They have hired someone else to write the last book, which is now THREE last books. I'm not even sure I'm interested and I was buying that series in hard cover when I finally realized I couldn't continue doing that. I'm not even sure I read the last hard cover I bought.

Wow.. indeed!!

I would be so upset! I mean sad that the author died of course but wow to be left hanging..

Tricia, you obviously haven't read the Wheel of Time series (SF, not paranormal, and a "save the universe" series which has been one long cliffhanger for the last 10 to 15 years.) It went on so long that the author died without finishing it. That is too long in my opinion.

As far as the Rachel Morgan series goes.. it cant be long enough for me.

I am absolutely in love with it and want to read as much as I can about that world.

As far as other series goes.. I have never really come across one that made me think *god this has gone on long enough already*. So I really havent had that apply to me personally.

Usually I end up wanting more lol

Back to the question of whether series go on too long.

The decades long series is normal in the mystery genre. The paranormal genres (if there really is more than one) is newer, so having very long open ended series is a new thing.

Since I've just read the last in a decades long mystery series, I'm pretty sure I know how they should end.

The original question was had the Merry series actually ended with the last published book. I didn't think the arc was finished myself. Too many threads that had not been wrapped up and/or answered. And some of them need answering if the series is going to be finished.

Charlaine Harris did just that when she wrapped up the Aurora Teagarden series. Not that life didn't go on for the characters, they did. But all of the major questions in Aurora's life were dealt with. I haven't read the last book in the Harper series, but from reviews I gather she did the same with that series leaving enough that if she wants to pick it up again in a few years she will have the option to do so.

I've moved over there.

That's funny mostunexpected...I was thinking the same thing although I didn't realize there was already a thread for her! lol

They have implied that Newt is somehow biologically related to Rachel.

As for vampires, they are humans with some sort of magic virus. I think Al implied that demons created vampires by creating the virus. He did infect Rachel in the first place, so you know they can do it.

Maybe we should take this conversation over to: goodreads.com/topic/show/93418-kim-harri...

Theresa wrote: "*SPOILER*

Elvia, yep, that is the guy.

Mostunexpected, what is this thing that might or might not resolved? I'm confused now. The only short story I've read by Harrison is the one that intro..."

Whoops. I meant to say 'thing with Rachel and Ivy'.

Rachel and Al! Ick. He's evil you know. :-)

Starling wrote: "However, like it or not, Rachel is the only future that the demons have in that universe. She is literally the only fertile female..."

Tsk, tsk! :) No she's not... but the other is stark raving mad.... Forget her name.

No, I don't think they are biologically related. I think that he will end up having fatherly or older brotherly feelings for her.

The witches were evolved from the demons at the same time the demons lost all of their females. Witches are demon-lite. If a witch can birth a child with full demon potential, they generally die in childhood. That is why Rachel is unique. She got "fixed" and did not die.

Starling...that's a very good theory!

Rhianon wrote: Wait a second... I thought the witches evolved from the demons or something. Which is why Rachel can do demon magic, because her father tinkered with her genes when treating her.

Ok, yes I misspoke there. But Al said there was some connection between vampires and demons. He was messing with Rachel's scar while dancing with her at Trent's wedding. That is the scene I was thinking of.

Starling, you think Al is Rachel's relative? Ok, that definitely makes me think again. I'm still not over Charlaine Harris setting Tolliver and Harper up.

I think Al is Rachel's "dad" or older brother. They will not end up together.

However, like it or not, Rachel is the only future that the demons have in that universe. She is literally the only fertile female they have. And that arc does need to be addressed. We also need to know what happened to the other fertile females, because we can guess, but we do not know.

Vanessa wrote: "Thank you Theresa. Now I remember him. Obviously he made an impression. Is it wrong to want to see Rachel and Al together? Yeah, that's gotta be wrong.

There is another Harrison short story tha..."

I would LOVE to see Rachel and Al together! Who cares if he's a demon...he obviously likes her in some way or another.

Rhianon wrote: "Vanessa wrote: "(and I loved the one scene a few books back where he explains to Rachel that vamps evolved from demons)"

Wait a second... I thought the witches evolved from the demons or something..."

Rhianon, that sounds right, but I must admit it's been a while since I've read the book where that's covered.

Vanessa wrote: "(and I loved the one scene a few books back where he explains to Rachel that vamps evolved from demons)"

Wait a second... I thought the witches evolved from the demons or something. Which is why Rachel can do demon magic, because her father tinkered with her genes when treating her.

I'm not certain I'm entirely correct though. I'd have to go digging. But I do recall something about there not being any demon children for so long because someone had tampered with the "witches" and made it so that the demons couldn't breed another generation out of them or something. Wasn't it the elves who'd done this, centuries prior?

Vanessa wrote: "One of the recent Sookie books relied on a huuuuge plot point that had been revealed in a short story and I read half the book wondering how I had gotten the series out of order."

It really irritates me when authors do that. Especially if there's no note that you really need to read something else first.

Jim Butcher does that, too. He's had at least one major thing resolved in a short story. It's given a line or two in the next novel but that's about it and if I hadn't read the short story I'd have been very annoyed.

Theresa wrote: Vanessa, I would love for Rachel and Al to end up together! Al is my favorite character - even more so than Jenks.


That's hilarious. But there is just no way that would end well. Al is charming (and I loved the one scene a few books back where he explains to Rachel that vamps evolved from demons) but he's really not the boyfriend type.

Vanessa, I would love for Rachel and Al to end up together! Al is my favorite character - even more so than Jenks.

Thank you Theresa. Now I remember him. Obviously he made an impression. Is it wrong to want to see Rachel and Al together? Yeah, that's gotta be wrong.

There is another Harrison short story that gives the back story on Ivy and Mia (villain in White Witch) and in the same one I think gives the back story on Ivy and Denton (her evil former boss.) I think Dates From Hell was the name of the anthology.

One of the recent Sookie books relied on a huuuuge plot point that had been revealed in a short story and I read half the book wondering how I had gotten the series out of order.

*SPOILER*

Elvia, yep, that is the guy.

Mostunexpected, what is this thing that might or might not resolved? I'm confused now. The only short story I've read by Harrison is the one that introduced Rachel's history with Pierce.

Zombie?!?! I missed something... I may have to re-read that book again.

Spoiler ~~~ Spoiler

Oh Pierce...the ghost dude. Right?

*****Spoiler*****Spoiler*****Spoiler*****

No. At the end of the book the professor's out, Pierce is a zombie with intentions, and Rachel is single.

Also, I really don't think the thing with Rachel is resolved at all. I'm not really sure why people say that, unless something happened in the short stories. I haven't been able to read any of those.

possible spoiler??? Wait, Is Pierce the professor or whatever? I thought they weren't together at the end of the last book...maybe I'm mistaken. I barely remember the book except that she is a "black magic" user.

**I don't consider this a SPOILER, but some may so... SPOILER ALERT**

Vanessa, Pierce is the new guy in the Rachel Morgan series. Well, at least that looks like where Harrison is going with him.

Karen Marie Moning had a PNR Highlander series that went on for about ... oh, six books or so? Always different MC's and a generally neglected plot wrapped up in lots of steamy smexing.
Not sure if she just grew out of it as a writer, or wove it into something else she'd been wanting to write all along -- but her Fever series is less PNR and more UF, really. There's romantic tension, but nothing's come of it and the fourth in the subseries just came out recently.
Since the plot of the original PNR that birthed Fever feeds into the new leads which are prevalent through Fever, one could say it's a horrendously drawn-out series as well.
But immortal, tattooed Highlanders? In kilts, no less? And all her other Fever worldbuilding on top of that... well. While I have gotten sick of watching the MC and her male counterpart dance around one another like a pair of courting magpies, it certainly hasn't been an uneventful read.
And I only wish she'd wrap up the plot already because I'm grotesquely impatient about these things. :)

Schnaucl wrote: "I'm really not a fan of the new guy in her life. I didn't particularly like him in the short story and I like him less now. "

You know, I've totally gone blank on who the new man is and I just read "White Witch, Black Curse" too. Er, age. Yes, I was a Kisten fan too but more than that I'm an Ivy fan as everyone else in Rachel's life seems to be with the exception of Jenks. Maybe Harrison is saving this till the final book?

This thread has got me thinking. It's a tricky thing to keep a series flowing. There have been so many I've given up on over the years. I'm grateful I have two I follow religiously (Sookie, Rachel) and a few others I read when I take a notion (Harry Dresden, Mead's Georgina Kincaid series).

Schnaucl wrote: "I'm really not a fan of the new guy in her life. I didn't particularly like him in the short story and I like him less now. "

The only man in Rachel's life that I was really a fan of was Kisten... and he managed to get himself irrevocably dead. *lol* Al isn't too terrible, all things considered, but every man that wanders into her life seems to have their own personal agenda that trumps anything else. That observation could apply to Ivy just as easily though, since the vampire woman possesses the ulterior motive of wanting Rachel to save her soul when she dies or something of that nature... :P *lol*

Vanessa wrote: "Kind of off topic but while I like the series but I frequently miss the Rachel who stole the Howler's fish. The books were a lot more light-hearted in the beginning even tho she was frequently in danger. That seems to happen with some series.

Yeah, I miss that, too. I'm really not a fan of the new guy in her life. I didn't particularly like him in the short story and I like him less now.

I recall thinking the last Hallows book felt more like a collection of subplots than a story with a strong arc supported by a few subplots.

Hi Schnaucl--I think the danger of some of these series where there is a complex mythology across several novels is one or more books end up being a tying off of loose threads.

Kind of off topic but while I like the series but I frequently miss the Rachel who stole the Howler's fish. The books were a lot more light-hearted in the beginning even tho she was frequently in danger. That seems to happen with some series.

Vanessa wrote: "It's like your favorite TV shows. You don't want them to end but even more so you don't want them to degenerate into "Remember when __________ used to be good?" It killed me when Sex and The City e..."

Vanessa,

I recall thinking the last Hallows book felt more like a collection of subplots than a story with a strong arc supported by a few subplots. Not to mention Rachel's acceptance of a pretty big thing that made no sense to me. (Vague enough there?)

I didn't make it to her reading when she did the tour for White Witch but I'm hoping to make it to the next one. Maybe there will be something of an explanation.

It's like your favorite TV shows. You don't want them to end but even more so you don't want them to degenerate into "Remember when __________ used to be good?" It killed me when Sex and The City ended but they went out on such a perfect high note.

I still like the Sookie series very much altho I'm currently about 3 books behind. Not in the urban category technically but I so loved Charlaine's Lily Bard series and I'm very sorry it's ended although she did grow that character perfectly and ended at a good point. I quit reading both of Laurell K. Hamilton's series long ago. It really pains me what became of Anita. Sigh. Ditto for Anne Rice who lost me after the third book in the vampire series. I was amazed she kept pumping those titles out for so long.

Kim Harrison has said there are still at least a few more Rachel books. I think the last two were a little draggy in parts but I do still really enjoy them. And ditto to Schnaucl: I wish the Ivy/Rachel relationship had been resolved differently.

I have to agree on Kenyon's DH series and BDB went down hill at Phury's book and hasn't come back out yet.

With a few exceptions (Dresden Files and Sookie Stackhouse), I agree with the people who want closure to these long drawn out series. I think most of them would be much better if all of the filler was sucked out and the whole story was told in three of four books. All of the extra characters and ideas would be better served in new books of their own. I get disgusted when the original love story is broken up...again...because if it continues to be rosey for everyone the series can't squeeze out another twenty books. Same thing goes with saving the world. How many times can some evil villian (or his sister, cousin, lover, mother...) come back from the dead and try to get revenge?
I agree with Schnaucl. I was over Mulder's obsession with his sister looong before the show was, too. It's a perfect example of what happens to a series if it drags on too long.

I think the one trick pony is why a lot of authors are being pushed into having two series by their publishers. In some cases the two series are in a single universe, but in a lot of cases they are in totally different universes.

The whole thing lasts longer and feels fresher with a book in between the series book.

Starling wrote: "Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote all of her stand alone books OUT OF ORDER. "

Bradley's contemporary, Andre Norton (may she rest in peace) constantly seemed to have a new story to tell in between the various universes she created. I think a vacation from a long series does an author good but I have to imagine that when you're making money on a 'one trick pony' its hard to stop.

Starling wrote: "Yes! I think you can save the world in 3 books, but not in 15 or 18. Because if you set something up that horrible that it is going to take 15 or 18 books to explain it, the end tends to fall flat...."

Lori Handeland has a new UF Doomsday series that starts with Any Given Doomsday. I loved the characters. The book was just different enough to keep me interested. I haven't read the sequel yet, but I do wonder how long Lori Handeland can keep up this edge of the apocalypse thing.

Shomeret

Hilary, if there are other story arcs and other characters, you can write more books in the same universe AFTER you save the world. They can take place before, during or after the original trilogy.

Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote all of her stand alone books OUT OF ORDER. There were a couple that you really should have read together, but some of the time they had been written years apart.

As a newly published author, I needed to grapple with this issue. My husband quite bluntly asked, "Where is this thing going?" Heck of a good question because it is one of those that could potentially drone on for novel after novel (Yes, my heroes must save the world) After a good hard ponder, I thought it would be best served in three books. It was a difficult decision because there are story arcs that may never be explored, characters I would love to follow into old age but the story itself demands a beginning, a middle and an end. Three books. Hope I can hold to that pledge.

Yes! I think you can save the world in 3 books, but not in 15 or 18. Because if you set something up that horrible that it is going to take 15 or 18 books to explain it, the end tends to fall flat.

On the other hand you can have a series where it takes a couple of books to get to the North Pole, and then it takes 4 books to get to the Moon, and then another 3 to get to Saturn. Etc.

LOL Unfortunately, I think saving the world is a major component of most urban fantasy novels. But you may be right about either narrowing the focus (e.g. Harry Dresden wants to save the world but really most of the time the focus is on saving his little corner of it, or the Morganville series which focuses on saving the town/relationships between people and/or vampires in Morganville) or changing the big bad. The problem with having a big bad of world destroying capability is that you have to keep upping the ante and you can only go so far.

I think that's why it's easier to have the threat perhaps be on a global scale but really only focus on how it would affect a particular city/town/state.

I think it's easier to have some enemy (or usually group) trying to destroy the way of life for a character or group. It doesn't have to be the main focus of every story, but something that comes up now and again.

But I definitely agree that having the same Save The World plot device only works well for a very short, defined period of time, not an undefined ongoing series.

Schnaucl, small arcs are OK. Plot threads that take more than one book to finish up are OK.

I guess I need a new word for the kind of arc where you are saving the universe. They almost never work for me. My most recent series like that is a SF series called The Company. In the last book they dealt with an issue that had controlled everything in the world for 150,000 years. Although I loved the series and gave the books great marks, the final solution to that arc wasn't as good as the series was.

I never really bought the arc end in Anne Rice's vampire series. And the fact is the books written in that series after they got rid of She Who Must Be Kept weren't anywhere near as good as the books that were written before it.

I guess maybe what I'm really saying is Please Don't Save the World.

Schnaucl wrote:
I think it depends. I think each book should have a story that wraps up but there also needs to be one or more plot arcs through a series that doesn't get resolved at the end of a book. I think it's best to have at least a few going at once so that you can wrap up one without it feeling like the end of the series. "

Yes, it certainly is, but IMHO we should at least try. What if you planned another book but the publisher's not buying? Better have some ending in there. Or what if you wrapped up everything in sight but the readers are clamoring for more? Time to unwrap something.

I think it depends on the type of arc. I'm with you on the unresolved romantic tension; it gets old very quickly IMO. But a broader and deeper arc, such as a societal change, could last through quite a few books.

Starling wrote: " If it is going to be an unterminated series, please no arcs!

I think you absolutely need arcs in an urban fantasy series (unlike, say, a mystery series). I think the trick is to have more than one though and occasionally let one wrap up and start something new. You certainly shouldn't try to have one arc go from the beginning of the series to the end if it's a long series because people get bored and stop caring what the answer is, they just want it over. For romance subplots you don't want to get the characters together too quickly, but you also don't want to do a will they/won't they thing for 8 books because by the end readers just want a decision (see: Kim Harrison's Hallows series).

Or think about the X-Files before the show turned awful. Even while the show was still good I stopped caring about Mulder's sister long before the show got tired of it.

OTOH if there are no arcs at all I think it really loses something. Then it's just a bunch of standalone novels that happen to have one or more of the same characters/world. It's certainly been done that way (see: Kelly Armstrong's Otherworld series) but that always feels very disjointed to me. I might like individual books but I don't feel like there's the cohesion that I want and need from a series.

Anne wrote:

I like each book to wrap up a bit, personally. By all means leave some threads hanging to pick up in the next..."

I think it depends. I think each book should have a story that wraps up but there also needs to be one or more plot arcs through a series that doesn't get resolved at the end of a book. I think it's best to have at least a few going at once so that you can wrap up one without it feeling like the end of the series.

This year I've read 3 books where major plot arcs were wrapped up. Imho, it only worked in one of those three. All three were part of a series, and in 2 of the 3 it felt like the series was wrapping up in an unsatisfactory way. The thing is, neither book was the last book in the series, but I only figured that out after going to the author's webpage. (They were actually both book 4 in a series, one of which is from a planned series of 6, I don't think the other one has a planned ending yet). Oddly enough, the one that really worked for me wrapped up everything so completely it could have been a very satisfactory end (it was book 6, I think) but I didn't doubt there would be more of the series, just that the new overall plot arc would be something different and indeed, that series is continuing no doubt with some new focus.

It's a difficult thing to get right, I think. You certainly don't want readers to feel like every book is the second book in a trilogy but you don't want to tie up every detail neatly either.

Heh. I was going to say "interminable," but that has unfortunate connotations. :-)

I like each book to wrap up a bit, personally. By all means leave some threads hanging to pick up in the next one, but give me some closure in this one. Sometimes I encounter something which is more of a serial than a series, never really resolving.

In my first published book, one of my goals was to leave room for a sequel without leaving the reader hanging. There's more tale to tell, but if someone chooses not to buy the second (or the economy kills its publication :crossedfingers), then the reader shouldn't feel ripped off.

<grin> If it is going to be an unterminated series, please no arcs!

One of the things I really like about unterminated series books is that the universe the characters live in gets deeper and more complex with each book.

And I love that phrase, "unterminated series"!

It's easy to see why the trilogy has been replaced by the unterminated series. Why stop selling when people are still reading?

There are problems from the reader's POV, though, as have already been noted. If the eleventy billionth book isn't much good, it taints our view of the entire series and *still* leaves the arc unresolved.

Sometimes a series will go on too long. But there is more than one kind of series.

Sometimes there is a universe, but no arc and the books can even be written out of order. The Darkover books are the best example of that I can come up with.

Sometimes you get to know what is going on in the lives of the main characters but the actual story in each book is not based on those characters although they show up in every book, or maybe almost every book. There are mystery series that have been going on for 40 years like that, and the new books are actually better than the old ones.

And sometimes there is an arc, and that is the reason for the book. And I'm pretty upset with books like that because the authors write themselves into a brick wall and never finish the series. Think WHEEL OF TIME where the author died 15 books into the series, and the series George RR Martin is never going to finish. If there is an arc there better be no more than 4 books or I'm not starting.

My point is that I don't care how long the Anita, Merry and Rachel, etc. books go on. They have arcs, but mostly we all just want to know what happened next. I don't care how they end, or even if they ever end.