In my post on A Million Open Doors I mentioned the advice give to someone on rec.art.sf.written when they asked about the reading order for the Dune series. “Read the first one. Then stop.” In the comments, R. Fife said:
I feel your pain. I have not read Barnes in particular, but I have read the first three Dune books. After the third one, I was left with a kind of disillusioned aftertaste that has led me to not finish the other three. Same with Sword of Truth, where I forced my way to Naked Empire then gave up (and had to start forcing after Faith of the Fallen). Heck, The Dark Tower by Steven King did it to me after Wolves of the Calla (read two pages of Song of Susannah and threw the book).
So, is it better to have loved and lost than never loved before? Is it better to pretend the series could still be good and never read the disappointing sequels, but still know they are out there, somewhere, and possibly even why they were disappointing, than to experience it first hand?
I think that’s a very interesting question. And there’s a related question—is it worth reading the early good books, if the series isn’t going to live up to its promise?
There has been no case in the whole of my history where somebody has told me not to read the sequels and I have listened to them. I have always gone on to read the disappointing sequels, and been disappointed. Occasionally, I’ve read the sequels and liked them despite the consensus. But mostly the consensus is right, and I just haven’t listened. Once I stop, I stop, I don’t keep on and on if I’m no longer enjoying something. But I’m hopeless at not seeking out sequels as long as I have enjoyed the series up to that point.
So, better to have loved and lost?
I think a lot of it depends on the way in which the sequels are bad. If there’s an initial brilliant volume and then the sequels fade off with less and less originality until they’re just going through the motions, then I haven’t really lost anything. I’m thinking of the Pern books. I haven’t read all of those (goodness me, there’s one called Dolphins of Pern!) but I’ve read enough of them to be able to tell you than none of them is Dragonflight, but they’re all perfectly reasonable extra helpings of books with dragons and weyrs. None of them are going to spoil the experience of Dragonflight, except perhaps by diluting is a little. And you can’t really get back the experience that was Dragonflight, because let’s face it, you have to be twelve. If I was camping in the rain and there was nothing to read but Dolphins of Pern, I’m sure I could pass a happy enough afternoon with it. The same with the sequels to David Feintuch’s Midshipman’s Hope. I’ve read all of them. I’d urge you to stop with the first book, but the sequels haven’t done me any harm.
Where there’s a real problem is when the sequels spoil the original book.
The books about which I feel most strongly negative are all sequels to earlier books that I really like, and which spoil those earlier books. I’m immediately thinking of Card’s Xenocide, and Mary Gentle’s Ancient Light. In those cases, I can’t re-read the earlier books without the memory of the later books coming between me and the page. I know the Ender series has gone on far past Xenocide, and though, or perhaps because, I loved Ender’s Game and Speaker For the Dead so much, I haven’t been able to bring myself to read them, and I can’t really re-read the first two either. With Ancient Light it’s not so bad, I have after many years been able to forget it sufficiently that I can re-read Golden Witchbreed. But I’m afraid Xenocide has poisoned the universe forever for me.
I think my problem here was that part of the fundamental pleasure of reading SF for me is putting the hints and clues together and extrapolating where they’re going, and in re-reading seeing how they go together when I know where they’re going. I can’t do that if I have to turn my eyes away from where they’re going. I honestly wish I hadn’t read those books. When we were talking about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, I said that if Lacuna was real, the thing I’d have wiped would be my memory of Xenocide. “But then you’d read it again,” Sasha said. And he’s right! (In fact, the only way I know this hasn’t happened already is that I read Xenocide about three days after it was published.)
So, why is it worse when this happens in a sequel?
When a writer takes a book in a new direction, it can feel jarring, and if it’s a direction I don’t like and which doesn’t fit with what has gone before, I won’t like it. But it’s happening while I’m reading, and though I may be invested in the plot and the characters and the world, it won’t disappoint me as much as when this happens in a sequel, where I may well have read the first book(s) several times before the new one comes out. There are a number of books that I think go downhill in the last third, but I don’t start foaming at the mouth when I think of them. But when it’s a sequel, and when I already love all of the earlier books and have read it and read it and read it, sometimes when I hear there’s going to be a sequel I’m as afraid as I am delighted.This happened recently with Regenesis.
I think whether it’s worth starting a series that goes downhill depends very much on how self-contained the good books are. In the case of A Million Open Doors and Dune that isn’t a problem. The books stand alone. With something like a fantasy series (I haven’t read either of R. Fife’s examples of King and Goodkind) it’s a lot less clear-cut, because a series like that is very much a voyage where you want to feel sure of your destination. A lot of this is a problem with trusting the author. If I trust the author, I’ll put up with a lot, but once I start feeling distrusting, I start picking fault with everything.
And a lot of it is individual taste. Mostly when this has happened to me, I’ve started the series before all the books are out. I know there are people out there who won’t read series unless they’re complete. But what do you do? How do you react if someone says “Read this one, and then stop”?
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday March 26, 2009 05:44pm EDT
I wish I'd had someone watching out for me when I got into the Dune series. I kept going with that for hope that it would get good again. Then the last book and a half was about competing bands of space whores. And I didn't even learn my lesson then because I went on to read three of the prequel books. My aversion to Kevin J Anderson is now firmly protecting me from repeating past mistakes a third time, but I still read House Corrino.
Thursday March 26, 2009 06:00pm EDT
I've read an awful lot of bad books that way. I honestly can't think of a book that was destroyed by its sequels, though--a series, yes, but as you point out, that's not the same thing. For some reason, I seem to be able to hit the "reset" button on rereading. That's just lucky, I guess; I can certainly understand the opposite reaction.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday March 26, 2009 06:04pm EDT · amended on Thursday March 26, 2009 06:05pm EDT
In both instances I have cited, I can say that I have not picked up either series again since tossing the fatal book. And I loved, as in was willing to marry, the opening sequences of both series. Goodkind, I think you could reliably stop at Book 5 and feel somewhat satisfied. The Dark Tower, not so much.
That still doesn't answer the question, of course. And my personal answer, I read until I decide to stop. To quote the Unicorn: "...No sorrow will live in my heart, save one, and I thank you for that too."
Now, if people told me to only check it out from the library instead of buying the books, I might have followed that advice. As stands, I have several books I will probably never open again filling up shelfspace.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday March 26, 2009 06:35pm EDT
I agree with you that books like Xenocide really do tinge your reading of their prequels; with television it's more frustrating when a series runs out of steam because watching TV for me is a much more serious time commitment than reading even the thickest series. So I think I think I'm much better off for it. Thank goodness for ubiquitous availability of full-season DVDs!
(Funny, watching the TV series is a larger commitment on the part of the viewer, but waiting for the series to appear on DVD is usually a much shorter commitment.)
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday March 26, 2009 07:03pm EDT
Now, are there series in which I'd say that? Sure. I'd tell people to read the only through The Vampire Lestat of the Anne Rice vampire books. On the other hand, despite having enjoyed the first half-dozen or so of the Anita Blake books by Laurell K. Hamilton, I'd tell people to avoid the whole series now, mostly because the author is fond of telling her fans to frak off.
I wouldn't actually tell people to avoid the final book of the Weis/Hickman Death Gate Cycle, but I will tell them to prepare to be annoyed. The first six books in that series are great, though.
Ane then there's GRRM's A Song of Ice and Fire, a series I used to whole-heartedly recommend, and now recommend avoiding, simply because he's never going to finish the damn thing. He's now the prime example of why you should never read a series before it's done, and completely published.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday March 26, 2009 07:11pm EDT
Other big let-downs: Arthur C. Clarke's Rama books after the third one, and all of the sequels to 2001. What these have in common is a mysterious, even mystical object at the beginning of the series, which is later revealed to be something totally lame. I don't think I can read the first two Rama books any more and enjoy them: knowing what the Rama spacecraft actually is just takes the fun out of it.
I also nominate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy after book three. So Long and Thanks For All the Fish was annoying, and Mostly Harmless was a disaster. Stick with the original three.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday March 26, 2009 07:42pm EDT
Generally, you have three trilogies making up nine spy novels, with a "possible" tenth being the historical novel Winter (published in 1987, it features Bernard's father in a small role along with, from what I've been told, the ancestors of some other characters who appear in the nine "main" novels):
Berlin Game (1983)
Mexico Set (1984)
London Match (1985)
Spy Hook (1988)
Spy Line (1989)
Spy Sinker (1990)
Faith (1994)
Hope (1995)
Charity (1996)
I've read the three novels that make up Game, Set, and Match and loved them. I own Spy Hook and Spy Line but have yet to read them. Faith, Hope, and Charity is generally regarded as a letdown, though some would say it's still worth reading despite that while others would say it's really bad.
(Deighton fans generally point to the gap in publication between Spy Sinker and Faith as an indication that the end of the Cold War forced Deighton to rethink what was going to happen next in the series. Some people consider the way he ultimately dealt with that real-world historical event to be rather silly and far-fetched.)
But I'm not even considering the last trilogy yet, given that I can't seem to figure out what I'm going to do about Hook, Line, and Sinker.
I don't own Spy Sinker due to its rather controversial position in the series. Out of the nine novels (excluding Winter), it is the only one not told through the first-person perspective of Bernard Samson. Instead, it retells the events from the previous five books, focusing on Bernard's wife Fiona. It's ostensibly her point of view, but it's not quite as simple as that, since Spy Sinker is not in the first-person but the third-person.
I've had people tell me I should just stop where I am now, with London Match. Some people insist on reading the entire series, including (even especially) Winter. Others are more moderate, letting me know that I should read the other books but to prepare for disappointment anyway.
One comment I've read, however, talks about Spy Line not as the middle novel in the second trilogy but the conclusion "of an awesome five-book story." (I refer to this in message 3 in the link above.) Despite being just one comment among many, this was why I bought Spy Hook and Spy Line, just so I can read it as part of that "awesome five-book story."
But somehow...that seems "wrong." I'm still on the fence with Spy Sinker, which is an interesting experiment, but which many say is less than successful, to say the least. I'm not even sure if it's worth it, because general consensus has it that Faith, Hope, and Charity doesn't exactly bring things to an explosive close.
(I'd talk about Harlot's Ghost, too, and how the late Norman Mailer wanted to continue that epic novel of the CIA at some point, but I'll just leave you with Deighton.)
Thursday March 26, 2009 07:54pm EDT
"To Your Scattered Bodies Go" is magnificent, but by the time you get to "Gods of Riverworld" you wish for the mystery back again. Farmer's World of Tiers merely drags on, but it didn't hit the heights at the start.
Regarding Deighton: The last four are still worth reading, but they're not as much fun. They definitely tie up a lot of loose ends. "Sinker" is the low point -- it reads more like a contractual obligation than anything else, explain what happened on the other side of the conversations and plans, and you realize just how doomed Bernie has been his whole working life.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday March 26, 2009 08:39pm EDT
I generally read that one, then stop... Or don't read any at all. There are tons of books that don't come with warnings, and I could spend my attention as profitably on them.
I'm in a book-purging stage of my life, having picked up a ton of books that don't make the cut of "I will want to reread this" and my hope is that I won't even waste the time to finish a dreary book.
When I was young I read some incredibly depressing evil twin fantasy book from someone shelved near Zelazny; I'd heard there were two books in the trilogy and then the author had died. Midway through the second, I had an insight about how everything could yet come out alright if there was a third book... And then I read on and forgot it. Dreadfully irritating.
Thursday March 26, 2009 08:50pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday March 26, 2009 08:52pm EDT
ah, wait. I'd better rot13 this bit.
Tnonyqba unf unq nyzbfg rirel bar bs ure znva punenpgref naq znal zvabe punenpgref or encrq, naq juvyr guvf jnf n znwbe cybg cbvag va gur svefg obbx, vg'f nyzbfg orpbzr n "svar, lbh jrer encrq, zbir nybat" xvaq bs guvat ol gur fvkgu.
And yet I will probably still read the next book/s in the series to find out what happens to the characters. (And I find that yes, the next book will be out this fall. Perhaps, however, I will wait and get it from the library...)
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday March 26, 2009 08:53pm EDT
I'm on the read the good books and then stop side of the line. I don't finish a lot of series and I've never found it took away from the enjoyment I had had when reading the books I did read. Of course I also think being a comic fan may help with that attitude - I know I'm never going to read all of Batman so I just enjoy the sections of the overarching story I do read.
(An argument can be made that the entire combined output of DC and Marvel since 1939 can be considered just strands of a single story - but that's deserving of its own post).
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday March 26, 2009 09:45pm EDT
For those of you who won't start a series unless it's finished, let me recommend something to you. Robin Hobb's trilogy of trilogies (9 books total) starting with Assassins Apprentice and ending with Fool's Fate. Absolutely brilliant.
Thursday March 26, 2009 10:14pm EDT
Xenocide was probably the worst of the entire series, but it was still perhaps a 5 out of 10. And its not like it was bad, just uninteresting. The idea that it would somehow "ruin" the other books is just ludicrous. Especially considering that Ender's Game is quite possibly the best Sci Fi book ever and Speaker ranks in the top 10 as well.
What a waste of a topic. Just an excuse for bitching because an author didn't do exactly what you wanted. "I pretend to have never seen any sequels to the Matrix." "Mostly Harmless was a disaster."
Get over yourselves.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday March 26, 2009 10:17pm EDT
That said, I *did* finish the Sword of Truth series, and though I found the middle swampy, repetitive, and preachy, but I thoroughly enjoyed the last installment. I'd give it a "stick with it" and "skip the rants" rather than a stop with (insert title here).
R.Fife @ 3: Re: the lonely volumes lining your shelves: Goodwill. ;)
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday March 26, 2009 10:25pm EDT
Ender's Shadow is the closest to this because despite not completely sucking it did essentially invalidate much of Ender's Game. Yeah, there's a conversation to be had as to how it did not really do that, but that was the feeling I had reading Bean's story. It's like Card wanted to one-up everything Ender did with Bean.
But even ES doesn't change my delight and awe in at how good Ender's Game was. (and the Shadow sequels - they get progressively worse)
The danger, like Jo said, is in a fantasy series that we have to wait multiple volumes to approach an ending. I still think I'd be okay. My take would be: "the first book is great, the next three are still good, and then it goes downhill...but man that first book was a good read".
Along those lines. I'd be disappointed by a bad ending / horrible book taking the series in a dissatisfying direction, but I'd still appreciate the joy of Book 1.
Thursday March 26, 2009 10:45pm EDT
I do concur, however, on Song of Susannah - the second half of the book isn't so bad, but the first half... Christ.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday March 26, 2009 11:12pm EDT
Starting with the second book, it just keeps plummeting in free fall. Thankfully, I never finished the series, and avoided Anthony like the plague ever since so my youth was relatively unscarred by Xanth (there's another series from hell for you) having only read the first and part of the second.
I did plow through 6 Dune books, but have no interest in reading any of the others. Unlike most folks (it seems), I'm willing to re-read the second and third but none of the others. No interest in reading the prequels.
Another thing that greatly disappointed me was Asimov's tying together of all his stories with his later books. It was lovely when the occasional throwaway sentence (usually no more than on in a book and then, only once in a while) hinted that maybe all his books could be set in the same universe, but stating it loud and clear just ruined it for me.
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 12:13am EDT
That's pretty much it; I read too many poor sequels as a teenager, but now I'm too stingy with my time to be so smitten.
Xenocide was a mess, but it had one redeeming feature: an adult Peter Wiggin. Fortunately, someone warned me that Peter mellowed considerably in Children of the Mind, so I never had to read it.
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 12:36am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 01:08am EDT
Of course it's easier to say that than to never ever still feel a pang of guilt. :)
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 01:52am EDT
I confess to having read the whole "Riverworld" series and deeply regretting it; on the other hand I don't regret having read all of Barnes' "Giraut" books, and plan to read the last one if he ever writes it. I agree with all the criticisms of the last two books, but there were still enough interesting ideas and nice touches to keep me entertained.
Then again, sometimes the later books are even better than the first. For instance, Charlie Stross' "Merchant Princes" starts out well, but gets even better, IMHO.
Friday March 27, 2009 07:15am EDT
I read to spend time with characters and GRRM keeps killing them off :(
SoT is hard to read with a strait face. I keep hearing little old ladies reciting their rosaries any time the Devotion comes up :D FotF is still worth rereading though.
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 07:38am EDT
My personal enraging example is Maria Doria Russell. The Sparrow asks some big questions about Christian faith. Big, difficult questions without easy answers. And the sequel Children of God ... answers them. Now I can't read The Sparrow without knowing the answer she had in mind all along. Horrible.
Friday March 27, 2009 07:39am EDT
Erdick - please read Dune now - single best SF book I've ever read. The sequels are meh, and get worse the further you go but the first is a must and you probably should read at least the next two for the good parts in them. Also read Dosadi Experiment -- kind of a sequel to Whipping Star (which I didn't like that much) but stands on its own well.
To several of you that mentioned Xanth - I was going to post about that. First book is very good, second is good, third and thereafter are too punny for words. Note that I may be an old fart by try to hunt down early Anthony - Macroscope is mindblowing (and a single novel to boot) and the Omnivore trilogy is strong throughout.
Re Enders Game - I haven't made it beyond Speaker for the Dead because I'm afraid of the quality drop off.
Re Riverworld - read the full series and liked most of them, but agree it got tiring towards the end.
Re Hitchhiker's Guide -- Yes!! After book 3 falls off the deep end.
Re Heroes - that is best example given on this post so far of "sequels" messing up the original. First season of the show was sublime except for the last episode. Second volume was half good and half showing troubling signs of sloppy writing and a failure to understand the "rules" established in the first year. The last few volumes have been gross disappointments (I have kept watching) but the problem is that the writers came up with stupid new rules (i.e., some of the powers of characters were given via injection) that have signficantly impeded enjoyment of the show. Still hoping for a turn around but holes have been dug that will be hard to climb out of.
Finally, re GRRM. I read all four last month and am now fully stuck in that hell hole of knowing that I have years to go before I can put them to bed....
Rob
Friday March 27, 2009 08:26am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 08:38am EDT
Friday March 27, 2009 08:53am EDT
Better to have loved? In this case - yeah. I enjoyed the first book a lot and I follow the new tv series that follows the plotline. I wish that I could find out what might befall Richard and Kahlan and Zedd, but sadly, unless they turn the rest of the series into a TV series, I don't think I'll be reading.
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 09:00am EDT
First, whole heartedly agree with all of that. I will read the next book when/if it comes out. At the end of the book I have no doubt in my mind that I will still be in the same frame of mind I am now. (Why does he kill off everyone, where is this story going, etc.)
The real question there is, Is GRRM going to reach a climatic series ending book? Or will this turn into another book after book after book series?
I would think there would have to be a ending to the series, mostly because that GRRM will not live forever and at this pace maybe three more books could be squeezed in (that is probably the cold heartest thing I've said in a while, but Im a realist).
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 09:15am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 09:39am EDT
Sometimes, I think authors can get so engrossed in needing to have some big reveal or get worried about needing something "fresh" that they can make logical leaps and leave the reader behind.
Likewise, sometimes I think the author can feel a need to hammer a point home, such as getting preachy, or having every character go through the same "harrowing" experience. Or, perhaps, they even feel a need to explain where we don't want explanation. Sometimes "it just is" or "it's magic" are fine enough, long as not overused for the sake of plot.
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 09:41am EDT
I couldn't get through the later books in Niven's "Ringworld" series or Art Clarke's later "Rama" books. In both cases, they seemed to subvert the awesomeness of the originals.
On a related note, I don't like to get into neverending series books like the Wheel of Time, having a preference for standalones or at most trilogies. But I'm intrigued by SM Stirling's series starting with "Dies the Fire." Would those books fall into the category discussed in this post?
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 10:01am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 10:32am EDT
That said, I don't think I've ever had a sequel "ruin" a book for me, simply because I'm quite good at mentally blocking the new information. The author retcon is something I've become increasingly familiar with over the years, and quite practiced at ignoring at my leisure.
Though you did get me thinking about a related question: if someone raves about a series, and you read the first book and then absolutely despise it (or even receive it lukewarmly), do you keep reading? This happened to me recently, and though I was assured the rest of the books got consistently better, I just couldn't do it. The first book killed any interest for me.
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 11:11am EDT
Of course, that doesn't help much when the "plan" is inept; it's only a partial filter. Otherwise, we could not explain either series that suck and it was obvious from the first volume (limiting myself to stuff not published by the sponsor of this blog, the H___ H____ crimes against the Hague Convention... and, indeed, most military SF not written by veteran officers) or series that have a decent plan, and perhaps even a decent execution of the initial work, but an author who does not have the skill/knowledge/health/whatever to follow through on the plan (again, limiting myself to stuff not published by the sponsor of this blog, RAH's tales of Lazarus Long).
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 11:38am EDT
That was actually me with Wheel of Time. Eye of the World lost me after halfway, and it took me 4 years to pick it back up, and to date it is still not exactly mone of my favorites. Course, I love WoT (as seen by my obsessive posting in the re-reads), so yeah.
On the other hand, I have yet to get into GRRM's stuff because I got halfway through Game of Thrones and lost interest. Perhaps one day I'll force myself through it. I'd say my rule of thumb is: if its a trilogy, I'll try the first book and drop it all together if I dont' care for it. If its a series, I'll try the first book a few times (to get to the end), and if I can, I'll try the second book. After that, it'd get dropped if I am not feeling it yet.
Friday March 27, 2009 11:43am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 12:57pm EDT
The principal example of this for me is The Dark Tower series, which really does cast the entire series in a completely different light. A slightly different example is Kage Baker's Company series (sorry Ms. Baker--I really loved _Anvil of the World_!), which I think goes off the rails in a really bad way, and so all the stuff leading up to that now reminds me of the ending. But in either case, I would literally have to spoil the entire series to explain why I hated the endings.
As for Torie's question, I won't keep reading a series that I despise the start of, but I may keep reading a lukewarm series if I've been warned that it starts slow but picks up by people whose taste I trust.
Sequels as good or better? Kirstein's Steerswoman books. O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin series. Novik's Temeraire books (I think the fourth and, particularly, fifth are the best by far). Bujold, Brust, and Pratchett.
How about: books other than _Regenesis_ for which the annoucement of a sequel delights and frightens in equal measure? For me, the first that comes to mind is _Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell_.
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 01:13pm EDT
Sequels as good or better than the first volume...
The Two Towers, at least for me.
I think Stormbringer fulfills the promise of Elric of Melnibone.
Endymion + The Fall of Endymion form a worthy sequel to Hyperion + The Fall of Hyperion.
Under the Yoke is a real masterpiece of alt-history horror, and maybe Steve Stirling's best book.
Greg Keyes' Age of Unreason series maintains its high quality throughout. The first part of the fourth volume felt slack, but then it tightened right up again.
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 01:24pm EDT
And yeah, I think a caveat to my earlier response to Torie is that I need to be warned the series has a bit of a slow start. If someone is raving about the first book being wonderful, and I find it lukewarm, etc, then I trust learn to not trust that person's taste as much.
Case in point for me here was The Malazan Book of the Fallen. (Why do I keep picking on Tor books? I must have a deathwish. *ignores red glowing dot on forehead*) I think if I had picked it up without a glowing review, I would have approached it better, and I may yet give it a second chance. But the person who recommended it to me hated Tolkien and Jordan for being too wordy and descriptive, but lauded Erikson. I think she was slipping something in her coffee, as Erikson is /very/ descriptive, but eh.
Friday March 27, 2009 01:39pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 01:58pm EDT
Heroes...yeah, hated season 2 and haven't watched season 3 yet. I might come back if I hear it gets so much better. Otherwise, I won't lose any sleep over it.
I really hope LOST can figure out how to stick the landing.
But books are different. I still think Wizard's First Rule was a lot of fun, even though the next few books kind of sucked and I (happily) stopped reading. And yeah, Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead still rock in my book.
I might read the second and third Dune books, but probably won't read more than that. I will read the Sparrow. Maybe being a comic book fan has made me NOT be a completist. That said, I will read the last two Dark Tower books, though. One day :)
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 02:03pm EDT
Goodkind is a great example. And his books actually got so bad that even my impressive inability to not finish a series was thwarted. Pure drivel.
Trudi Canavan's books have felt that way for me too. Robert Jordan lost me after book 8. or 9.
Laurell K Hamilton has ruined both her series too ...
As good as or better.... Catherynne M. Valente, China Meiville (I know that's a controversial opinion, but I think The Scar is epic), almost all Storm Constantine books, Ellen Kushner's books (as good as in this case, hard to trump Swordspoint)...
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 02:04pm EDT
So far, of all the examples I have read, what's got better is the writing. Sayers is the best example of all, Sayers wrote these little clockwork mysteries with cardboard characters, and then she wrote a real book. The SF series that come closest to that are Brust's Vlad books and Bujold's Miles books. In both of them you start off with something that's good fun and with good questions and then deepens.
In the case of the Thousand Cultures books and the Ender books, I think the authors decided on different answers part way through the series, and the answers weren't satisfactory (to me) because they hadn't been implicit from the beginning. Or it may be that I'm just not a good reader for those books. That happens too. And there's a certain element of truth in the "fanboy" accusation of thinking I know better than the author what should have happened.
Still, sometimes writers change so much over time they can't really connect to who they used to be. This has happened to me. I don't think I'd be fit to write sequels to my early books now and be true to the books.
When Auden moved to the US he rewrote lots of his early poetry that had rhymed in British but not US English, so that it would rhyme in US English. A lot of time had passed since he wrote it, sometimes as much as twenty years. If you read both versions together, it's quite obvious that the older poet was sometimes completely changing the intent of the younger poet as he changed those rhymes. There's one poem where the original end couplet is:
"Whose white waterfalls could bless
travellers in their last distress"
and the new version is:
"From whose cold caressing streams
none may drink except in dreams".
The first version is clearly about reaching the waterfall and dying, and the second is clearly about nobody being able to reach the waterfall ever -- and it's this sort of change that I'm talking about.
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 02:46pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 03:31pm EDT
The funny thing is that almost everyone says "Dune is brilliant, but don't read the sequels." But everyone obviously *does* read the sequels or they wouldn't continue to sell in such large numbers! Where are all these closet Dune sequel fans? Do they have secret conventions in the presence of a Guild Navigator so no-one can detect them?
Friday March 27, 2009 03:50pm EDT
Now, God-Emperor is an abomination, and the one after that...Chapterhouse of Dune?...turns the remarkable feat of being even worse than God-Emperor, which I would've doubted was possible. It'll be a cold day in Minsk before I read any more in that series.
The awfulness of the later books in that series didn't diminish my enjoyment of the earlier ones. The one case I can think of where that happened is Urth of the New Sun; I'm with overtheseatoskye on that one. I think what happened in that case is that part of what I liked about TOS was that it's filled with this pervasive sense of enigma, with glimmers here and there that everything does make sense under the surface, if only you knew more about, say, what happens to Severian after he has his apotheosis, or whatever. Then you get Urth, where he has it, and it all just seems like gobbledygook.
Friday March 27, 2009 05:16pm EDT
Well, first off, I am a stubborn person in many matters, and books happen to be one of them in some ways. If i start a series, i will ALWAYS finish the entire thing UNLESS you go and make the mistake (in my opinion) of changing the entire cast of characters for the series from what i loved before.
First thing, before i even get into the books, you need to know that i activly seek out grand or epic scale series of books. I can read a stand-alone novel and enjoy it, but i like a series better.
Lets take Dune for example. I loved Dune so very much, even though when i first read it i was perhaps too young to grasp the complexity of it properly, i still loved it. Dune messiah i enjoyed, but not nearly as much as the original. Children of Dune i enjoyed nearly as much as the original. Then God emperor of dune was kinda what you might call a push (blackjack term). Overall i loved it, but i loved the original best. I would not have avoided the 3 after the 1st if i new ahead of time, but i have not nor probably ever will re-read them. I will, and have, re-read the original multiple times.
Then we can take the dragonriders of pern. I read the original trilogy in the early part of high-school (only been 5 years since graduating, for time scale), and loved it. I have also read "all the weyrs of pern", and enjoyed it. I wouldn't suggest anything beyond those, or even just the trilogy, but those filled my taste for that exact style.
We can take margaret weis and tracy hickman's dragonlance books, and thats another great spot. The original chronicles trilogy was wonderful, as was the legends trilogy. The dragons of summer flame was a good and enjoyable book to jump into the war of souls trilogy, which was also very good.
King's dark tower series was best for the first half and then kinda got a bit less enjoyable, but still good. I enjoyed it more because i have read many of kings other works and enjoyed how they are tied together in the dark tower. though i did think it a bit....odd?...for king to put himself as a character in one of them.
The sword of truth was also best up to halfway, then it kinda slowed down and got a little less engaging, but it redeemed itself in its finale very well.
The belgariad was very good, but the mallorean was...what i might say un-essential. it was good, but didn't really add to the original as much as it might have.
I have only read the first of the shannara series, and may not continue. i enjoy the stand-alone book, but only if it is truly stand-alone. i dont much enjoy the thought that i was going to get characters i grew to love in the first book being absent in the next. if it will do that to me, then it should go with another world entirely.
The mistborn series is incredible, from the 1st to the 3r, good the whole time. the 3rd book wraps up so many things that you didn't even know where important until they were dealt with, very masterfully done. a good reason why brandon sanderson is going to do a wonderful job finishing the wheel of time, or so i believe.
not much needs being said on tolkiens LOTR, just a wonderful series.
Same again with c.s. lewis' Narnia, a well written series that i have re-read within the last couple years and still enjoyed.
Well, that's all i can think of, i hope my rant will help other people to find a good series to enjoy.
VIEW ALL BY · Friday March 27, 2009 11:11pm EDT
Saturday March 28, 2009 12:32am EDT
Impossible not to finish :) Over and over and over.
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday March 28, 2009 12:33am EDT · amended on Saturday March 28, 2009 12:34am EDT
I think you hit the nail on the head though: first books tend to pose questions, and last books tend to give answers. If the reader finds the answer dissatisfying, they'll hate the ending and retroactively hate the beginning, too. Which sets up a more interesting question: what series can you think of that have the courage not to answer the questions they pose at the beginning?
The only one that comes to mind for me is David Brin's Uplift Trilogy, which poses lots of questions about the nature of its universe, but only answers a few of them. In particular, the big Macguffin that drives most of the plot never is explained, and I assume it has to be deliberate.
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday March 28, 2009 04:50am EDT
I've read "Dune" and all the Frank Herbert sequels, and enjoyed them. I wish I'd stopped there instead of reading the prequels too.
cybernetic_nomad @18:
We have a rule of thumb about Piers Anthony books, the first of a series is almost invariably the best.
The idea of not starting a series until the whole thing is published might be better for one's own mental wellbeing, but if we all did that, no series would get published; it's the success of the first and/or second book that makes it worthwhile for the publisher to continue bringing them out.
My own personal regret is that Tony Daniel's trilogy will not be completed. After the publication of "Metaplanetary" and "Superluminal", his publisher declined to bring out the conclusion. What me? Frustrated?
kate @38:
I've enjoyed all of Kage Bakers stories I've read so far, including the conclusion to the Company saga. The ending was a bit contrived but I went in expecting to be disappointed; after that sort of buildup, there was no way the finish could ever meet expectations. I found the ending satisfying. But that is a series where my favourite instalment isn't the first or last but one of the middle books. "The Graveyard Game" is for me, one of the best mid-series books ever.
*Movie example: I was warned, repeatedly, by more than one person, not to see "Highlander II". But did I listen? No...
Saturday March 28, 2009 08:54am EDT
Regarding Brooks' Shannara series, I did, to my regret, read all the way up to the first or second installment of the Voyage of the Jerle Shannara trilogy. (It's been a while, so I can't precisely recall exactly where I gave up.)
While, generally, I am pretty reluctant to give up a series I've started, I simply got so fed up with getting invested in characters for a whole book, then having the next one pick up a generation or so later. Besides which, I found that, over the series, even the parts that had me engaged (the evolution of the particular magics in that world, etc) became less and less interesting.
My point is, the first few sequels have a few things going for them, if you can get over losing characters you may have come to care for, but I don't think that Brooks' world holds up as an interesting place to spend so much time and energy on after that.
This same reasoning has me pretty hesitant about the upcoming release of Jacqueline Carey's newest novel. To date, I've quite enjoyed the Kushiel books, and I enjoyed the smooth transition between the first and second trilogies. Certainly, there were high and low points over the six books, but it was nice to see the original cast of characters still present and accounted for in the later books, even as the Imriel POV superseded Phedre's.
In any event, while I can appreciate that Carey has probably tired of the time period in which she was writing and the people who inhabit it, I'm going to reserve judgment until reading Naamah's Kiss. Jumping to the POV of a character several generations removed from a second tier character from the last trilogy may be a brilliant stroke to revitalize the series, or it may just lead to crushing disappointment. We shall see.
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday March 28, 2009 09:20am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday March 28, 2009 11:34am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday March 28, 2009 02:42pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday March 28, 2009 03:11pm EDT
I sometimes have what I call "I could have had a V8" moments on finishing a book. I've also been known to think "that's a funny once Mike" and not reread.
So for my money it's better to have loved and lost - to borrow a phrase better to enjoy the peach of the early book and to ignore the rotten peach of the later book. I suppose my normal response to "and stop" is to overshoot by one but I have no shame about consulting some equivalent of Master Plots, Classics Illustrated , spoiler laden reviews or other hints as I shut down reading the series.
Mostly I'd start a series with an explicit intention of not finishing it either to see what the fuss is about or to be able to know what I'm talking about when I chime in - not that I'm above having an uninformed opinion.
For examples and context I enjoyed the Deighton all the way through as I do most of his books. I'd say there the plot and the atmosphere toward the end outweighed the story as force of nature - I read in some part to see how the author dealt rather than to see how the story ended for any particular character - affinity groups not individuals. I am reminded of STASI saying no hard feelings it was all a game in the period after reunification and so think of the team and not the players.
I'd consider the Eric Flint et al follow on to The Witches of Kerres as non-cannonical though I'd give a pretty penny to read The Karres Ventures.
X-Files, I'll always wonder what background mythology inspired people to spend their lives for nothing I could ever see - as in the movie where an apparently normal and respected human being spends his life to ensure the bomb explodes - why did he do that and what organization could recruit and inspire such unselfish behavior -and stay secret - in the context of all the other silliness.
I'd say some writers develop such skill - fluid writing that they can produce great lengths of prose that is not in fact inspired or driven or moving the story forward - at most moving the plot. Dickson's later Childe Cycle is IMHO a good example - I'd hate to pass up Soldier Ask Not but although I passed some pages of his last before my eyes I can hardly be said to have read them.
As noted Doyle tired of Holmes but I don't think Stout tired of Archie and Wolfe - All in the Family is a late book and Lonely Silver Rain is a good Travis McGee - but arguably some sag in the middle and some sag at the end but most all sag.
I think Card is a special case because I think his early work is easily misconstrued and I think is misconstrued by some of the people who like it most. Folk of the Fringe is a different book for people who don't know LDS.
As test I'll never be able to administer I'd like to give a full blown live on stage presentation of Card's Secular Humanist Revival to an audience that is not LDS aware and to an audience that is - I think the exit interviews would be quite different.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday March 29, 2009 12:14pm EDT
I stuck around longer than I wanted to hoping Anita and the plots who return to what I enjoyed in the first books. Now I check back every so often to find the same complaints - no plot, too much sex. Still some people love the books. I can only imagine those people who love them simply haven't discovered mature fan fic on the internet because you get better stories there than in a LKH novel.
A couple of years ago I sold off the first 6 books of the series that I owned. Since I knew Anita becomes a slut, I no longer wanted to read the early novels knowing where it was leading.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday March 30, 2009 10:19am EDT
When it comes to series I recommend (and I *adore* Jordan), I usually give it a "it's not for everyone, try the first book--if you can't give it that much, at least stick with it for the first 150 pages, see how it grabs you."
Goodkind's Sword of Truth sure sounds like Jordan for the first two books (without the grandiose cast of characters), but takes a sharp turn--keeping some similarities but having a much different direction towards its conclusion.
Reading everyone's viewpoint will probably put some warning asterisks on my "To Read" list, which is handy, but I will probably still try that tricky sequel... may not finish it, but I'll try it.
tikitu @ 24: That's probably the best tip, yes... perhaps not a "don't read" so much as it's a "don't buy"--at least until you've discovered whether you'll be revisiting that book.
Monday March 30, 2009 05:53pm EDT
Cherryh's Morgana (sp?) series feels about the same at a small remove.
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday March 31, 2009 09:40pm EDT
Good advice I was once given: when my at-the-time boyfriend handed me the first of Sara Douglass' novels (I think it was the Wayfarer series), he told me to slog through the first 30 pages because it would get better after that. The first 30 pages were dreadfully dull, but he was right, it did get enormously better!
After reading all the above, I'll stop feeling guilty that I never finished the Riverworld series. And I do like all the books in the Ender series, but some of them I had to read twice before I liked them at all. Speaker remains a favorite book, despite how I feel about Card's recent essays on homosexuality.
Erdrick @ 13: I thought Hobb's Assassin series was well-written, and gripping enough I had to finish the series, but so depressing that I'll never read the books again.
Kiley @ 50: The only reason I re-read Book 7 is to get a sense of closure on the story--it seemed like Rowling became such a big name she was no longer made to put up with an editor's suggestions, and the book suffered for it. I don't know the facts of the matter, but that's how the book read for me.
Wednesday April 01, 2009 01:18am EDT
I got through all the original Herbert books, and two and a half books into the prequels, despite the fact that I agree with Tycho of Penny Arcade on the subject: "Frank Herbert, they are ----ing his corpse." I think somewhere after Duke Leto's dad died I gave up on the whole thing. (I read Dune obsessively, but I had to wonder if Brian Herbert read his dad's books, or if he had access to a secret copy none of the rest had, because Duke Leto's childhood? Lady Jessica's time in the BG house? Totally not like what was implied in the first chapters of Dune. If I ever get published, I think I'll have all my rights revert to Creative Commons or public domain or something upon my death. Unless I have any disabled kids who need the money. but then everybody can tinker with the works for FREE. At least nobody will have a monopoly on screwing over my worlds just because they were related.)
Wednesday April 01, 2009 11:45pm EDT
perfect description of The Fionavar Tapestry by GGKay. while i loved the series & still recommend it to those i think will like it, they will get the warning that 1 character's fate will quite likely be such a rage/depression inducing situation that they may not be happy with having read it.
Thursday April 02, 2009 12:42am EDT
A downhill series that I immediately thought of that hasn't been mentioned yet is Elizabeth Haydon's Symphony of the Ages series. I really liked the first three, but the next three were very hard to get through.
Aedifica @ 61: The Assasin series does end on a depressing note, but you really need to read through the LiveShip Traders and Tawny Man trilogies to get the full story. One of my absolute favs.
As for Pern...of course I've heard of the series, but I was so infuriated by McCaffrey's short story in Legends where the main character fell in love and then didn't even bother to finish her race on camera (ok, on page) that I knew I'd never start reading the series, not matter how much of a classic it was.
Thursday April 02, 2009 12:52am EDT
I *do* appreciate the advice, though - lowering my expectations makes it possible to better tolerate a weaker sequel in order to find out "what happens next". I also won't necessarily force myself to read to the on if I know it's not going to improve. (I've been a few chapters into God Emperor of Dune and Xenocide since the 80's.)
I can only think of one case where a sequel "ruined" a series for me. It was the end of a trilogy of trilogies, and I loved the first 8 1/2 books. Usually it's a good sign when I stay up all night reading, get to the end, and start again at the beginning immediately. ("That was great! I wanna ride it again!") In this case, I got to the end and started to re-read in hopes that the ending would be different the next time. ("Surely that was just a dream!") Jo's post about "bad endings" summed it up: "I felt betrayed." I can't be sorry I read the first 8 (well, at least the first 6) because they were excellent. But I can't bring myself to re-read them. And I can't recommend them. Highly frustrating.
Thursday April 02, 2009 02:05pm EDT
One interesting thing about Ender's Game and Orson Scott Card is that I thought Ender's Game was so different from Card's other books that it seemed like two different authors, as if the tension of Ender's Game wore him out and he got a bit gentler.
Guy Gavriel Kay's earlier books (The Fionavar Tapestry books) and those following shortly after are also excellent, much better than his recent series.
I've also read, and kept, almost everything C.J. Cherryh wrote. She and Kay have kept me up many nights.
And as for GRRF: I COULD SCREAM!!! And I did after that last book. I'll only read the next if he promises to finish and not kill any more good guys. The man who got me started on that series said "If you read this, you will learn to hate!"
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday April 02, 2009 03:09pm EDT · amended on Thursday April 02, 2009 03:10pm EDT
Friday April 03, 2009 01:14pm EDT
Saturday April 04, 2009 11:14pm EDT
Oooh! Animated Captcha. Never seen one of those before. Neat!
Thursday April 09, 2009 04:23am EDT
now, does anyone have any suggestions about a new EPIC series to enjoy? And i mean like the wheel of time, which might be the most epic series i have ever read, and one of the very few i've gone back to seemingly at least every other year. hopefully my local library will have it too. if you have a good suggestion for me, please shoot me an email, at neorotoxin@yahoo.com!
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 25, 2009 07:01pm EST
If you want to be a serious literary thinker or hobby reader/fan, to be frank, you have to slog through a lot of garbage. In the end, though, it’s always worth it.
For example, I was very reluctant to go watch the most recent Star Trek movie. I had many misgivings, and was concerned that J.J. Abrams wasn’t even a fan of the series. But I went, anyway, and I hated it. The difference now, though, is that I can tell you why I hated it, rather than mouth some vague platitudes I read on a website, or that I fabricated out of my opinion of J.J. Abrams.
It’s a hobby just like any other; there are parts you’ll enjoy and that remind you why it’s your favorite hobby in the first place, and other parts that make you think, “Why, God? Why?” However, as someone posted before me, being able to read very fast does help.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday November 26, 2009 11:13pm EST
Great series are defined by how long and how good the quality is maintained. One I havent seen mentioned is the Flinx series. The first half dozen books are great, then it definately goes downhill. I do expect to finish it, and hopefully the sense of fun comes back to it.
I agree that the Anita Blake books have gotten out of hand, and she needs to get back to the basics of what made that series good, which was the mysteries.
The Shannara series started oOne thing that k but was terrible after 3 books.
Another series type that hasn't really been mentions is the creation of a universe of stories, seemingly unrelated or not closely related but all the stories fall within that universe. The Known Space series by Larry Niven and Heinlein's stories all fall into this category.
Frankly, in thinking about this I can think of hundreds of series that I have read. Boy, have I wasted a bunch of time! My addiction is reading, and its worse than smoking or AA...there is no cure.
Friday November 27, 2009 09:01pm EST
Friday November 27, 2009 09:10pm EST
Ate through all the good will he'd earned.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday January 18, 2010 10:17pm EST
(Note to authors: if you're going to write a series, keep a record of your premises and characters so you won't contradict yourself. Some of us notice those things.)
Wednesday January 20, 2010 07:49am EST
aimai
VIEW ALL BY · Friday February 26, 2010 03:18pm EST
The events in "Masterharper" make the entire story line that starts in "Dragonsong", and its main plot device, impossible.
Traditionally, girls can't be harpers? Yet it seems Robinton's wife was a harper. "I insist we deny no-one their rightful place". Yeah, like his deceased wife?
Petiron's stepdaughter was a harper, there was a whole college of female singers, but he never mentioned any of this, and nobody in Half Circle Sea hold was aware of any of it? The whole device of Menolly running away because nobody would take a girl harper seriously, just collapses and takes "Dragonsinger" (only girl harper in the hall) with it.
When the computer game "Myst:URU" was released, and reviewers were panning it, but giving a grade of "B", I recall thinking that if this game had any other pedigree than the revered Rand brothers, it would have gotten the "F" it deserved. We do too much of that, forgiving writers for a real stinker because of prior work. And it's not just SF: Hemingway's "Across the River..." just bit it but nobody was willing to frankly say so at the time.
We need to be readier to say and think, "but what have you done for me lately?", to be less forgiving and quicker to evaluate a story on its own merits rather than its ancestry.
I may hear in person, but just about never read a reviewer saying in print, "Don't read this. It's a disappointment and worse than a waste of your time, it will spoil the previous one for you". Reviewers and/or their editors just don't have the, whatever, to say that in print most of the time.
I wonder also if editors sometimes lack the courage to stand up to a writer and say, "I'm not going to publish this. It sux, it damages the series, it betrays your readers." I know there's just a whole lot more to that, lots to say on multiple sides, but it's undeniable that books do get published which should not have been.
If you're one of us forlorn David Gerrold fans, you know the agony of waiting forever for sequels, so that's the opposite point, I guess. Is it better to endure a long wait, maybe never see the next book (I will never speak to James Clavell again, because he died before writing "Hag"), than to have the next book even if it is worse than disappointing? I dunno.
I do know that I would like the option, which I will not get if reviewers won't write, or editors won't publish, frank and forthright reviews that say, "don't read this book".
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday February 28, 2010 09:15pm EST
Monday March 01, 2010 04:45am EST
While we're talking about Mary Gentle, I couldn't make head nor tails of the White Crow sequence and gave up halfway through the last book. I liked Grunts (not a series) the first time around, but the second time—when the novelty had worn off—I was so disgusted by the orcs' behavior that I gave up. Granted, it was more realistic than your average High Fantasy novel, but disgusting nonetheless (spoiler: in the first chapter, the orcs attack the good guys' supply train and rape the women and children).
Loved Ash: A Secret History, but book four (US edition) is unobtainium, or was the last time I checked.
Long and / or thick series that don't disappoint: C. J. Cherryh's Foreigner series; Peter Hamilton's Commonwealth Saga and sequel-ish Void Trilogy (fingers crossed, third book isn't out yet); Katharine Kerr's Deverry Cycle; Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle; plenty of others that I either haven't read or can't remember off the bat.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday March 01, 2010 07:43am EST
Fortunately, my memory of it is so thoroughly wiped that I can go back and read the original again without any problem whatsoever.
I second (third, or whatever) the comments regarding Asimov and his really unfortunate efforts to tie all of his Foundation and Robot stories together. In fact, there was really no point in any Foundation novel after Second Foundation.
And, yes, everything after the original Rendezvous with Rama and 2001 was unnecessary rubbish.
I wonder what possessed Clarke and Asimov to mess with those classics? Lack of new ideas? Certainly not lack of money. Really, it's not necessary to tie up every loose end and answer every question; life doesn't work that way, so why should fiction? Sometimes it's good to leave a mystery that doesn't have a solution.
I am a bit surprised at the number of people who seem to like the sequels to Dune. I can remember quite distinctly at the time that a common comment from people who had read them and other novels by Herbert, such as Destination: Void and The Dosadi Experiment, was 'Who on Earth ghost-wrote Dune?'
And I'll just stay away from any discussion of sequels to Star Trek — whoops.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday March 01, 2010 07:46am EST
VIEW ALL BY · Monday March 01, 2010 08:05am EST
In the case of series that continue until the wheels fall off, I tend to think they're just too large, too vast, to be beautiful.
I might add that, as far as I can see, you don't find great artists dragging their works along until they've wrung every bit of energy from them. No sequel to Hamlet, for example.
Thursday March 04, 2010 05:36pm EST
I tend to avoid the gargantuan series. A trilogy is not bad, five books is a lot, an unending trail of books is reason for me to walk past that section of the shelf.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday July 05, 2010 05:17pm EDT