Follow This Blog: RSS feed
Someday My Printz Will Come
Inside Someday My Printz Will Come

The Curse of the Serial Book, or Why Series Titles Get No Lovin’

Looking back at Sophie’s rundown of series books that have been recognized by the Printz Committee over the years, a trend emerged that seems to draw a line between shared universe vs. truly serial works. By and large, truly serial works have only been recognized at series launch, with two duology conclusions and one single middle volume as exceptions, and that one volume is a verse novel, which may—by virtue of verse automatically leaving so much unstated—be a different animal altogether.

So let’s stand back and consider what we mean when we say “series,” and why genuine serial series books are at a disadvantage when it comes to being named the finest work of writing in any given year.

K: I tend to take the “series books can’t win” stance, but I don’t REALLY mean it, because I’ve always only meant it for the given value of “serial” when I say series.

As I see it, we say series a lot, but we mean many different things with that one word. Regardless of the flap copy or author’s website, does a single universe make a group of books into a series?

This came up in the comments discussion two weeks back: I pointed to Jellicoe Road as part of a “series” with Saving Francesca and The Piper’s Son. Others disagreed, but the connection between Jellicoe and Piper does not seem notably different from the connection between, say, The First Part Last and Heaven. The echoes between books may add an additional something, but it’s an Easter Egg—if you never see it, no harm is done to the book’s merits. I’d even go so far as to say that Saving Francesca and The Piper’s Son, which have many more of the same characters, are still more shared universe than serial series; reading them independently makes no difference, aside from the fact that you would know what happens in Francesca and Will’s future if you read The Piper’s Son first (but you wouldn’t have known to care, nor would you automatically assume you were missing something).

This is distinctly different from the more serial seriesHarry Potter is a classic example of the serial series.

In that value of “series,” each book clearly builds on the previous book(s), and all together they make a single work. No one starting on the second or later volume could possibly be confused as to whether they were missing something: clearly, something is missing, and the work as a whole loses a lot, although it is still possible to follow the plot and get some of the depth.

Most importantly to me, the well done serial version of series ends up with a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

S: We spent a lot of time talking about this issue on Great Graphic Novels, and I’m a fan of the television comparison. Some series function like The Wire, where there are continuing characters and the situation as a whole is one big story, but each season (book) is essentially a reboot, looking at Baltimore from different perspectives. Other series work more like Buffy—you could start with season (book) two if you want to… but who does that? So much would be missing from your experience that you might as well skip the series altogether.

K: But what about the deeper story lines? Even on a show like Law & Order, where each episode is effectively its own book, there is a depth sacrificed if you don’t know that so-and-so is estranged from his or her kid(s), or has deep-seated anger issues, or whatever. Those small details are what build to create depth of character, and when we are talking literary qualityrather than mere readabilitythose details matter a lot, even if the plot is totally functional without the additional depth. Because it’s those bits that allow the whole to become greater than the sum.

S: Is it lazy of me to Kanye shrug here? Because a part of me wants to. Sometimes readability has to be enough. As librarians, we have to do our collection development without having read everything. Maybe that is similar to the way Printz has work, too? Those details are amazing, you’re right. I would never counsel someone to start The Wire with season 3… but sometimes that’s where you find yourself on committee work.

K: Let’s be honest: we—and the readers on the RealCommittee—are smart readers, and we can totally extrapolate from what backstory is provided to read a later book solo, especially when there are pressures of time.

The question I come back to is whether that book can be great—Printz great—out of context of the larger work. There are cases where the answer is yes and cases where the answer is resoundingly no (I’ll point here to Sarah’s favorite example, The Ask and the Answer). And I think the difference lies in the way in which the details and resonance matter and are dealt with—and that difference is often the shared universe vs. serial dichotomy again.

S: And now that you’ve brought up The Ask and the Answer, I cannot shirk an opinion. CANNOT! It’s my catnip, and I can’t not play with it, can’t not tell you how amazing it is and also how I can understand why it might not have been recognized in its year.

But, let me boil it down: readability can carry an honor, but not the Big Time Gold sticker.

This fact makes me sad. The Ask and the Answer is genius storytelling, it’s the Empire of that trilogy (not just because it’s the middle of the story, but also because it explodes the whole world into awesome). But it doesn’t stand alone, those details don’t resonate without the first book (and the last book, actually).

There’s an important character who just wouldn’t read the sameher decisions, her actions would be horrifying. Without the history the first book provides, it would be almost impossible to connect with her emotionally, and without that connection  the book, and the series, would be thematically weaker.

Can we take our cue from television again? I’m thinking about all the different ways The Emmys work to recognize amazing serial storytelling. The Emmys have awards for shows as a whole. They also have awards for individual episodes. Maybe we need to have a couple of different kinds of ways to recognize serial storytelling, too?

K: Yes! Turner Award time.*

But back to the underlying question of whether a series book can or should take the Printz Gold, or at least the Pyritethe silver is harder to really get worked up about, and there is precedent that it can happen, unlike the gold.

Here’s what I find myself thinking. It doesn’t matter what the P&P say. The fact is, when we are considering books for the Printz, we are only looking at the year’s publications. And it’s really hard to defend something that is essentially only one piece of a larger work (even if it’s a BRILLIANT larger work) as the hands-down best written book of the year. There’s just no way that a brilliant part two can really hold up next to a brilliant work that is complete in and of itself. Even if you take the new P&P and face value and discuss the smaller piece of the larger work in the context of its role in that larger series, albeit without discussing the other books, because they aren’t eligible, it’s as if you are comparing a chapter to a full book. In the end, I think this (rather than series bias,**** although there’s overlap) is what makes middle books sure losers when it comes to the Printz.

S: Even series openers can miss Printz gold by virtue of being a first book. If you know that there’s more story coming, that can really change the way you read a book. I’m thinking in particular of Froi of the Exiles here, but I’ll have a longer post to work that out this fall, so instead let’s focus on something like The Giver, which stood alone for a long, long time. It had an open ending that allowed for some really great discussions. Adding more to that story gave us definitive closure, but the fact is, it reads differently now that there’s a conclusion. When we’re talking about literary qualitynot readability or pleasurethat openness and invitation to analyze and speculate and engage with the text so intensely can be a really good indicator of a powerful piece of literature.

K: Yes! With The Giver, what seemed like a brilliant exercise in allowing the reader to interpret that scenereality or metaphor?turned out to have been something else. It certainly changed my reading of the book, because it went from an ending that allowed analysis and rereading to a “to be continued.” I find it hard to place a “to be continued” alongside a finished and give the “to be continued” props for being better, because we just don’t know.

Series closers, on the other hand, can get a boost because they sometimes get the props for the work as a whole*****, but the fact that the two that have gathered honors concluded duologies rather than trilogies or even longer series indicates to me that we (that’s a pretty royal we there, encompassing every Printz Committee member ever…) have a harder time recognizing the final note of a really long work. In a duology, the book in front of you is half of the complete work. That’s actually still a lot of story, which may ameliorate some of the difficulty of recognizing a section rather than the whole.

S: None of this is a slam on series booksthey can be such amazing reads. (They are the way I prefer to experience all my fiction, actually, in both TV and books. I am not a short story person.) Literary quality, though, works throughout a series. Very often, what makes a particular series special or noteworthy cannot be contained or even recognized in one single volume; it’s specific to the bigger context of the series itself. All that space, all those words can raise a story up into something that is larger than itself… but that’s just not what the Printz is about; it’s asking a fundamentally different question.

(Though now, of course, I’m prepared for RealCommittee to do us dirty and bestow a shiny gold sticker on some fantastic mid-series title! Ha!)

In the end, this is a question each RealCommittee must grapple with based on the books in front of them, published in their year. For our purposes, we may continue to say a book doesn’t stand alone, but when we say that, know that we’re just being lazy. What we mean is, something isn’t there in that one part of the larger work that feels necessary to raise that book to the throne. It might get to be in the court, but ultimately we don’t feel the best book of the year can be anything other than a complete work.

Until the book comes along that convinces us otherwise, of course.

So what do you think? Do you have a book you think does deserve to be the exception that throws all of this careful consideration out the window? Have at it!

*And now I have to play devil’s advocate and ask… do we risk watering down the YALSA “brand” if we hand out awards willy-nilly? The Printz is only 12 years old, it’s still gaining traction and recognizability. While I want our award system to grow with the YA fieldwhich is doing awesome thingsmaybe keeping it simple is better?**

**I think it wouldn’t water anything down if it were like the Wildernot every year, winner joins the Printz winners, etc. And since series take time to complete, maybe it’s given every three or even five years, and only series that were declared “complete” in the preceding three or five years can take the award (and once a series has been declared complete, that’s it, even if the author writes more books after all), and it’s only a win, no honors? Although a shortlist, like the Morris, would be a nice nod to recognize other notable works.***

***If only we ran the world.

****Which is not to say that genre bias doesn’t exist, but I don’t see it as the issue for series fiction; I think genre bias is deeper and not only specific to Genre books and deserves a post or three of its own, and hey, we still have a little time before September.

*****Return of the King, what?



  1. Hope Baugh says

    As usual, interesting food for thought. Thank you! (And as usual, I am not making a meaty comment, only subscribing to the comments. ‘Sorry!)

  2. Hope Baugh says

    Okay, I do have a meaty (or meatier, anyway) comment after all.

    Our readers advisory assignment for our monthly Young Adult Services Department meeting this morning was to read and tell about a book with an ambiguous ending. One of our members is planning a display and she wanted some title ideas.

    I hadn’t been able to think of any, so I was just going to mention The Book of Blood and Shadow, by Robin Wasserman. I read it last week and have been percolating on it ever since. Yes, yes, it is derivative of, and therefore worth mentioning to fans of, Dan Brown, John Green, Nancy Werlin, and maybe even A. S. Byatt…but I admire how SKILLFULLY derivative it is. Also, it is freshly interesting because of its Prague setting, and the strength of its characterization, and the plot twist (which I did not see coming at all.) Yes, yes, there are some confusing bits, but I also couldn’t put it down. And come to think of it, the ending IS a bit ambiguous and therefore worth chewing on: is it hopeful or depressing?

    But last night I read this latest addition to SLJ’s “Someday My Printz Will Come” blog and remembered that The Giver, by Lois Lowry, is one of the all-time best Books with an Ambiguous Ending. Thank you for reminding me of it and for making me want to re-read it!

    I hadn’t ever thought about the fact that one reads a book differently when there is definitely a sequel waiting in the wings, but it’s true.

    Also…I don’t always care about “what happens next.” I haven’t ever made time to read Messenger, by Lois Lowry, for example. Is this a reflection of the book’s quality and “stand-alone-ness” or only my own life situation and personal baggage? I’m not sure. I’d like to percolate on this a while longer, too.

    For our meeting this morning, other YA staff had chosen to read:

    As Simple As Snow, by Gregory Galloway
    Buried, by Robin MacCready
    Chopsticks, by Jessica Anthony & Rodrigo Corral
    Dead Girls Don’t Write Letters, by Gail Giles
    Timepiece, by Myra McIntyre

    Some books had more ambiguous endings than others. Some were more succesfully ambiguous than others. At what point does ambiguity become merely laziness or lack of ability on the author’s part? For me, this is another good question to percolate on in terms of literary quality and the Printz.

    I mentioned this topic on Twitter this morning and was delighted when Teri Lesesne (@ProfessorNana) and Carlie Webber (@carliebeth) gave me two other possibilities, respectively:

    ** Where Things Come Back, by John Corey Whaley (a Printz winner I am ashamed to admit I have not yet read!)
    ** Living Dead Girl, by Elizabeth Scott

    The timeliness for me of this SLJ post was unintended, I know, but I still thank you!

  3. Jonathan Hunt says

    There are a couple of things that trouble me about this ongoing discussion of sequels.

    First, while each of us may have an opinion about whether or not sequels should be recognized and, if so, which kind of sequel should be recognized, there is really nothing in the Printz criteria that discourages the committee from recognizing sequels (and indeed the fledgling Printz canon already bears witness to this). It’s important to remember that as much as we all value our own opinions, the Printz criteria trump everything.

    Second, the discussion remains too theoretical. On a committee we’re looking at concrete examples. Is DREAMQUAKE better than THE WHITE DARKNESS? Is THE KINGDOM ON THE WAVES better than JELLICOE ROAD? I think you can make a very convincing argument that in both cases the Honor book is superior to the Award winner. (Of course, you can also make the reverse argument just as compellingly.)

    While we’ve yet to see a sequel win the Printz Award it has been done elsewhere. The Newbery examples are pretty well known, but are also largely set in the distant past. More recently, however, THE AMBER SPYGLASS won not only the children’s category, but the Book of the Year category, beating out adult books in a variety of categories. A DARKLING PLAIN won the Guardian Prize in the UK and the Los Angeles Times Book Prize here in the US (I was a judge on the latter jury and can tell you that none of us three had read the three previous books in the series). And, finally, while THE ASK AND THE ANSWER fell by the wayside the Carnegie Medal (UK) did recognize the concluding volume, MONSTERS OF MEN.

    So there is nothing in the Policies and Procedures to forbid a sequel from winning, and other committees have demonstrated that consensus around sequels is possible, if not frequent. I think it’s probably just a matter of time before we see one recognized with the Printz Award.

  4. Mark Flowers says

    Spurred on by Jonathan, I’d like to look at this quotation from Karyn in more detail: “And it’s really hard to defend something that is essentially only one piece of a larger work (even if it’s a BRILLIANT larger work) as the hands-down best written book of the year. There’s just no way that a brilliant part two can really hold up next to a brilliant work that is complete in and of itself”

    A couple of thoughts:

    1) The first sentence illuminates the assumptions of the second in interesting ways. Is it really true that every sequel is necessarily “only” one piece of a larger work? Or, conversely (and perhaps more interestingly) is it really true that stand-alone titles are ever truly “complete in and of” themselves? To take extreme examples, what about stand-alones that rely on some previous work, like fairy tale adaptations (I’m looking at you TENDER MORSELS)? But really, aren’t all works of literature really just pieces of an ongoing cultural dialogue – or is that too metaphysical a question to bring to the nitty-gritty of a prize committee?

    2) Ignoring my point 1), I still have qualms. A whole raft of people over on Betsy Bird’s site think that Harry Potter 3 is the best children’s novel of all time. It can’t be true that it is the best of all time and yet somehow lesser than other titles that are more “complete.” Also, going back to a line of thought Elizabeth and I were pursuing in a previous post, who says that a work has to be “complete” to be the best (I’m looking at you: Canterbury Tales). In fact, I can even think of a few cases where not finishing a series would have been a better option to keep a great work intact (I’m looking at you: Return of the Jedi).

    So, I guess my take home question is: what does it mean to be a complete work anyway? Not sure I have an answer – anyone?


  1. download Max Payne 3 Special Edition betakey generator…

    […]The Curse of the Serial Book, or Why Series Titles Get No Lovin’ « Someday My Printz Will Come[…]…

Speak Your Mind