the Way Back on Wednesday: Family Ties
(originally published on September 24, 2010)
Judging by what I see on shelves, romance readers love seeing everyone in a family falling over each other to get married. Just about every subgenre seems to have more than its fair share of series about brothers and sisters finding love. I enjoy a good story world, but I have to admit to puzzling over why so many series had to be about sets of siblings. Perhaps it’s because in real life, very few siblings I know fell in love and married one right after the other. Don’t get wrong; I don’t DISLIKE family series. I just never understood the overwhelming popularity.
For myself, if I enjoy entering the author’s world, I really don’t have a strong preference as to what keeps me coming back there. I can enjoy a continuing series about one couple such as those by Tracy Grant, Julia Spencer-Fleming(not genre romance, I know, but they are mighty romantic), and Nancy Gideon. I’ve also enjoyed reading books set in a world involving various groups of friends, such as those in Jo Beverley’s Company of Rogues series. And, of course, I do like some of the families – the Bridgertons are probably one of my favorites. However, it’s the desire to visit that world that draws me in rather than the sibling bond itself.
As I think back through the family series I’ve enjoyed, though, there is something about them that makes them a little different. In addition to creating a world, a good author can create a shared history. Even better, to use my Bridgerton example, that shared family history doesn’t get dumped on the reader all at once, but is doled out bit by bit. This creates an increasing sense of intimacy as one moves deeper into the series. It’s rather like meeting a friend’s family and learning a little bit about them but as one spends time with these friends over the years, the bond deepens and one starts to know the family on a deeper level.
Given that most siblings would have a longer and often deeper shared history than that of other groups, I can see where that history would anchor a reader firmly in a series. Not only does the author have a setting of time and place to use, but the rules of the family dynamics and history also provide a structure within which to build a world. For instance, in her two medieval novels, Carrie Lofty uses her time period and places (1 set in England and 1 in Spain) to create very distinct settings. However, the tumultuous relationship between the sisters featured in What a Scoundrel Wants and Scoundrel’s Kiss also governed some of the choices made by the characters and this added an extra layer of depth to the heroines, making the emotional impact of their stories even stronger.
In a poorly written or even merely average series about siblings, the things that make the good books shine can grate on one instead. For instance, instead of feeling a sense of sharing in family history, those cameos in later books that show happy couples, and often their children, can feel contrived rather than warm. I know some are cousins rather than siblings, but more than a few of the great big Cynster reunion scenes I’ve read fall into this category for me. And those childhood memories spoken of by siblings can make the eyes roll, too. I forget which of the many Silhouette romance families I was reading at the time, but the later books were filled with so many down-home Western ranch mishap stories that it just made the characters feel contrived. I remember thinking of one hero that even Lassie would have given up on him after enough falls down the well, times getting trapped in the barn and so on.
Even with the pitfalls, though, a realistic family tie can help create a really good world. It’s kind of fun to read about the sort of families one might want to be friends with or even be a part of. Goodness knows I wouldn’t have minded adopting a few of these for my own!
Oh yes, those families where everyone is heterosexual, normal (sic) etc. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a well written book by a favourite author but do families like this exist outside of the Waltons. Lol. Another gripe is where the men, even as boys, try to “protect ” their (!) women.
I wonder what the reader completion rate is for family series? That is, if a reader starts (or finishes) the first book, what are the odds they will read all the subsequent books in the series? If the author hooks you, then they’ve got a reader for their next 5 or so books. But if the author fails to set the hook, then you may not read one of their new books for years. There’s definitely risk/reward calculus. While I’ve completed a few family series (Mary Balogh’s The Westcotts, for example,) I’ve bailed on even more (including The Bridgertons.) Perhaps I’m an outlier? Do most of you complete once you start a series? What do you do if you hit a book you don’t enjoy? Do you stop reading the series, or do you give the next one a try?
I think it might depend on how compulsive you are :) I rarely start a book mid-series. For authors I know and love, I always start at the beginning of the series and even if I don’t like a particular volume, I will keep going as I trust that there will be another I like better down the line. For new authors I have occasionally started mid-series with the book that caught my eye (based on plot, recommendations, etc). If I really like that book then I go back and start with the beginning of the series. This is what happened to me with Penny Reid’s Winston Brothers books – I first read Beard Science, which is the 3rd in the series. If the author is new to me and I feel the first book is only OK, I may give the second book a chance, especially if well reviewed. This happened to me with Julie Ann Long’s Pennyroyal Green series. I had heard about her for a long time but when I read The Perils of Pleasure, I thought it was only OK. Then I read the second book Like No Other Lover and loved it so I finished the series. For some reason I tended to like the Redmond books better than the Eversea books, although What I Did for a Duke is one of my favorites.
I think The Perils of Pleasure is, along with Chase’s book, relatively weak compared to the rest of the series.
I find series, in general, boring. Especially all these that go on f o r e v e r and come out more than once a year.
In my relatively small sampling, I’ve found the quality of the writing and stories can go downhill quickly after the first book or two. The author is just churning out each sibling’s story and throwing in the others so we can get a peek at our earlier favorites. It can be very formulaic. I liked The Westcotts because there was a precipitating event (Earl died and it was discovered his marriage was bigamous) which threw many people’s lives into turmoil, and it made sense that the repercussions played out over years and were different for each character, with some benefitting and others being harmed. But even that series had weaker books, and I am concerned that the long-awaited book for Harry, who lost his inheritance by becoming illegitimate, might be one of those, based on a preview I read. We’ll find out soon as it comes out at the end of the month.
I don’t mind linked books, but, especially if the series is very long, I want them to work as stand-alones. I don’t always want to read an entire series to get to a book that interests me. If I read a review that says, “this is a great book but you really need to read these books to understand the story” then I’m likely to skip it. The exceptions for me are when the series follows the same couple. Then I’m more willing to start at the beginning and read forward. (Like Charlie Adhara’s Big Bad Wolf series)
I’m generally not a big fan of family series because of those contrived “remember all those couples from the other books? We’re having a family reunion so you can so how happily married they are and how many kids they have!” scenes. Even in series I like, I feel like in later books they tend to get cluttered with people who are all invested in the hero or heroine’s romantic prospects — while I’ve enjoyed all the Westcott books so far, my favorite parts are usually when the couple can get some time apart from all those Westcotts.
That said, I really like how some series use ongoing relationship development and conflicts within families across multiple books. Jaima Fixsen’s Fairchild series does this really well, I think. The family background adds to all the individual romances.
Regarding the Westcott books – I agree that one of the things I like about the books is that in each book there is a period where the main couple is apart from the family, which allows their relationship to build in peace. This is one supportive family but they are getting a bit unwieldy at this point!
I agree with those who said that a linked book (of any sort) should be a stand-alone if at all possible. And as far as long, linked series, it would help to have a dramatis personae by the time you get to the 4th or 5th book. I have loved some of Mary Balogh’s linked series of siblings, cousins, married in-laws, etc. but it would be a relief to look at a list of who’s who. Some authors to post an explanation on their websites but taking the time to find it when you are reading is a turn-off and distraction unless you print the thing off and keep it beside you!!
Except… there’s a joy in seeing the lives of those you’re invested in from other books. So maybe they should be standalones that are enriched but not bogged down by previous characters.
Kristen Ashley is the Queen of linked books. By the time she finishes a series the cast of recurring characters and friends is ridiculous.
She’s also taken to linking separate series together as well so people from the Rock Chick books show up in the Motorcycle Man world and others. It’s one big incestuous pool now.
I once read a book (not romance) where the heroine from a completely unrelated series wrote to the heroine of the current series, the letter included after the end of the story like an epilogue. And the letter went something like, “Hi, Heroine of Current Series! Wow, it looks like you’ve had a difficult time. I sympathize, because I’ve dealt with some terrible issues too. If you’d like to know more, my life is quite the story. All my love, Heroine of Other Series.”
Ha, ha you have to give the author credit for trying I guess.
I’m a fan of crossovers and Easter eggs in books when it’s cleverly done. I’ve always given Joanna Bourne credit for not overusing her characters in her Spymaster series. People only showed up again if it fit the plot. As much as Annique and Grey were fan favorites and her first couple, they never just popped up again in the series as they were off doing spy things.
Although personally I wouldn’t have minded seeing more of the old favorites mixed in. I was very sorry Justine, Maggie and Severine didn’t get time together in Severine’s book. That was a missed opportunity IMHO.
That could come across as lazy writing. Does it feel like that too you or does it work?
It feels like kind of extreme fan service to me. I am sure there are people that absolutely love it and keep coming back time and again because their favorites from ten books ago keep popping up and getting updates and time on the page. For people who don’t like her, or that kind of thing it probably makes them want to rip their hair out in frustration.
It’s just one of her “things” as a reader you either like or don’t like I guess- and there are a huge number of readers that must really, really like it along with the fact that everyone in the Denver area is part of the characters’ big “friend posse.” (And yeah I really hate that term).
Melissa Foster does that too. The rate these books are going some of the characters should be in their dotage by now
Like most things art related, I’m down for linked family series as long as they’re well done.
I’m not crazy about the sibling series. I find it strains credibility, for example, to read about 8 siblings who all end up in blissfully happy marriages. I find myself distracted from the story at times thinking “”really, not even one of the 8 ends up in even a mediocre marriage””.
I LOVE family series books. I like the idea that there are more books coming, from an author I really like, about characters I am familiar with. I know, not all books within a series are created equal, and I have several series that are missing books because I thought a particular book within that series was just awful. And yes, I am also anal enough to HAVE to read series books in order.But ,from Nora Roberts, to Mary Balogh to Julia Quinn to Amanda Ashley, I still gravitate towards a good family historic series book. I like the thrill of discovering a new-to-me author’s series, and yes, I will stop reading a series until I have them all, just so I can read them in the right order.
Due to the influence of this site, I have branched out to series book, NOT about families that I enjoy also. The Stephanie Plum books, Ava Gray’s “”Skin”” series, Tracy Grant’s Colin and Melanie Fraser, Laura lee Guhrke’s “”Girl Bachelor”” series immediately come to mind. I think I like continuity, and of course being a greedy reader, I like to think that there are more books soon coming for me to enjoy.
I love them too. I think it was Suzanne Brockmann who initially got me hooked on connected books. I find that gradually coming to know a character over several books gets me very invested in them if they are well done.
I like familyseries for the most part, but I think it is only fair to the consumer to make the books stand-alone.I hate to be lost in book 3 and feel I have to buy 1 and 2 just to make sense of it.
I do know of readers who have dropped out of reading romance, when they didn’t want to, because of the unending supply of unending series. I may be the odd duck here, but I prefer a standalone novel, and while I’m not saying no series ever, it would be nice to have a one and done option, so to speak. With series that all take place within one generation, the family homestead can get very crowded, very fast. My favorite sort of linked books is the generational saga, and I would be interested in seeing more of those, though my first love will always be a book that is complete unto itself.
Isn’t the reason for the sibling stories what Molly said? Publishers want series. What’s more natural than siblings on which to base a series? Julia Quinn’s Bridgertons and Mary Balogh’s Bedwyns were the ones that got me hooked on family series. (And Slightly Dangerous is still my number one DIK!)
In fact I’m currently reading a family series by Vicki Lewis Thompson, the Chance family siblings.
Yes, and even more so than a group of friends it provides a reason why these people would be around each other and active in each other’s lives over many years.
“”I remember thinking of one hero that even Lassie would have given up on him after enough falls down the well, times getting trapped in the barn and so on.””
I love it!!!!
My favourite books are historical ones and I like series, I really do. However, the stand alone book is a rare commodity.
I HAVE to read the books in a series in order and sometimes end up re-reading just to remind myself what the heck happened in the previous book. Considering how many book there are unread in Mt TBR this is frustrating.
So, I hear what you are saying about siblings and friends but I want a list of single titles that I can just pick up without worrying about previous books or futures ones, either.
Maybe I should post on the message boards asking for recommends..
Anyone else tired of endless series?
I find there are a lot that can stand on their own and many others that really require you having read the previous ones.
For example, in Kleypas’s latest series you really did need to read ‘Cold Hearted Rake” to get the full benefit of the couple in “Marrying Winterbourne” but if you hadn’t read the other books in the series I think “Hello Stranger” could easily stand on its own. Yes, having the background of the supporting characters is nice but not having it doesn’t really detract from the main couple’s story in that book IMHO.
Nice piece. I’m definitely drawn to family series more than groups of friends series. However, lately I’ve been getting a little tired of the formula. I was really enjoying Jillian Hunter’s Boscastle series and then just wasn’t and put them aside. Some of my favorite family series are some of the most popular: Bridgertons, Hathaways and friends, Effingtons and friends, Cynsters and Enoch’s Griffin series. And, of course, Deveraux’s Montgomery/Taggert saga and many of Nora Roberts’s series (the two Irish trilogies were great) There’s something comforting in knowing exactly what you’re going to get in a series and family series usually introduce the siblings/cousins up front and you see their characters develop over the course of the books. Your point about how the shared history and stronger familial relationship strengthens the appeal of the family series is very true. Some authors are really good at bringing out the humor and the affection in the family settings. Plus, as in most series, you get to look forward to a particular characters book, for better or worse. Leo in Kleypas’s Hathaway series, was a phenomenal character, especially in the earlier books.
On the other hand, I cannot stand the loosely connected series, especially the stupid bachelor clubs and the silly spy rings. The only ones I’ll excuse are the Company of Rogues, because they’re well done and the Lauren Willig series because it’s clever and different. Drawing male friendships is really a difficult task and few romance authors excel at it and those that do, Brockmann and Ward for instance, often eventually descend into silliness.
For some reason I don’t find the female version’s of the bachelor/single ladies clubs as annoying…Eloisa James’s “”Duchesses””, Candice Hern and Sophia Nash’s widows, etc. I think, obviously, many female authors can draw on personal experience to portray their “”girlfriend”” relationships.
Then there are the series that defy characterization…the Liz Carlyle’s of the world. I’ve loved every book she’s written, but the way her books are connected is so frustrating. I have to read series in order and I look to have a clear memory of where I’ve been and where I’m going. And I’ll never be able to figure out the interconnected families in these books!
Now I’m just rambling…but I would definitely be interested in an AAR list of “”famous”” family series, maybe in the Special Titles (excuse me if there’s already one…haven’t looked lately). Or maybe you could do a poll of favorite romance series of all time?!
As a writer who uses a lot of siblings to pull everyone together I totally blame Elizabeth Lowell in the best possible way. Her brothers and families made me crazy to read the next book in the series and that a few of the brothers didn’t get stories made me think that I had missed something. Sadly, I just haven’t had the creativity to try and break that mold – but your post is giving me some ideas….