Are the First Books in Fantasy Series Actually Awful? 

Another fantastic video, Tori. I see book ones as no different from the debut season / series of a new TV show. Foundation is being laid, characters and their wants, dynamics and goals are established, but still finding its footing, its experimenting and finding what is and isn't working, its doing a lot of the heavylifting now to make the rest of the experience potentially easier. Breaking Bad Season 1 was okay, but we all remember how awesome Seasons 2, 3, 4 and 5 were and not all of that was set-up from go, but a lot of it was. A great point about instant gratification culture. Some things just weren't made with binge-ablility in mind.

Tad Williams does this the best of any author I’ve read…I’ve been reading his 4-book Shadowmarch series, and the first volume is literally 740 pages of just setup…and I loved every single page! His characters, settings, and plotting are just that good. That said, I don’t read a lot of reviews, so I haven’t really noticed the trend, but I think that a four book series with no real payoff until midway through book four is one of the best things ever! 😁

I like this video! Book 1's in series generally tend to be my least favorite just because of the learning curve of the world, characters, language (sometimes), etc... but if I know it's a book one, I expect that and manage the expectation. That said, loved Jade City, Sandman Slim, The Blood Stones, etc. which are all book one's.

You are FIRED up in this video and I love to see it!! Couldn't agree more with everything you said, and this is also exactly why I am such a big proponent of trying at least two books of a series before making any solid statements on it. Plus, I am just a serial series starter and I tend to love the slow set-ups, that initial spark of wonder and awe upon entering a whole new world and meeting new characters is just unmatched! Great video as always, Tori 🤩

I think that there's definitely a balance between being only setup and concluding everything. I think writers that are the most talented authors will give the reader a sense of completion in a small way that will "tide" the readers over for the next book and will continue doing that for each book in the series until it reaches its conclusion. I personally have started waiting until all or almost all of the books in a series have been completed until i start the series. Mostly because I have a bad memory and waiting a year or two in between books means I forget a lot of things. But also because reading one book in a series in isolation doesn't have as much payoff as reading them in close succession will. I love to binge all the books close together because then i get to experience it as one big story rather than the bigger story cut up into chunks. I think a lot of it has to do with knowing yourself as a reader and knowing what you prefer from fantasy.

Great video. I do think that this trend exists, however quality counts - I can't imagine many people levelling these criticisms at Game Of Thrones or Eye Of The World but then every Author is different in so many ways. I have noticed this to a lesser extent in Science Fiction, the book that comes to mind is Empire of Silence, first book in The Suneater series, but by the same token when an Author hits an absolute home run right out the gate on the first book in a series, random example Children Of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky, the 2nd book in the series tends to get crapped on if its not exactly the same again...I guess they just can't always win.

This made me laugh. Preach, Tori! I'm with you on all points 😁 I love when the first book of an epic series starts us at a relatively small scale. It's so much easier to get your grounding in the world when you start small. A great example is Assassin's Apprentice. Relatively short, intimate, but at the end of it, I feel like I understand the vibe of the entire 16 book series so well. I think you did this really well in The Bloodstones as well!

I think a lot of people who aren't so initiated into modern fantasy might be thinking more in terms of something they were familiar with growing up like Narnia, Wrinkle in Time, The Giver, where you very much can just read one book and have a full story. Undeniably a different beast than most series now. I do appreciate smaller resolutions within the larger series though. HP does this fairly well. Where you can clearly state what the central problem or arc of each book is. A lot of series are really just one book in pieces. First Law being a great example.

The way I see it, even in a series, books should have a conclusion. I don't mean everything is wrapped-up. I mean that when I finish reading the book, I understand why the book ends right where it does, and not at the end of the previous chapter or the next. If when I finish a book, be it the first book of a series or one in the middle, I feel like there is really no reason for it to be its own book, and that it should just be part of the next book... then that's not satisfying to me. It feels like a books got split up into more parts for some reason. And there are some reasons that make sense: with print books, you definitely can reach a number of pages that makes it difficult to carry and read the book. But that's not that common, not everyone is Sanderson. The series I like and find satisfying have their own story in each book. Not to the point where you could read them as a standalone, but enough that you're satisfied to wait until the next book. I'm thinking for instance in Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar stories, you have a lot of trilogies but each book has a self-contained part to it, even though the main story isn't over. And many of the trilogies themselves are only part of the bigger story, but they're still also their own thing, even though you probably shouldn't start with, say, the Storm Trilogy. Another favorite of mine is Discworld, and it's even more clear in that series that each book is its own thing. They're all part of a shared universe, and really they're several untertwined series, but each books is its own thing. In this case I'd even say many of them can be picked up without having read the previous books. Maybe that's not the case with epic fantasy. Maybe epic fantasy is closer to what I would consider one single story, one single book, and I should think of the different books in a series as different chapters in a book. Clearly, I wouldn't expect the end of the first chapter in any book to conclude anything. But I also don't buy a chapter on its own. And I don't like the idea of Epic Fantasy "just" being a stretched out version of other genres, that takes more time to achieve the same thing. I don't think that's the case at all. I feel the first book of a series should set up a lot of things, and it will probably not be as good as many of the later books that no longer need to set it up and can build on an existing world and familiar characters (while introducing more of course). But I also like the end to be a clear step, to tell me that while we're far from the end of this story, things have already changed in some way, and to get some closure, not on the whole story, but on that one step of it. Anyway, maybe epic fantasy isn't for me after all, who knows? But I do feel that a first book should make you want to read the rest, and while that involves wanting to know what happens next, I don't think it should involve frustration or feeling like the book you've just read was a waste of time for zero payoff, because that definitely does not make me want to read the next book!

I’m so with you here-gimme ALL THE SET UP!!! Great point about the huge payoffs involved in later books. I’m rereading Way of Kings now and am just astounded with the incredible set up for the worldbuilding and long-term character arcs

Maybe this is why Tolkien wanted to release his trilogy as a single book, he might have thought things would be too unresolved to be satisfying, or maybe the wait time between publications bothered him, with how much readers would forget. That decision set a president for trilogies - some more justified then others - which spread into tetralogies, and decologies which could not easily fit into our methods of book binding, but they can be pretty special for those willing to patiently read a long haul - and support the author on faith of a pleasing resolution. I've never had this book one problem, a well written story will have good moments, and character growth, and _usually some_ kind of climax at the end of book one - Fellowship of the Ring has that in spades, as does Eye of the World. If the first book hasn't grabbed you enough to want to read more then it's failed the reader, regardless of how much the set up pays off in book 2 or 3 or 8. Not sure if that was some of those reviewers problem or not (do they keep reading?), it's not really a phenomenon I've noticed. I should read more reviews of books I've read though, it'll give me a better sense of who's worthy to click "follow".

I really agree about the instant gratification bit. I think that sometimes a reader might have an issue with a book (like not connecting with the characters etc.) but then the lack of a "cookie" at the end (explosive conclusion) ends up taking the blame for other problems they might have had. It becomes a simple complaint for what might be a complex problem. As for the "just a set-up" bit, this is such a big deal. When you hear people say "I liked book 2 better"...do you want to know why? Because you know the characters and the world and themes and that knowledge is paying off!!!! If I dropped you off in book 2, those awesome moments wouldn't have any meaning!

Totally agree! and also not agreeing that these first books are not worth the read in themselves tbh. I've just finished Jade City last month and it is an awesome book.

YES!! I am totally on the same page. I read epic fantasy specifically because of how much detail and intricacy goes into building towards a pay-off, and if that isn't there, it doesn't feel... well, epic! Most of my emotional attachment to a story has to start very early on for me to want to stick with it, and that makes that "set-up" incredibly important--and in a lot of cases, yes, it does mean not a lot is going to happen in book one except just setting a baseline. Getting a good feel for where we're starting, so that when change and plot development occurs, it feels meaningful. That being said, I do think I get why some people will at least point out "it's mostly just set-up" in a review, even if it doesn't bother them (I'm sure I've said something similar before), just to make sure others go in with the right expectations... Some people are very used to that more episodic style of story telling, particularly if they're coming from middle grade or YA like Harry Potter, where each book is a mini-arc... It can be jarring jumping into a big series, not realizing that the arc of book 1 might just be building to a cliffhanger. But I agree that if someone isn't a fan of that kind of storytelling, then epic fantasy just may not be for them. There's plenty of other subgenres that wrap things up more concisely or move at a faster pace... It's okay to prefer that, but being harsh on a genre for doing precisely what it's supposed to do to be part of that genre is quite silly. ;D

When I read good epic fantasy I feel transported to that world. So I really appreciate great world building. I’m currently reading “To Green Angel Tower” and I’m loving it.

👏 “I know, I know, hold the applause.” 😆 Must admit I don’t read reviews, so this isn’t something I’ve particularly run across myself. Well, I’ll occasionally look at reviews for some clunkers to see if I’m missing something, but my generalisation holds. I’d much rather a book took its time to establish its world, and if that means spreading out across multiple volumes then I am here for that. So I feel that I am very much aligned with your words here, and don’t have much I can add to the conversation 🥹

I loved this video! Could you do a video on second book in a trilogy syndrome?

I do think a book one has to answer some questions it’s raised or lead us to know the question will be answered. Not the whole thing but something. To keep things moving otherwise it could just stagnate. Say that it depends on the reader. Promise of blood is a fast paced plot so the reader may not feel like it’s a set up book but it is for the other books in the series. You are right too many people bog down a book bc it’s a book 1 and setting things up But character has to be forefront for reader enjoyment in those books (which is why I love way of kings as much as I do)

These tend to be my favorite entries? To me it’s kind of that feeling of getting attached to the main characters and being completely submersed in the world is something that you don’t get in any other part. Like yes you learn more and meet more characters and find out about the world but that is all supplemental to the initial injection you get from the beginning. The emotional lows and highs of say A Storm of Swords don’t have the same impact on you without the journey you started and the connection you formed with the characters in A Game of Thrones. This is a completely different situation in terms of story, but I did a read along with a RU-vidr of Malazan and heard everyone kind of crapping on Gardens of the Moon but I was like immediately hooked because the world so intriguing and dense with lore that it was just so hard to not be blown away. These are your first impressions on these characters and the setting. That’s what these books are meant to do. I get that a lot of people gravitate towards “the ones with ALL the ACTION” but action is meaningless if you don’t care about the characters and aren’t invested in the world. Bravo. Loved this and you got me to hit subscribe.

I remember talking with Jimmy a while back and he said something that stuck with me. Book 1’s usually have the toughest sell for any series, because it has to explain the world while telling a story. I think a lot of people complain because books generally have an arc. I know with fantasy novels, they’re a bit different because a lot of them are series’, but there has to be some kind of arc or consequences if there is to be investment. Take A Game of Thrones, it tells the full story of Ned Stark and his attempts at staying honorable in a harsh, unforgiving world and how he loses everything because he refuses to compromise his integrity. A lot of people say The Blade Itself doesn’t have an arc, it does but I can see how someone might make that mistake on the first view (spoiler alert: it’s about the fellowship getting together.) With that said, I’ve seen and read fantasy books that don’t have that establishing arc, and it just feels like they’re plodding and setting up the real story, which is why people get annoyed. I hope that makes sense and I’m not just rambling nonsense here. Good video Tori.

I agree, a saga or trilogy shouldn't require some sort of final conclusion, but it definitely should have a ending that is open to continuation as much as it ends that initial story arc and setup. Which is a hard balance to make. I think anyone who expects a saga or trilogy to be a one shot book is simply not into epic sagas and stories to begin with, and shouldn't read them if they can avoid them. I will admit that I think lately the industry is really making everything a saga and its a bit fatiguing that we have so many series now vs. one shot novels. I'm glad we do have great stories being told, but when I look at my TR list... it can be very hard to even start a series by Sanderson or Erikson as there's so many books to go through, and without a doubt there will be some clunkers in there (subjectively so). It's why I really can praise a story where I can have a nice good epic story in the span of one book is really nice and appreciative. I think that's maybe to me the big issue now: Everything is a saga now. Just like how every new show or movie is a giant comic or established franchise.

I have no problem with book 1s being “setup” books. As long as they tell their own story as well. But often times my favorite books are book 1s. -T

I normally say Sanderson and I do not mix. But I can say I liked a Sanderson book because I liked the first Stormlight to get the 2nd. And it was all downhill from there. A lot of people did not like The Blade itself for the reasons you mentioned. I loved it as well as the other two.

Totally agree, don't down grade our epic fantasy if u want a murder mystery, we are EPIC ❤

First of all-let’s talk about how impressive it is that you just palmed 4 Sanderson books. I think my arm would have fallen off. Secondly, I personally love book one’s. To me whatever it takes to tell the story, how the author chooses to tell it is what drives me through each book. But criticism is fair since-like you said-it is subjective. I think shifting expectations, as you also said, is the best way to approach it

I feel ya. the first book in a series has a lot riding with it already, so you're more likely to have negative reviews on those as it is. I do think there's a balance, there needs to be a solid ending to Book 1, but I'm assuming you're taking that in account in the background. might overall just be a symptom that the reader just didn't connect with the characters or the major plot arcs that were happening in the book

LOL, reviewers often make me laugh for their weird ideas and views. I generally read the one star reviews on books to find out if there is anything repeated that the readers hated. It helps me decide if I see it as feasable and I can assess my thoughts on that common thread. I don't mind setup, in fact I expect it, for a book one in a series. But it should also make me want to find out what happens next and be interesting enough to keep me reading the entire book one and wanting to go through to the next book and so on. I suppose that we have to keep in mind that not all reviewers will really be any good at writing reviews. I tend not to say much in my reviews if I leave one at all. ❤

"good ole friend goodreads" more like grumpy old uncle that hates himself and the company he's bound to

I have yet to read a first installment in an epic fantasy series that I would find completely unsatisfying or even awful. That said there are some cases where the first book stands out from the rest of the series. For instance I'm just finishing the Dandelion Dynasty and I think most of the people who read it agree that The Grace of Kings actually is a kind of a setup book. Or The Blade Itself where I think that Abercrombie was still fine-tuning his style. But that doesn't make them bad. Anyway it's a good thing I don't read reviews. Instead I listen to some of you fine folk of the booktubes. 😘

Actually it's Assassin's Quest that I found to be a slog and one that put me off the series for a couple of years. Book 1 was excellent. Luckily from the first book in Liveship Traders onwards Realm of the Elderlings was incredible

Totally agree, Tori !!

WoK used to be my favourite book ever. Now it is not even a 5 star book for me. I am enjoying Shadowmarch a lot.

This is a great discussion on the subject!

Sometimes the first is the best - you fall in love with this new world and the characters and have the freedom to imagine what happens next. This might even cause the following books in a series to fall short.

One of the stupider examples I've seen of "nothing happens" is when people compare something like Way of Kings to Assassin's Apprentice or Blade Itself and say more happens in WoK... its over a 1000 pages of course more things f***ing happen 😂

This was a great subject to tackle Tori. First books get much too much of a bad rap.

Very much depends on the series. Lord of the Rings (Fellowship)...no, great book. I have nothing else to say.

Ironically I go into a first book hoping for decent setup 🤣🤣

Love this! I agree so much. 😂