The Not-So Austen Bookclub discussion
Writer's Corner
>
Book Series ~ How Many Is Too Many?
date
newest »
newest »
I think it mainly depends on the size of the books and the main conflict. There are a few series I can name that I feel have or continue to drag on. As much as I enjoy them, I still felt myself growing bored. I believe an author should restrict their books to 5-7 for long series and no more than 4 for shorter series or lengthier books. This seems like a good estimate simply based on other successful series. I think once both the plot and character have reached at least a moderate conclusion, the series should begin its conclusion.
Like Ω~L1F3L3$$ 3XP0$UR3~Ω said, it depends on the conflict as well as the plot. I always like a solid trilogy or five book series. But then there is Harry Potter, which has a reason for her 7 books (the seven years of school). I have heard of young adult series that are 40+ books, and that is flat out ridiculous. No one wants to invest that much time into a single story, unless they are the best books you've ever read. As long as there is a method to the madness that works out (like HP), then it's okay. If the main plot is over, most everything is resolved, all the lose threads are tied together, and everyone is satisfied, that's when it may conclude.
I have this thing against trilogies. Which is kind of odd, because three is usually a decent number. Since the second book in a series is practically genetically predispositioned to be the worst in the series, there must be more than two. But finding out after two amazing books that there's only one more? Not a happy feeling. I like it when there are a ton of books, say, seven or eight, but not if they've gone downhill and intend on bringing me with them. I would be happy with a nice good series of four. Or five. Or six.
Out of most of the series that I've read, I think a good number to end with is either three or six. Three if there isn't much else you can do with the plot, six if it's totally amazing and you can't stop at three.
I have a thing against the house of night series the books are short, it doesn't take a long time to read it. they used to print two a year now it's one a year.
Normally, I think 4-6 is a good number. But I love Jim Butcher's Dresden Files. Those can go on forever.
I think that a series should NOT be more than 5 books Janet Evanovich's series is hoing to book 20 and that is ridiculous!!!
Harry Potter was 7 books and it was awesome...only some exceptions :p
Mod
Janet Evanovich's series is hoing to book 20 and that is ridiculous!!!
Harry Potter was 7 books and it was awesome...only some exceptions :p"
I think it depends on the plot and story-line. Books like Vampire Academy needed around the 6 books to be able to develop the storyline and the plots and sub-plots as well as Character development.
However series like Pretty Little Liars annoys me. Because the original intentional wasn't supposed to be more than 8 books. Having 8 books was fine, great even but now it is coming to number 14 and it is ridiculous.
So yeah, I guess it depends on the plot, storyline and the authors intentions. I truly dislike it when series are continued either for purely the money or because of the franchise or the TV show. :/
I don't have as much patience with series now as I usually did. Indeed, the Harry Potter series is the longest series I read. And now I can't stop reading A Song of Ice and Fire series because GRRM wrapped me around his fingers. :)A trilogy should be enough. Enough to resolve the main problem while also developing the characters. I hate it when publishers milk and milk on a franchise.
I think it really depends on the complexity of the plot. Like, with Harry Potter )the best books ever!) the plot was so complex and she was planning everything from the begining, you needed those 7 books. But with fluffy books, you really don't need more than 4, 5 if it's really good. For some reason, even though the heros of olimpus is practicly that same as percy jackson (same charecters) i still like them. they haven't lost there touch.
I disagree. I was perfectly happy with the ending of The Last Olympian. And while I don't regret meeting Leo and Piper and Hazel and the rest, I don't think Rick Riordan needed to continue their story. I'd rather think of Percy and Annabeth happy together and not looking back than know that they're suffering. I mean, when you end a series like that with the characters still so young, you know that they've still got a lot of living left to do. Lots of milestones to pass, things like that. But you can create your own idea of how it all ended up, you can hold onto that last image of them all. This? It could go on forever.
I know that. I'm not talking about what he'll do next.
No, I meant Percy and Annabeth's story.
No, I get it, and yes, that is what I meant.
I have a love/ hate relationship when it comes to book series. I LOVE collecting books in a series, so say if i have read and liked book 1 then the chances are high for me to buy book 2 and then book 3 etc. until i have the entire series right up to the very end. some examples of this include the mighty Harry Potter series, which i just HAD to have!
However, collecting ALL the books in a series is quite a bad illness for if the series is increadibly long then it can be expensive! Look at for example 'the vampire diaries' which still continues to grow in length.
Some of my favorite book series which i have read and collected ~
*Harry Potter series
*Vampire Diaries
*Mortal Instruments & Infernal Devices
*Iron Fey
*His Dark Materials
*A Song of Ice and Fire
*Lord of the Rings (although it is technically one book)
*House of Night series
*Terry Brooks Shannara series (SO LONG!!)
*Beautiful Creatures series
*Various other trilogies ~ fantasy genre like Robin Hobb and Kate Elliot's Crown of Stars
...it is an addiction!
Mod
The Hunger Games (I managed to snag the entire set for 10 bucks back when all three books had just been published)
The Harry Potter Paperback edition set
The Inkheart Trilogy
Isabelle wrote: "The full series/ sets that I own are:The Hunger Games (I managed to snag the entire set for 10 bucks back when all three books had just been published)
The Harry Potter Paperback edition set
The..."
(I love Inkheart! It is such a magical tale...reading a story, and the story itself is real :))
It all depends on the series and the author, but I think that if you're going to do multiple books, make sure you have a game plan and an end in sight. Lots of series have dragged on because the author was too afraid to just say "DONE".
I love a good trilogy. I believe it helps to structure the plot structure of the series, Beginning, Middle, and End. Unfortunately the second book in a trilogy tends to be the weakest. In rare cases (Harry Potter) the plot is complex and there is room for growth. However I believe that no matter what the series is over 5 books will ruin it.
Books that have gone on to long are.
Charlie Bones
Eragon
Maximum Ride
Children of the Lamp
Mortal Instruments (The series ended perfectly on the city of glass)
Percy Jackson
Twilight
Alex Rider
Deltora Quest
Series of Unfortunate Events
Pendragon
These were all great book. However there was not enough material or possible plot/character development to warrant such long series.
I think a trilogy is perfect and in some rare cases up to but no more then 5 (I believe even harry potter could have been more concise despite my love for that series).
Mike wrote: "I love a good trilogy. I believe it helps to structure the plot structure of the series, Beginning, Middle, and End. Unfortunately the second book in a trilogy tends to be the weakest. In rare cas..."
I definitely agree that A Series of Unfortunate Events did not have enough answers to go on for 13 books! I can't even remember what they actually know about their parents and there are so many people who just end up missing because the series ended with barely any answers about if they are alive or not (the Triplets!!!!!).
I think the Clique was a successful, entertaining series that had technically 20 books with the summer subseries and the cliquetionary. But, I also think it kind of lost direction after the first couple books, because it was originally about how Claire wanted to fit in and then find her own friends and the two-sides of being an "alpha". It probably dragged on a little bit after book 6, Dial L for Loser.
Anne of Green Gables and all the other good series were great because they actually went somewhere with a purpose in mind. It had enough substance to be stretched over the 6 books about her and the 5 that she was mentioned in.
In reply to mike. I agree with you in everything (espesially Mortal Instrm) except for PJ and SOUE. I loved the series, but I can see how you think they're too long, even though I dissagree. Even after Rick Riordan finishes with the next book (although it's technecly another series, but whatevs) I would love if he wrote an 11th book. Demigods unite!!!
Mod
I have yet to find a series (other than perhaps the Series of Unfortunate Events, but that ended unsatisfactorily) that has managed to keep its spark past the seventh book. It's like an eighth-book curse. Beware, all ye who enter here.
Jazzy wrote: "I have yet to find a series (other than perhaps the Series of Unfortunate Events, but that ended unsatisfactorily) that has managed to keep its spark past the seventh book. It's like an eighth-book..."It's so funny because now I'm trying to find a series that I (thoroughly) enjoyed that goes past 8 books, but they all end (or seem to/should end) at 7...
Monique wrote: "Jazzy wrote: "I have yet to find a series (other than perhaps the Series of Unfortunate Events, but that ended unsatisfactorily) that has managed to keep its spark past the seventh book. It's like ..."See? The eighth book curse is real and out for blood.
It's a question I have often asked myself when I'm reading a book series. Many times, I have caught myself bemoaning the fact that an author has decided to add yet another book into a perfectly good series.
There's a great saying, I'm sure you've all heard of: Don't flog a dead horse.
Or what I like to re-phrase as: Don't drag along a catatonic reader.
Having a developed plotline is great. Having a detailed plot that develops over a number of books is great too.
But dragging out a storyline, watering-down the plot and regurgitating the same character idiosyncrasies can tire and bore readers - and make them cry.
Some examples of series that went on for too long, for me, are:
- The Maximum Ride series
- The Mortal Instruments series
Some examples of series that had heaps of books but managed to keep me entertained were:
- The Morganville Vampires series
- Anne of Green Gables series
- Deltora Quest series (all three)
Maximum Ride dragged on far too long. The first books (up to and including Max) were great. I was absorbed. I was all "Go Fax!" (Fang + Max).
But when James Patterson then dragged on their romance for another few novels and I started to see a Highschool Musical 'Troy and Gabriella' break-up-make-up pattern, I wanted to throw the book out of my bedroom window like Bradley Cooper in Silver Linings Playbook.
And as for the Mortal Instruments (as much as I love them!) I would have liked the series to have just stopped at City of Glass.
Everyone was happy. People were safe. Jace and Clary were together. It. Was. Fine! Why mess with a good thing and drag the plotline further?
Even Alexander the Great knew when to not stretch out his troops further in battle. When you do so, your defence becomes weakened and you're attacked and scattered far more easily (forgive the history reference!).
So the question remains: When should authors halt a series? When the main plotline is solved? When the main character has been fully developed?
And also, how many books (maximum) should an author develop a plotline over before giving the final reveal and wrapping things up? Is there a limit that readers reach?
Discuss below!