Fantasy Aficionados discussion
Discussions about books
>
How Many Books to a Series? What is your thought?
message 1:
by
Jan
(new)
Aug 10, 2011 08:19AM
How many books do you think an author can write in a series before it starts to fade or go downhill? In my thoughts after the third or fourth book the series starts to loose it's zing (for lack of a better word).
reply
|
flag
Anything longer or more than 5 is dead wood. That includes the fifth book in the dead wood series if it's not the grand climax. It also includes second series involving the same characters (Second Trilogy? that makes it a six booker doesn't it?) There are some stand outs, but they are few and far between.
Just two more cents from the man who has too many pennies. Gotta use em somewhere right?
I kind of agree with the third or fourth book thing. Take Canavan for an example it all went well up until The Magicians' Apprentice which was were the fact that they were all incredibly formulaic became extremely evident.
I have to humbly disagree. The trilogy of trilogies written by Robin Hobb are nothing but superb!
Jim Butcher's Dresden Files get stronger with every book and never cease to amaze his fans.
I think that the Miles Vorkosigan Adventures are one of the all time classics in space opera, and like Butcher's work, create more depth and humanity for it's leads with every book WHILE still being "unputdownable".
I adore the Kim Harrison series about The Hollows, David Weber's Honor Harrington series remains strong, the Mercy Thompson series by Patricia Briggs is just hitting it's stride...
I'm sure that some series benefit from brevity, but there are authors who have created worlds which are so rich and diverse, a few books just won't do them justice.
Speaking as an author, I'd say that a story line can support as many books as it takes to tell the basic tale. That could be one, two, three or more volumes, but even the most avid reader will eventually become tired of the same cast of characters and wander off in search of something new. An author with a heretofore successful series, though, will always be tempted to squeeze one more book out of the material, just as movie producers will keep cranking out sequels to successful movies until even the most diehard fans become sick of them.
I think it depends on the author and the set up of the series. Normally I would agree with the 3-5 book limit but there are exceptions:
-Where you have 47 books in a series but each book is a stand alone (Dresden Files, Nightside, Secret Histories, Black Company, Mercey Thompson)
-Where you 47 books in a series but the series is broken up into quartets, trilogies, and/or stand alones (M.L.'s Valdemar Series, Norton's Witch World, MZB's Darkover, Robin Hobb's series with the assassins)
-When the author is just fie-ya. Much more rare (IMO that the previous two examples)
I agree with Laurel and Tracey and Ala.Of course, I'm one of those that doesn't think GRRM's series has gotten too long. And I've often been corrected for being wrong on my love of WoT. So maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.
Really, it depends on the writer and the story.
Well said, Laurel and Tracey.Besides those mentioned, a few more writers who can do series brilliantly, that gain in depth and velocity and deepen without flattening the curve:
C.J. Cherryh
Dorothy Dunnett (not fantasy, but so what)
Kristine Smith (SF but so what)
Sarah Zettel
Carol Berg
There will be quite a few more I've not mentioned - the trick is being selective, with series. And many of the best ones (with tremendous depth) fly under the radar - simply because they do have deeper meaning/do expand their characters beyond the basic fight or flight or the ever popular vengeance based plot.
Some short story writers cannot do novels.
Some excellent novel writers/even trilogy masters cannot do series.
Shame the missed works overshadow some of the genius, where the long format IS worked to its best and most stunning advantage.
Tracey wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "When the author is just fie-ya..."*Googles "fie-ya"*is still confused*"
LOL!!
It's "fire" just spelled to the emphasis I was stressing.
As many books as it takes to tell the story. Not a book more, not a book less.
I tend to lose interest after three. I agree Hobb's Farseer & Tawny Man are both good, but are they a six book series or two three book series? The longer series I still enjoy are broken up in this fashion.
Independent sort of.. Farseer stands alone, but you need Farseer for ultimate enjoyment of Tawny Man.
Ala wrote: "47 books. Tops."Just how many Star Wars books are there?
For me it depends if I like the story. The Dark Tower series is the longest I have read and loved every minute of it.
Got some good feed back. I love Robin Hobb's books and I like how she did the trilogy's and used the same character's but in a different location. Fitz kept coming up in almost all of her books.
I'm in agreement that there really is no limit to a well-written series.IMO I think a very big distinction is that series that have some kind of quest or whatever to defeat the great Evil pretty much needs to be 3 books or less.
Series which are all set in the same 'world' and cover different adventures (usually 1-3 books per adventure) or even totally different characters are much more likely to be able to go on indefinitely (or forever, for my favorites!)
In my opinion there should be no limit to the series. If the author has no more good ideas the author should stop doing the series that the author has started on.
James wrote: "In my opinion there should be no limit to the series. If the author has no more good ideas the author should stop doing the series that the author has started on."Oooh! I really disagree with that! I need closure and with that I'll die before my favorite series are finished.
I respect your own opinon Mrs. J and I don't care if you disagree about something that I said.
James wrote: "I respect your own opinon Mrs. J and I don't care if you disagree about something that I said."ok
I would expect that...we are different people. I wasn't trying to get a rise out of you.
Denae wrote: "Ala wrote: "47 books. Tops."
Just how many Star Wars books are there?"
like, 900 or so.
give or take a hundred.
or two.
Just how many Star Wars books are there?"
like, 900 or so.
give or take a hundred.
or two.
I'm also full of it, too. So...
Y'know.
But yeah, there's a lot.
Y'know.
But yeah, there's a lot.
I think if an author is good enough he or she can take it to however many volumes as necessary to tell the story and keep the reader wanting more.
It depends on the writer and the concept. Some concepts can sustain a longer series. Some can't. I can't and won't make a blanket statement as to one number. As several have mentioned, I am happy to keep reading some series because I either love the way the author writes, the characters and I want to hang out with them in the various books, or the world is so fascinating and the author can bring something fresh to the table.
I think it also depends on how the author plans the series. If it's one grand story planned out in advance (Harry Potter, Sword of Truth, Twilight), then it's all good for as long as it takes to tell the story. Provided, of course, that the editors are doing their job keeping the story tight- the three series I mentioned had last books that were still very good but way too long. On the other hand, if each book is self-contained, then they should be judged as such- a bunch of separate books about the same character/world, and there can still be lots of them.The problem happens when the "grand story" is told, but the author decides to add on an extra book or two with an additional twist, or something set in the future- then it can become problematic. For example, the last couple of entries in the main Ender series were annoying, and the last book in the Margaret Peterson Haddix Shadow Children series would have been better as an epilogue instead of stretching it out to book length.
It's sad when a series sticks around longer than it should. I understand the desire to keep up with demand but when a series declines it sours even the ones I had previously liked. I also hate it when a series ages characters too quickly. It seems to cut story potential in half. The Star Wars books have gotten so out of hand soon Han will be eighty, or is he? I have stopped reading them. The Forgotten Realms Drizzt books are another example. And Dragonlance, a series that aged their most popular characters within a few books, gave them children that were quickly killed off or aged, and continued by killing everyone else. By the time I stopped it wasn't something I recognized anymore. I have nothing against an older character, I just think it's a waste to happen too soon.
I don't mind a long series so long as it's staying the course and the writing remains quality. I really thought that the The Wheel of Time series went downhill after book #6 when too much focus was given to secondary plots and characters.
For me, it's all about the story and character change. If the author can continue to present plots that speak to that character and allow, nay, require that character to grow, then that's a sequel I would like to read. In some cases, however, the protagonist never changes, even in the first book. In that case, I begin to think it's I who make the change, by not buying the sequels.
Shannon wrote: "I don't mind a long series so long as it's staying the course and the writing remains quality. I really thought that the The Wheel of Time series went downhill after book #6 when too much focus was..."I agree. I have all the books. I usually buy two-three at a time in the series because I read fast and I'm impatient. I wish I hadn't spent my money on a couple.
I hate it when I read and love the first of a series, rush out to buy more, and realize they aren't as good. I need to learn to be more patient in my book buying as well.
Traci wrote: "I hate it when I read and love the first of a series, rush out to buy more, and realize they aren't as good. I need to learn to be more patient in my book buying as well."I do this all the time.
Did I mention I own all the Black Company (except the first 3 books) and I realized that it doesn't seem to be my thing?
I also own 6 of the Hawk & Fisher books. Boy do I hope I like them!
I usually read books from the library before deciding to actually spend money on them, series or no series. Of course that requires patience and trust that the library will keep buying more books in the series (although usually when I request something, they end up buying).
With any multi-book series, I think it's fair to expect that not all of the books will necessarily be at the same quality level, and you are most likely going to end up liking some more than others. I'm ok with that so long as the series continues to evolve at a decent pace, progresses with key plots and stays relatively on track with key characters. I can't stand it when too many minor characters and sub plots of sub plots start to take over.
MrsJoseph wrote: "Traci wrote: "I hate it when I read and love the first of a series, rush out to buy more, and realize they aren't as good. I need to learn to be more patient in my book buying as well."I do this ..."
Me too! I usually wind up with 2ish books of a series before I even start reading the first book. It has been a hit or miss thing..
I am bad about buying at least the first two to three books in a series, sight unseen. I'm trying to do better though.
Um, isn't this exactly what a site like Goodreads supposed to prevent? I never even get anything form the library without checking out reviews, let alone spend money on it. Although back when I had a used bookstore by me, I would buy stuff on impulse just because it was so cheap.
Masha, GRs has helped my impulse buying, but it's also encouraged me to buy books I probably wouldn't have before, based on reviews by friends. :)Tracey, I operate on a similar principle. When Borders closed in our town, I stocked up on series that I planned to read through, since they were on clearance.
@Masha - GR has made it worse, to be honest. Now my To Buy list is 3 x longer - and there are a ton of different series that I'd never heard of (or read the reviews of) that all my friends rave about. I'd never even heard of the Black Company until GR. Then a sale happens. EEEEK! How can I pass these possible gems up?? Then I actually read a book...lol.
I've come to notice that I'm fickle regarding my tastes. The books that I'm sure I'll love I'll either hate or be meh about. Even if the reviews look good.
ETA: My public library sucks ass. Totally not helpful in any way. I even went to them and offered to buy books but each person would send me to a different person and I gave up.
MrsJ, my library is pretty good. I'm excited about their audiobook collection. I don't let myself check out anything but audiobooks, because I have many books I own that I need to read.
As long as the author can keep the characters engaging, the story flowing, the conflicts high, the plots interesting with whatever twists and turns are necessary the series can be as long as it takes to reach an end. But please, please stay with us until the end.
Personally, if the 'series' is about one person or group of people in a situation that requires more than one book to 'tell the story' I think a trilogy is about the limit. Stories for me need to have a beginning, a middle and an end. If this happens in one book, fine. You can also do it in a trilogy. I think once it gets past three books, it is very difficult to maintain.Series like the Dresden series, where there is an ongoing cast of characters but a specific plot for each book can be sometimes be maintained much longer, depending on the skill and talent of the author. I will say that I find that ability less often in fantasy authors than I have in either science fiction authors or mystery authors.
I'm a big fan of trilogies. If a series goes beyond that, it can sink, imo, especially if it wasn't meant to go farther than that. But if you're talking about a series like the Dresden Files or the Nightside, then those kinds can go on forever and I'll still soak it up.
I definitely prefer a series to stand alone books. I'd also be a fan of trilogies, but I'm quite happy to stick to a great series for longer than three books, but from my experience, this always leads to disappointment along the way. Sword of Truth for example should have been cut at book 4 but went on to book 11 and on the other hand I'm greatly enjoying The Wheel of Time series. It really depends on the type of story and if it has enough depth and interesting characters to keep going.
I will accept as many books as it takes to tell the story, but not one volume more. Having said that, I prefer succinct authors.
More and more, I'm leaning toward stand-alone novels. There are just too many authors and worlds that I want to try. For a continuous storyline, the trend I noticed is that my enjoyment starts to degrade around book 4 or 5.
It SO depends, I love the Dresden books, but I also find, that many authors, who just HAVE to write a trilogy, actually only had enough material for 1½ book...So if you can keep it interesting, it's great, but not many can.
Fantasy Aficionados
Books mentioned in this topic
The Magic of Recluce (other topics)Gauntlgrym (other topics)
The Way of Kings (other topics)
The Way of Shadows (other topics)
The Clan of the Cave Bear (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
R.A. Salvatore (other topics)L.E. Modesitt Jr. (other topics)
Brandon Sanderson (other topics)
Sharon Shinn (other topics)
Wen Spencer (other topics)
More...
