Are You Serious About Series?

  Neal Stephenson has a new book out! I am so excited but also apprehensive - Polostan is supposed to be the first book in a series. And I've seen reviews mention that it ends on a cliffhanger. 

I really like stand-alone books. I am usually cautious about book series and I get very annoyed if there is a big fat "to be continued" at the end of the book - it feels like the author is twisting your arm, forcing you to get their next book.

Reasons I do not to like book series:

• If it's a new series, I have to wait, and wait, and wait for new installments (hello, Song of Ice and Fire, aka Game of Thrones!).
• Sometimes the author may get bored of the characters, and never finish the series, leaving us all hanging (hello again, Game of Thrones!)
• If it's an old-and-finished series, it can be a pain to figure out the order in which the books have to be read.
• I get sick and tired of the characters and themes (Dune, Expanse, Wheel of Time) and never get beyond the first 1-2 books (but am I missing out???).
• If there are new books still coming out, it can be hard to remember what happened in the last installment from X years ago (and I usually have no desire to re-read stuff I've already read; exception: Harry Potter).
• I may die before the series is finished and will never know how things work out...
• The author may die before the series is finished and I will never know how things work out.
• Books can be uneven - like the first one in a series may be amazing, the next one OK, but #5 is meh, #7 is brilliant, and the final book is just awful but I feel compelled to read it anyway... And perhaps this is the root of my apprehension - picking up a new book feels like a commitment (even if I know it's OK to let it go if it doesn't work for me). Picking up a new book that's a first in a series is a much bigger commitment - I begin to feel a little too invested... and I just don't know if I have it in me.
• Cliffhangers - no, just no. Because all of the above.

Reasons to like series:

• You kind of know what to expect (and that can be a nice feel in a world that's filled with unexpectedness)
• It's nice to hang out with the characters and in the settings you really, really like.
• If it's a short series, like 2-3 books, it feels manageable and allows for a better character growth than may be possible in a single book.
• If it's the author you really like, it's a joy to read them, no matter if it's a stand-alone, #1 is a series, or #27.
• Longer story arc allows for more depth and details.

I can appreciate series that do not go on forever and instead are 2-4 books in length. Ideally, each book would have a clear theme and resolution and the books would be connected by the same characters, or settings, or themes. For example, Tana French's Dublin series - different characters but same settings, and each book has a clear beginning and a well-executed ending. Or, Anthony Horowitz and his Susan Ryeland series - the 2 (currently available) books are definitely connected (and have the same matryoshka-like story-in-story concept) and it helps to read them in order, but each has a clear beginning and ending. Harry Potter - I liked that even though there was a bigger theme that played out through the whole series, each individual book had a satisfying ending.

Dear Reader: what are your thoughts and feelings on stand-alone books versus series? Do you have a favored book series length?