AAR

[CharlotteJ]

"Franchise" romances, ie- a series of romances that begin with the hero having 12 brothers/friends/cousins and or the heroine having 12 sisters/friends/cousins and all of them get a POV in the first book of the series so you know that they'll all be hooked up by the last book.

Ugh.

I think what started as a great idea has gotten completely out of hand now. I've read far too many of these books where the author is so intent on setting up the subsequent half dozen couples, that the couple who is supposed to be the focus of the book gets lost in the shuffle.

Nora Roberts has been fairly successful doing it - although I always felt like Montana Sky and Three Fates *should* have been a franchise because she really shortchanged the secondary couples in these books by having them all shoved into one story.

But I think I threw in the towel on franchises with Maya Banks' KGI series. I enjoyed the first book but when I sifted through to figure out exactly how much of the book was truly about Ethan and Rachel, it really ended up being 'not much' because there were so many pages devoted to the gazillion other characters.

Now I'm going through "If You Hear Her" by Shiloh Walker and it's even worse because I'm only at Chapter Five and she already seems to be devoting less time to the main couple and more time to secondary characters and what obviously is going to be the hero/heroine of the next book.

I would rather an author focus on ONE couple for each book and they can shorten their story by a few pages to allow a longer excerpt at the end of the book to 'preview' the next couple . Instead of trying to jam the set up of the next 6 couples into the main book.

[Elizabeth Rolls]

[CharlotteJ]

[Nana]

You know that historical series about the British guys who went to boarding school together? One of them was bullied before inheriting his title at a young age, one of them is a bastard, one of them is devil-may-care and got injured in the army later, one of them had to get his family out of debt by clever investments (but has to keep it a secret) and one is a commoner who's really brilliant? They duel and box together a lot?

No, wait, I'm thinking of that boisterous set of siblings. They have those cute quirky get-togethers around the holidays, and I think they might be ethnic (but something innocuous and basically Caucasian, like Irish or Italian, nothing really challenging). There's that one sibling with a child from a previous relationship, and at least one cop, and the mom wants more grandkids.

Argh, that's not it, either! The series I'm thinking of is that brotherhood of supernatural males. There's a really strict hierarchy in their species but don't worry, because the secondary characters in the first book are all somehow exceptions and so you don't have to worry about a hero in a later book who's not the baddest guy in town. In a weird coincidence, everybody has to marry outside their species - either a human female or a female from another supernatural species, preferably a mortal enemy species. Fighting inbreeding, I guess. And the guys are kind of stalkery but again, it's ok, because he can smell that the heroine is supposed to be with him forever. And at some point there will be a book about a supernatural woman from that species but it will be disappointing.

Anyway, everybody gets married.

[Tee]

[Rosie]

[Islandgirl2]

I actually love this theme. lol I just feel like it's a cool way to introduce other characters and if you take to them a little in the introduction it does draw you in to read the next one by the author. I think it's really smart. If you didn't like the first chances are you won't like the others. But most of the time I find that their third or fourth or later books in the trilogy/series gets better with time with the other couples.

And I also like that we get to see the journey of family/friends all find love as you would hope in real life it happens for all your friends and family when they come of age. I have a huge family and it's always something to see a certain generation always go through their marriages and having children around the same time. So it not so farfetched.

I loved Montana Sky from Nora Roberts it's one of my favorites. I think that when you have a couple of romances thrown into a novel when done right it makes it for fun reading because I usually end up getting so into one couple then it reverts back to another where I wish it didn't until I start getting into the next couple and then she takes you back and forth.

Now sometimes unfortunately like in anything you have your bad apples that you just want to flip through that couple and get to the good one.

But when it's done right oh the good reading you can have.
_________________
Romance my favorite reading pastime.

[aiven]

Nana is my hero.

[xina]

I don't mind the "large family" series, just so the author stays with the main couple throughout the book. I am currently rereading the Laurens series...Cynsters, and she seems to bring in the next guy just as an aside. That is fine..for now. I do not like when all the previous couples have to show up at the end of each book as if it is a family reunion. The Cynsters seem to get together at the weddings in the epilogue or the last chapter. That is fine at this point, but realistically, large families aren't that chummy. At least in my experience. But whatever...this is romanceland, the place of happy-happy. I think that goes with the territory.
_________________
"As you wish"
~The Princess Bride

[Linda in sw va]

[Wendy AAR]

[library addict]

[Eliza]

I'm with Islandgirl2, Xina and Linda.

I like series. A lot. The Outlanders and In Deaths are my favorite long-lasting series, and I'm in awe of Gabaldon and Robb for their ability to carry it off so well for so long.

But I also like many others, although I do tend to like the band of friends, so to say, sometimes a bit more than only family sagas, like Mary Balogh's Simply series with school teachers in Bath, or Eloisa James's Duchess series which I thought was over-the-top masterly in keeping each book's ability to be a stand alone but also building to a wonderful finish in the final TWO books.

Now to immediately contradict myself about family series, there's that wonderful Essex Sisters series also by Eloisa James, and the The Rose Hunter series by Connie Brockway which manages to have both a family of sisters AND a band on men dedicated to helping them. There's more but I'll stop there.

Like everything else, it depends on the author's talent and skill. I think the authors I mentioned (and more) pulled off series well while at the same time keeping each book of the series as a unique, single unit. The series connection just adds to the punch/color/flavor/what-have-you of it all, IMO, not to mention to my admiration for the author who can juggle all that so well with each book and the series as a whole.

Finally, I've found some wonderful books that I thought were stand-alones only to realize later were connected books, which I viewed as a surprise bonus when I liked the book I had just read.

So unlike the OP, I don't see all series flat out as "franchises" in a pejorative sense: it all depends on the author and the taste of the reader. . .uh, like much else?

[stl_reader]

[Nana]