Talk:Novel sequence

Not Proust
Proust's In Search of Lost Time is not really a good example of a "novel sequence": each volume does not have a "free-standing storyline" and while possible, a reader would be rather lost if they tried to read the volumes "independently or out of sequence." ISOLT is a single novel divided into several volumes, not a sequence of novels. Re. "roman-fleuve": for what it's worth, The New Oxford Companion to French Literature (ISBN: 0198661258) defines it as: "Term used to describe a series of novels following the fortunes of a character, a family, or a society" (713). Doesn't sound too far from Proust's novel, however, the Companion goes on to list six French authors (e.g. Balzac, Zola) who have written "romans-fleuves," but Proust is not among them.


 * Some valid points there, doubtless. You can read Swann's Way as free-standing. Thereafter it becomes harder. Proust's À la recherche is pretty much unclassifiable, however you cut it. It needs to be in this article, though. Charles Matthews 21:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Charles. I also think that the omission of Proust from any particular list isn't compelling enough; inclusion is positive evidence, but that doesn't mean that omission is negative evidence. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 2012
 * Yet this article doesn't merely discuss Proust or give Proust as one paradigm. Its only references (two) concern Proust and a so-called Proust disciple. There isn't a single reference except in the Proust section. ...

Category issue
Please see Category talk:Novel sequences.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 2012 That discussion may have led to some useful category rename but it is not otherwise useful because the wikipedia articles --novel sequence, book series, novel, and (i presume) sequence and series-- do not support any careful categorization.
 * Some participants in that discussion were keen to exclude particular series of narrative fiction books (Harry Potter and Nancy Drew were named).
 * However carefully they are named, WP:CATegories yield article sorting that is only as good as their main articles --for those Cat's that do have main articles such as Category:Novel sequences and novel sequence. ...

Lord of the Rings doesn't belong
It's only called a trilogy; in fact it's a single novel in six "books" that could have as logically been published in six volumes, or one, or two. It's in no way an example of a "novel sequence." 208.105.23.6 (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 2012 Probably it doesn't belong. This article does say, "There is no useful, formal demarcation between novel sequences and multi-part novels." and multi-part is close to multi-volume, close enough that it stands alone inadequately.
 * To me this article supports the seven Harry Potter books (seven volumes, not the entire series/sequence that includes three short books and a short story) as a paradigm case. It rules out Nancy Drew, and rules out the four original Sherlock Holmes novels even if we imagine there are no short stories.


 * Anyway, Tolkien was a novel sequence because it was novel sixty years ago to publish six books and a bundle of appendices in a sequence of three volumes ;-)

'saga' grouping?
Can someone clarify on the "'saga' grouping" that appears on this page?


 * 2012 We do now have family saga and category . ...

Also, is there a name for having multiple series with different sets of main characters as in Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels?

-- TimNelson (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Preface
The preface for this category is junk. ...

2012-06-01. Today I have commented in five sections, one new. I am poking around related articles and categories and I may revise or extend these observations, at least until someone else responds to them. --P64 (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * multi-part reply

Examples
I propose getting rid of the entirely unsourced "Examples" section. If any sets of novels have been discussed as being significant examples of novel sequences then we'd help the readers best by writing a paragraph about them instead of just adding them to an undistinguished list. Rezin (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Surely too extreme. I would agree with removing the genre fiction examples, though: writing sequences of novels in a given universe or around a particular character is the default, rather than anything very interesting. I'd agree to cutting back the list to "literary fiction" as it is generally understood. Then I think the way forward would be table format, chronological order, references, critical comments. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. That sounds like a good scheme. I'll take care of the first step. I'll post any deletions to this page in case there are disagreements about what count as "literary fiction". I'll search google to for a sourceable comment about the ubiquity of novel sequences in genre literature. Rezin (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a source in my quick search for their use in genre literature. Based on what's below, "genre literature" using this form should probably include thrillers and detective novels. Rezin (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)