I recently got downvoted like crazy in a different sub because I expressed that I didn’t love Wool (Silo series book 1). My main gripe with the book is that it didn’t feel like a complete story by the end. There was no real climax, the last 10 chapters felt rushed, and the character development didn’t have as much payoff as I wanted.
Many people told me that you have to read the entire trilogy for it to really be satisfying, to which I claimed that a book (regardless of if it’s part of a trilogy/series) should be self-contained to some extent. A lot of redditors took issue with that, apparently.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy reading trilogies/series more than standalone novels, because I love the extra time in the world, but shouldn’t a story be able to stand on its own and not have to rely on follow up in a different book?
(NOTE: I’m fully willing to accept that I am in the minority here, I’m purely curious to see what other people think)
by _snapcrackle_
1 Comment
I don’t have an opinion on the Silo series, I haven’t read any of it, but I do absolutely agree with you that a series shouldn’t be a chore to get through until “the good part” three books in. I hear this a lot about Sarah Maas, that the series picks up in the later books…that’s not a selling point to me, that’s a failure of the first books. The concept of “powering through” a book until you get to the good part is wild to me. If it isn’t good in the first two chapters, I’m not interested in forcing myself to read more bad book until it maybe gets better 1400 pages later.