the ask@AAR: Stand alone or series–do you have a preference?
There are few greater reading pleasures–for me–than diving into a beloved series. In the past 18 months, I’ve listened to all the Harry Potter books, inhaled series by Karin Slaughter, Maria Vale, Eve Silver, Kelley Armstrong, Madeline Hunter, Anne Stuart, Holly Black, and Carolyn Crane, just to name a few. Given the choice between a stand alone and a series in genre fiction*, I’ll take a series every time.
Now, not all series are my jam and it’s the rare series that can go on and on and not begin to bore me. I also prefer series in which the characters are linked but are not the same leads each time. Were I to list my current top ten romances, the only stand alone stories that would make the list are The Hating Game (I’ll be watching the movie tonight!) and Uncommon Passion.
How about you? Do you prefer series or one offs? And, if you like series, do you like them to follow a couple, a friend group, or a theme? And, of course, feel free to share your favorites!
*Lit fic is rarely written as a series so for the purposes of this column, I’m just considering genre fiction.
I am happy with stand-alones and series as long, as others have said here, the quality of writing is good, the characters worth revisiting (in series) and the story fits my personal parameters. Very few series can, for me, last out more than 5 or so books unless in the hands of a very good writer. Mary Balogh can do it; Georgette Heyer most certainly did it. And, years ago, the Conard County series did it though I did not revisit it when the later books that went on to the second generation characters. As mentioned elsewhere today, I’ve just started the ninth Outlander book and would say that Gabaldon is one of the few who has kept me occupied and looking for more for so long. I also read all 12 of the Poldark books but the last few were disappointing and I was not so committed to the new generation of characters. I think you can fall in love with the mother and father in a series but don’t really have interest in the children or grandchildren. I think the following generations are best dealt with in an afterward or possibly a novella, etc.
I think what it all boils down to is that series and standalone both work as long as the book is/books are good. The long, long series seems to work best in mysteries, like Rex Stout’s Nero Wolfe books or Agatha Christie’s Poirot series.
But I resent books in a series that depend on my having read the earlier books.
Another interesting question for the ASK, with great responses!
Like a number of commentors, I prefer standalone romances to series but don’t mind numerous stories that take place in the same universe with overlapping characters as long as they can a) each stand alone and b) don’t rely too heavily on cutsey cameos from prior romance couples or get really pushy with setups for future couples.
It’s not that I never want to see couples from previous books. In fact, the presence of recurring characters can be quite enjoyable. But I want them to be woven into the new story rather than just popping by for no discernable reason or to fawn over each other like lovesick honeymooners.
One way you could sum up my preferences would be the word “episodic.” I like old TV shows that have new adventures every week, but you can pretty much watch them in any order once you know all the characters. Miniseries? Forget it. I don’t want an investment that lasts more than two or three episodes. Books are like that with me too. You could have twenty or thirty romance stories that take place in the same shared universe for all I care, just make sure I can pick up story #11, #3, #7, etc. in any wonky order and still be able to follow what’s going on for the most part.
On that note, I’m totally alienated by Harlequin Romantic Suspense’s 20+ year Colton Line. Not only does it come across as completely forced (really, pretty much everyone in this multigenerational family is either in law enforcement or marries someone in law enforcement? Give me a break…), but they don’t seem to stand alone well enough from the free previews I’ve read. If your opening chapter is literally a family reunion where we are given all the updates about each of the previous couples from the last five years or so, that’s officially a sign that your series has outworn its welcome.
This. Especially when, with each subsequent book, you can tell the author didn’t want to leave the happy couple in the same situation as they were in the previous book. So now, they’ve had their third child. Next book, fifth. Book after that, eighth. At that point I have my doubts about how delightful everything is for them, and how much individual parental attention the little rabbits can possibly hope for.
I’ve just finished reading Carolyn Crane’s Associates series and I’m irked we never got Dax’s story.
That’s one downside of series–as a reader you may become invested in a character whose story you’d like to read and then the author doesn’t write it.
I also always a story for the oldest Eversea son in the Pennyroyal Green series and don’t even get me started on how much I want to lock Patrick Rothfuss in a room…..
I keep hoping Crane (aka, Annika Martin) will return to that series and at least give us Dax’s story (there were also a couple of other secondary characters in the series that I also thought would make interesting romance reading). Alas, nothing so far. Perhaps now that she’s apparently finished her Billionaires of Manhattan series (which, don’t get me wrong, I loved), Martin can put her Crane hat back on and give us more Associates. Well, hope springs eternal….
I discovered Carolyn Crane’s books this year and I was very intrigued by Dax. I thought his book must have been one that I haven’t read yet. Now I’m sad to see that I was wrong and there’s no Dax book.
I think she’s done with that series which is a bummer because Dax is so fascinating.
I tend to like specific authors, so I read them whether their books are stand alones or series.
I often read series that follow different couples, and I usually prefer it of the series like that doesn’t go on too long. Trilogies are great, much more than that starts getting tedious, especially if the previous characters keep showing up. I just finished the 6th book of a m/m series and although they work somewhat as stand alones, you still have a lot of characters to keep track of and I was over it.
Some longer series, however, are worth it! I loved Charlie Adhera’s Big Bad Wolf series and thought each book better than the last. It is 5 books and that was perfect for this series that follows one couple. Also, Rachel Reid’s Game Changer series– I can’t wait until book 6 next year. And I listened to the entire Rockliffe series by Stella Riley and never got bored! I also love her Roundheads and Cavaliers series, as well as her stand alone titles.
I do enjoy stand alone titles because sometimes I just want to jump in and enjoy a good story, not start a committed relationship with a series.
Rachel Reid’s Game Changer series is going to do something that is pretty unique. I can’t think of another series where there is a full book about a couple (Shane and Ilya in Heated Rivalry) then the author writes a few more books in the series about other couples then goes back and writes a FULL book about the previous couple to finish off their story. I’m so looking forward to it!
You’re so right.I can’t think of another situation like this. I like how she’s continued their story in a very subdued way in several books, very seamlessly and unobtrusively. I’ve enjoyed seeing Ilya grow. I wonder if she had the idea for their second book all along, or if the fan love for that couple inspired her. Either way, I too cannot wait.
And THAT’S how you write a series where just the right amount of a previous couple is put into subsequent books. Interestingly, it has been all Ilya and little Shane. But Ilya was always the more colorful character. RR has written some nice, juicy blog posts on her author website in the past explaining what’s coming up for Game Changers. Maybe she will write one that explains more about the upcoming book!
LONG GAME is my most anticipated book of 2022. I’m going to try to do a re-read of the previous five books in the Game Changers series before LONG GAME’s April (as of right now) release because I think it’s clear now that Ilya has been a driving force in all the books, even if he only appears briefly. I wonder if Reid planned that from the beginning or if it just developed organically as she wrote the earlier books. It’s a great series.
If she planned it all along, I think it’s genius but my bet is that it developed organically – Ilya was a character that just couldn’t stop popping up. It is funny that he started off clueless in his own book but now in other couples’ books, he is a bit of a sage, dispensing all the good advice, lol.
I’m looking forward to The Long Game as well. Reid writes M/M sports romances well. I’m just afraid that she is going to ruin TLG for me by making it 50 percent about a specific societal issue that she feels compelled to school us about (which is what ruined Role Model for me–if I had to hear Troy beat himself up one more time for having not realized what a creep his prior roommate was, I was going to throw the book against the wall).
I am in agreement with most everyone here— series are good, up to a point. Loosely linked stories are better than ever-growing family/friend groups. Joanna Bourne’s Spymasters series is a great example of how to do this right. I enjoy a duology or a trilogy featuring one couple if there is a real reason for the story to go on that long. KJ Charles’ Will Darling trilogy is one of my recent favorites. There was plenty of plot, and those characters needed that time to learn and grow as individuals and as a couple. I love the idea of a good stand alone, but looking at my 2021 reads, I don’t see many written recently. Some of the “standalone” books I liked look like they might be the start of a series. For example, Winter’s Orbit by Everina Maxwell was a good m/m fantasy romance, but I see there is a loosely linked second book in the works. I do think that once an author spends times building out an elaborate world, particularly in SFF, then they want to stay and play in that world for awhile, and who can blame them?
I am ok with playing in a cool world, as long as each book stands alone. I realize that it is a challenge for the author to give us enough of the cool world in each book for us to be able to enjoy a book without the whole series for background.
However, I am not so sticky about world building in a romance – so not understanding all about the planetary government if I am reading a book set in the military is ok by me. Or having a couple who does not need to understand its own world because they just live in a town and have little to do with the big picture – so I may also not understand, and wonder at some stuff in that world.
I prefer all that to a supercool constructed elaborate world that I need to come into at book 1 to enjoy book 13 – – one reason Psy Changeling stopped working for me. I just stopped caring about the Psy-net crashing at some point, and all the details I needed to keep track of to understand how hero #13 and heroine #13 were saving the world (again).
I think the best series are those in which the books also function as stand alones. I’m not crazy about series that unless you’ve read all the books, make no sense.
I agree! I hate feeling like I have to reread and remember the details of all the previous books in order to understand the latest release. My brain doesn’t like to hold onto that much information! On the other hand, I am a Harry Potter fan and happily reread those as the new books came out, but that was an exception rather than my typical reading habit.
Not a fan of series, especially connecting series with the same H/h throughout the series. Most of them were usually released long past their expiration date due to recycled plot.
I remember I used to love Outlander, but stopped after #5. In my mind, Outlander ended in #3.
I read series, one can’t simply avoid them altogether, but I jump around a bit. Luckily reading books out of order doesn’t bother me, since my main requirement for reading a book is the plot. If the plot doesn’t interest me, I will skip, even if it’s part of a continuing series.
I refer to romances that take more than one book to develop the relationship of a couple despite an initial apparent HEA as mid-course correction stories. If books before the last don’t end with any sort of HFN or HEA, I will apply the romance label to the whole series, but not to the individual books. JAK has written a few duology or trilogy romances over the years. I generally don’t like multi-book mid-course correction romances as much as one-book-per-couple romances because the mid-course correction diminishes any apparent HEA in the first volume.
Many F&SF series I’ve read over the years include relationships that develop over multiple books, which I have no problem with since they aren’t called genre romances, so I don’t expect a one-volume HEA.
Looking at my reading log, so far this year three-quarters of my reading has been books in series. Part of that is simple availability—a huge percentage of books I buy are parts of series. Preference also plays a part—books in series allow me to revisit familiar worlds and universes.
I have recently enjoyed books (not all recent releases) in series from these authors:
Mysteries: Penny Reid, Shanna Swendson, Sherry Thomas.
Romances: Kristen Callihan, Michelle Diener, Dianne Duvall, Tawna Fenske, Pippa Grant, J. B. Heller, Sabrina Jeffries, Elle Kennedy, Claire Kingsley, J. J. Knight, Jayne Ann Krentz, Eve Langlais, Jackie Lau, Shelly Laurenston, Julie Anne Long, Max Monroe, Iris Morland, Erin Nicholas, Amanda Quick, Penny Reid, Tiffany Reisz, Lucy Score, Jill Shalvis, N. J. Walters.
Fantasy & Science Fiction: Ben Aaronovitch, Ilona Andrews, John Bierce, Patricia Briggs, Lois McMaster Bujold, Rebecca Chastain, Michelle Diener, Eric Flint, Jeaniene Frost, Kim Harrison, Gorg Huff & Paula Goodlett, Mercedes Lackey, Sharon Lee & Steve Miller, Elizabeth Lim, Robin D. Owens, Terry Pratchett, Andrew Rowe, Lisa Shearin, Ryk E. Spoor, David Weber, Will Wight.
Seven books is my limit, I think, for a series.
I’ve read several where they run out of steam after book 3 or 4; they’ve tended to be historical mysteries where the couple gets together in book 3 (Lady Darby, Lady Julia) and once that happens, I start to lose interest. That isn’t because I don’t like series that continue after the couple has got together (see Gregory Ashe!) – maybe the mysteries just weren’t gripping enough to hold my interest once the romance was settled.
Quite – 11 books last year and 8 or 9 this… and not a dud amongst them. I think he’s one person and two clones…
I have to agree. For most series, 6 to 8 books and I’m losing interest. The only exceptions are very loosely related books which are mostly stand alones in the same “universe.”
my feelings exactly, though I would say 3 books is my limit, and it goes lower the longer I read and the less finished/ stand alone the overarching plot of the series is, in each book. The more I really need to read them all to understand the non romance elements, the less I am willing to stick to a longer series.
Some series I’ve stuck with longer, such as the Mercy Thompson books by Patricia Briggs. I made it to 8 or 9 there. And years ago I made it through at least that many Dresden Files books by Jim Butcher. Over the past few years I’ve read all the Guild Codex World books (4 related series, mostly 4 to 6 books long) by Annette Marie and look forward to more. But none of those books I mentioned are romances, even if there are some romantic themes in them. Years ago when I read mainly mysteries, I read longish series by several authors, such as Martha Grimes, Dorothy Sayer, Elizabeth George, etc.
Actually, Elizabeth George is one reason I quit reading mystery series. I was so appalled by the turn of events in book #13 that I stopped reading not just the Lynley series but several others as well.
Over the years, I find that George has become progressively more cruel to her characters—especially children and vulnerable women. I liked some of her earlier books, but I just got tired of the endless cruelty, abuse, and, in many cases, death. And her treatment of Barbara Havers (a smart, dedicated woman—if not the smooth, sophisticated type Linley goes for) is appalling. I gave up after the book where George used the Jamie Bulger case as “inspiration.” No thanks.
I stopped when I saw what was coming and didn’t read 13.
I didn’t.
I only realized once I had the book and started it. I stopped reading once I had the first inkling what it was, and never went back. Just couldn’t.
There’s an awful lot of trilogies out there. I find that I tend to very much like either the first or second book and often feel meh about the third. I can follow a longer series but it will be hit or miss whether I truly love an entry. I will find myself going on with the series in the hopes that I will love the latest book like I did one of the previous books. One series where this happened was Julie Anne Long’s Pennyroyal Green series. The first book didn’t grip me but I gave the series another try and loved the second book then went back and forth through the series either loving or feeling meh about each entry. What was nice was that I was late to the series so it was almost completely done by the time I started and I didn’t have to wait for an installment. I personally feel more enjoyment when I recognize side characters from previous books or know the relationships between characters. Sometimes there is a year in between entries in a series and I don’t have the time to go back and re-read all the previous books in the series to refresh my memory!
I agree–I’d so rather read a series where all the books are out! One problem I’m having with Sherry Thomas’ Lady Sherlock series is that the plot of each book is so complicated that by the time the next book finally comes out, I can’t recall what happened.
I like stand alone stories. I also like series. That being said, I have a few quibbles with series. First, authors seem to feel the need to populate later books in the series with every character from previous books. Mary Balogh’s Someone to Cherish is a perfect example. The book became too crowded with characters that had little to do with the actual story and the interruptions in the flow of the plot to recognize each previous book’s H/h was annoying. Second, its hard to keep interest going if there is too long of a wait between books. Third, if there are plot points that carry through from one book to the next, its hard to pick up a book in the middle of the series. So I’m a fan of books related in a series but strongly feel that each book should stand on its own.
i stopped reading the Outlander series after book 3 because I got bored. But I’m still desperately hoping George R. R. Martin finishes books 6 and 7 before either he or I die.
I need each book to feel finished.
And to stand on its own, not propped up by all its series-friends.
And it gets worse as I get older, I got badly burnt out on waiting for a story to end (Gabaldon, for example), so by now, I tend to wait until a series is over to decide whether I will engage or not, with very few exceptions.
I stopped reading Nalini Singh’s Psy Changeling, I stopped reading Patricia Briggs, I am close to stopping reading Balogh – and a lot of books that sounded nice I did not even start to read once I see that this is a series and may not actually have an end in sight.
It depends. I don’t mind longer-running series featuring the same couple provided the storylines keep fresh and interesting; Eden Finley’s Diversion series (9 books) is an excellent example of that, KJ Charles’ Will Darling Adventures, Jenn Burke’s Not Dead Yet, Gregory Ashe’s The Lamb and the Lion are all trilogies featuring the same central couple in which the relationship development is sustained throughout even though each book in the set often features a different central storyline. Speaking of Gregory Ashe, he’s just published the thirteenth Hazard and Somerset book and shows no sign of running out of steam, and there are seven Borealis Investigations books (and more to come – the same is true of the L&L series, I believe, as well). I like that we get to see what happens after the characters get together and get to watch them navigate all the pitfalls of real relationships, and it’s still – for me – something of a refreshing change (in romance) that we get to do that, because most romance ends at the HEA.
Like everyone else, I’ve read a lot of series featuring interconnected characters – family members, groups of friends, etc. so they’re kind of standalones set in the same universe. Those work fine, provided the romances work – one of my frequent complaints about most m/f romantic suspense at the moment is that the romances are pushed aside to make way for the plot in single titles – and in contrast, that most m/m romantic suspense is in series that follow the same couple and is much more successful, IMO, because the relationships are allowed the time they need to develop.
The one downside to this type of series is the wait between books! (Unless you’re reading Gregory Ashe, of course, as he writes at a rapid pace and releases a book every couple of months). I’ve found some series when they’re finished and have been able to binge them all at once (especially in audio – I’m doing that with the Diversion series) and others where I’m reading them as they come out – because I’m too impatient to wait until it’s finished! (And I’m probably reviewing the individual books, so can’t wait until the end!)
Standalones are fine, too – although somewhat rare in romance – and sometimes I actively look for them when I’ve finished a series and want a break from “when’s the next one out?!”
I don’t think I’ve ever read a m/f series that deals with relationship the way Adhera’s series does or Layla Reyne’s Irish and Whiskey series. (Or how you’ve described Ashe’s books.) I can’t handle Ashe’s level of angst, but I really loved the other ones and how the relationship development- up AND downs- was woven in with the suspense.
Agreed. Did you see we’re getting a new Charlie Adhara series next year? I did ask her whether we were going to get Eli’s story – and she said it was very likely! I’m really looking forward to it. (And maybe we’ll see a bit more of Cooper and Park, too!)
I’m so excited about it! The only issue is that I had the pleasure of reading Big Bad Wolf as a completed series. I don’t know if I can take waiting between books!
I vastly prefer stand-alones. That’s not to say that I won’t read one or two books from a series if there’s something there that catches my eye, but it never ceases to annoy me when you can easily spot the couples that already had a book (extra lovey-dovey, plenty of mention of boinking behind the scenes, and often pregnant), and the character(s) that are next in line for a book of their own.
I would be more interested in series where the books had a theme in common instead of a group of friends/siblings/sports or military team/band members/etc.
Slightly o/t, but, although UNCOMMON PASSION is a standalone, Ben (the hero) does make an appearance in Calhoun’s UNCOMMON PLEASURE, which consists of two interconnected stories, both of which feature MFM-menages; Ben participated in one of the threesomes, but chronologically that is before he meets the heroine of UNCOMMON PASSION, so he wasn’t cheating on her. I think there’s even a blink-and-you-miss-it reference in UNCOMMON PASSION to Ben’s foray into the ménage world. As I say every time she comes up in conversation, how I miss Anne Calhoun and how I wish she were still writing.
Now back to the question at hand: If a story grabs me, I don’t mind if it’s a standalone or part of a series. There was a similar question recently posted at Dear Author (the question there was specifically about series, not series versus standalones), so I hope it’s alright for me to repost the comment I made here:
Speaking specifically of romances, I’m fine with a series as long as it’s finite. I think six books is about the maximum number for a series to be realistic about the connections between the MCs (a group of siblings, friends, coworkers, roommates, etc.). One thing I dislike is too much time catching up with couples from earlier books. Some of Mary Balogh’s later series books seem to spend an inordinate amount of time bringing readers up to speed on every couple in the series and their numerous progeny. Just let each couple have their HEA, with maybe a brief sentence or two about where they are and what they’re doing. A writer who does series really well is Claire Kingsley: each book focuses one a specific couple, but she’s really good at giving you just enough information about couples from previous (or future) books. She also has an overarching mystery of some sort that winds its way through the all the books in a series and it finally gets resolved in the last one.
When it comes to following a single couple’s romantic arc across multiple books, I think a trilogy is the realistic maximum. After three books, I’m wondering if this couple will ever get together and I start losing interest. I’ve noticed recently that a lot of darker romance (including mafia/bratva/MC) seems to be heading to the duet or trilogy formula with the first book(s) ending on cliffhangers
It’s funny, I know that about the Calhoun books but they feel firmly like stand alones to me because the characters’ connections are irrelevant to the story. IMHO, anyway.
Agreed! Even in books that are definitely part of a series (like her Alpha Ops series), Calhoun makes each couple and each story so individualized, I often forget there is a (somewhat tenuous) connection between characters from the various books. I wish I knew what happened to Calhoun and if she’s doing OK.
I agree with your dislike of later books in the series spending too much time on previous couples. I have read series where the last book did this so much that only about half the book was about the main couple and their romance felt rushed. I prefer a fully developed romance with some good conflict/storyline for each book and am OK with a small tidbit about a previous couple or none at all (not every single previous couple!).
I prefer standalones. I think publishers like the loosely linked books featuring friends or family members because they are presumed to have a captive readership, especially if the author leaves the most tantalising character until the end so everyone keeps reading lest they miss something along the way. The last time I was suckered into this was with Mary Balogh’s Bedwyns, but that P&P knock-off that was Wulfric’s story cured me of that weakness…
Rant over, I’ll add that I am drawn to certain scenarios in romance and if the general setup of a book doesn’t really interest me then I won’t read it just because it’s part of a series. I also start with the best reviewed book by a new author rather than feeling obliged to begin at the beginning. And if the books have overarching plot points then you can feel a bit disoriented sometimes.
Another key reason why I like standalones is that I like to feel in each book I read that this couple has a special romantic relationship, but if every member of a hockey team or every brother or every girl in a knitting group has an epic romance of their very own, then they all seem less believable to me.
Although I can be equally enchanted by a standalone (and I adore The Hating Game), when I look at my keeper shelves, they are almost all series. I think if I read a book and like the world that has been built, I want to spend more time in it. I also like all different types of groupings. Here are a bunch of examples (M/F unless noted):
Family:
Siblings – Penny Reid’s Winston Brothers, Chloe Liese’s Bergman Brothers, Lisa Kleypas’ Hathaways, Julia Quinn’s Bridgerton
Mixed family – Mary Balogh’s Westcotts (siblings and cousins)
Mixed family and friends – Julie Anne Long’s Pennyroyal Green, Sarina Bowen’s True North
Friends:
Nora Roberts’ Bride Quartet (friends who own a wedding planning business)
Mary Balogh’s Simply Quartet (teachers at the same school)
Lisa Kleypas’ Wallflowers (young women who are all wallflowers at society functions)
Roommates:
Lily Morton’s Mixed Messages and Close Proximity (M/M)
Elle Kennedy’s Off Campus
Coworkers (often already friends or become friends with couples from previous books):
Annabeth Albert’s Out of Uniform (Navy SEALs; M/M)
Kylie Scott’s Stage Dive (members of a band)
Kristin Callihan’s VIP (also members of a band)
Jay Hogan’s Aukland Med (one of the couple is connected to the medical center; M/M)
Rachel Reid’s Game Changers (hockey players; M/M)
Lauren Layne’s Oxford/Sex, Love, & Stilletto (writers for a magazine in New York)
Citizens of the same town (don’t necessarily know each other):
Sally Malcolm’s New Milton (M/M)
Vino and Veritas (series of books written by different authors about characters all related to a combination wine bar/bookstore in Vermont; M/M)
Most of the series I love don’t follow the same couple. I think that is really hard to sustain and still stay within the parameters of romance. The author has to create conflict for the story and that messes with the HEA requirement. I haven’t read the Outlander series (it’s so long – I’m intimidated!) but I understand it is a good example of how this can be done well. I have read all of J.D. Robb’s In Death series and although they are no longer “read right away” books, I still enjoy them. However, I am more interested in the mystery itself and the relationships of side characters. Eve and Roarke’s characters and relationship continue to develop throughout the series but they are overall a pretty solid couple at this point. I also enjoyed Tal Bauer’s Executive Office trilogy (M/M) that followed the same characters but it really felt more like one big long story rather than a series. It is also romantic suspense and I think when there is a mystery/suspense storyline to follow in each book, it is easier to sustain a series about the same couple.
Some authors I like who write series have also written standalones that I love. I really liked Lauren Layne’s Walk of Shame, Kylie Scott’s Lies, Lucy Lennox’ Virgin Flyer (M/M) and Briar Prescott’s Project Hero (M/M).
Dabney, I have Uncommon Passion in my TBR!
That’s a fun list! Thank you.
I prefer stand alones rather than series. For instance, in romantic suspense, I like that each Sandra Brown’s book is different.
If it has to be a series, I prefer a theme, or a group, with different couples in each one. I just don’t get those series that follow a couple, I want a HEA or HFN in each book. When I have to read two or three books for them to get their HEA, I feel cheated.
My favourite series?
Those that can be read individually but at the same time have a longer arch, or secondary stories that you follow in the different books. Troubleshooters, by Suzanne Brockmann is one of those. I also loved Joanna Bourne‘s the Spymaster Series, because you can read it in different order each time and you discover something new that connect the books in a rather subtle way.
It happens more or less the same with Meljean Brook and her Iron Seas, although that series looks unfinished to me. I guess she did not found a good enough story for the Blacksmith.