Why is that? I'm really curious. Because the ones I've read that follow this trend all end on cliffhangers, so they're clearly meant to be part of a series. Are readers series-averse these days? Is it meant to encourage people who might not want to invest in a whole series to check out the book anyway, then, once they're hooked, leave them with a cliffhanger so they'll get the next books?
Here are some examples:
And then there are the series that don't even bother to tell you what series it's part of, relying on its fame and branding alone...
Here's a question from a somewhat frustrated bookshelf browser - how in the world are we supposed to know what order the books go in? I guess they're usually listed inside somewhere, but I miss being able to just glance at a cover and go "oh, here's parts 1, 2, and 3 of the trilogy."
I know, I know, this is a little bit pot-calling-the-kettle-black for me, since the covers of the Jane Colt books don't have numbers or series titles, thereby also being guilty of causing a moment of "what order do I read these in?" In my defense, when I wrote Artificial Absolutes, I thought it was going to be a standalone, and when Book 2 came around, we went with thriller method of calling out the main character as the series name...
But I digress. Any ideas as to why so many books lack series titles nowadays?
That is a good question. I hate that mystery assumption that maybe you will pick up the second book (or third or fourth). I get it if you write a book and you think it wont be a series, but if you write a follow up, then label that bastard, so I can eagerly await a third (or fourth or fifth!).
ReplyDeleteHonestly if I am luke-warm about a book, I am more likely to pick up the second one by the author if it is in a series, call me a completionist. But if it is stand alone, I wont bother. If the book is amazing, I will actively search out the author but it helps if they say somewhere, "hey this is a series" and then I can make sure I get them in the right order.
I don't know if it is a marketing ploy, or if ya authors just think, YA is big right now, doesn't matter, they will read all of it, we don't need to write that it is a series, they will keep reading.
It feels a bit dishonest to me. If the first book words as a standalone with a complete story arc (like, for instance The Hunger Games), then I get not having a "Book One in the Whatever Series" on that cover and then just writing "Sequel to Whatever Book" on Book 2. But if it ends on a cliffhanger and is clearly meant to be the first book in a series (like Divergent), then the only reason for not saying so is because they want the reader to assume it's just one book, so they're more willing to take a chance on something new (I know personally I get intimidated by long series, since it's such a commitment!)
Delete