series, but trying to avoid stories which 'only' function as part of a series.
e.g. 1984 is fine,
The Hobbit is fine,
Neuromancer is fine,
the first book in a Robin Hobb series is probably not fine.
Terry Pratchett - Discworld. They are all really standalones. It helps if you read the first 3 together then branch off. A lot of the character based books kinda follow like Rincewind, The Wizards, City Watch.
>>7861228
So why are you not just reading stand alones OUTSIDE of series? The books you listed are stand alone besides Farseer which is a series..
>>7861645
They really aren't. They are series within the same, progressive world. So just starting with one random book will get you nowhere. But you can start with certain series without going into older ones first, and you can skip certain as well.
I only read Assassin trilogy, Fool's trilogy and Liveship trilogy (maybe wrong names, can't be bothered to check). I read them in that, wrong, order, and I don't think it ruined the experience much. But Fool's trilogy is definitely a direct follow up of Assassin trilogy, so reading it before the other one, would be pointless. It features direct continuation and closure of plot lines for all major characters from Assassin trilogy, and it also has some bits and characters from Lifeship trilogy thrown into it as well. Not enough to entirely spoil the other series, but still. Now, Fool's and Liveship trilogies, are almost independent. They happen in different areas, with almost entirely different cast, and no spoilers as well. So starting with ether is perfectly fine.
As far as I understand the same can be said for the rest as well, so ether ask around on where to start, or do the safest way and read them simply by date of release. The quality stays the same through all of them.
If you want SF check out The Carpet Makers by Eschbach. It's german.
The chapters of this book can all be read as short stories even while you're reading the overarching plot.
>>7861782
Ignore my reading comprehension...
