Urban Fantasy discussion
UF BOOK CHAT
>
Do series tend to go on for too long?
I don't think the Rachel Morgan series has gone on too long, I just think she should get on with the over all plot. That last book seemed like filler to me.Wake me up when something happons :-)
Harry Dresden hasn't begun to grow stale, IMHO. I've never liked the Rachel Morgan series, tho I've read them all.......which makes no sense at all. As long as an author can still come up with ideas and keep the books interesting, who knows how long they can keep going? I read a mystery series that's been going on since 1974 and I still eagerly look forward to each year's new offering.
Melodie wrote: "Harry Dresden hasn't begun to grow stale, IMHO."I COMPLETELY agree...love Harry Dresden! I pray Jim Butcher will ALWAYS find a story to write about for this series!
I stopped reading both of laurell Hamilton's series several books ago because I felt she was just dragging them out.On the other hand I'm still reading and enjoying the Harry Dresden series. And I've read and enjoyed a mystery series with over 20 books.
I don't think it's the length of a series that's necesarily a problem. The problem is when an author keeps writing a series after they've run out of anything new and fresh to say.
Outside of Urban Fantasy, and into the fantasy genre as a whole, some series are definitely "jumped the shark." Anne Rice is a great example and so is Robert Jordan. While I can't speak for Dresden, as I'm only on book #3, from what I understand, the story just keeps going in these books after he got away from the episodic "files" like he was doing in the first two books.
I seem to be one of the few who agree with you that Dresden may be going on for too long. The only thing that keeps me in is the larger arc elements - but each book, in itself, does seem rather formulaic and repetitive. I've been hesitating on getting book 10 for just this reason. I would add that the Nightside series suffers from the same problem. Once the Lilith arc ended, it just got worse.
A YA series which I eventually gave up on was the Pendragon series. He had a plan on 10 books from the outset, I believe, but a lot of the books were so repetitive and just felt like filler, and I got tired of waiting for the resolution (which I've heard isn't entirely satisfying, so I supposed it's just as well I packed it in.)
I tend to prefer series, like Harry Potter, which have a clear plan - a single story to tell over a set number of books. Of course, as with the Pendragon series, even this can fail.
Lately I've been hesitant to get into any series - UF or otherwise - which is more than a trilogy, or at least which has a set number of books going in. Of course I've also noticed a new trend - the false trilogy. What I mean by that is a series which is given as a trilogy, but when that trilogy is over you find out there's another, related trilogy, and eventually it'll look like the Dragonlance books which are just in the realm of the ludicrous by this point. One of the things which turned me off of fantasy years ago was all these endless series, most of which even fans agreed tended to get stale after book 5 or so.
Nowadays, as I said, I tend to look for stand-alones, trilogies, or at least something with a set arc, or, failing that, a series like Discworld which is related but not necessarily continuous.
Sandy wrote: "I stopped reading both of laurell Hamilton's series several books ago because I felt she was just dragging them out...I quit reading that series after The Harlequin. I went in to that book with the attitude that if it didn't add something to the series and didn't resolve the ardeur, then I wasn't reading them anymore. That series has gotten very stagnant, in my opinion, and feels like a hamster in a wheel with no end in sight.
I still enjoy the Rachel Morgan books... there was a few books in the middle that I didn't feel went anywhere, but after the most recent book where it seemed that the author cleaned up a lot of plots, I feel the series has been given a chance at new life and storylines.
I do think that the BDB series has gone on too long and needs to be wrapped up. Sorry if this offends anyone, but I felt like after all the main BDB members had their love-mates that the story was over. I stopped reading after Phury's disappointing story... in my opinion, it should have ended with him. It could have branched off in to a new series, but it needs a new series title.
blackrose wrote: "I seem to be one of the few who agree with you that Dresden may be going on for too long. The only thing that keeps me in is the larger arc elements - but each book, in itself, does seem rather fo..."I still really enjoy the Dresden books. Each one seems to bring a little something new to the table and you might like Turn Coat as a lot happens in it. I was getting burned out on the Nightside books with the whole Lilith thing and was glad when it was concluded because I like the books again. I can relate when it comes to the YA UF series. I started one at my niece's insistence that has grown stale in a big hurry. I have one more to read and then don't intend to read the series anymore. Total yawn time!
Sandy wrote: "I stopped reading both of laurell Hamilton's series several books ago because I felt she was just dragging them out.On the other hand I'm still reading and enjoying the Harry Dresden series. An..."
I made the mistake of reading Skin Trade after not having read an Anita Blake since CERULEAN SINS. Wont' do that again!!
Melodie wrote:"I still really enjoy the Dresden books. Each one seems to bring a little something new to the table and you might like Turn Coat as a lot happens in it. I was getting burned out on the Nightside books with the whole Lilith thing and was glad when it was concluded because I like the books again. "I have been told Turn Coat has a lot happening, and I will read it eventually - it's just with a large TBR pile, I haven't been able to find the motivation.
And I was the opposite with the Nightside. I liked the Lilith arc, mostly. I didn't like 'The Unnatural Inquirer' much because, besides being irritated with the succubus and that whole story line, it turned back into the "demon of the week" thing, which was getting tired. I'm rather hoping that Nightside introduces a new large, encompassing arc, because if it stays "monster of the week" for too long, considering the very formulaic method of investigation (i.e. John can't use his Gift for some reason, investigates some of the wrong people while the right person takes pot-shots at him, John rediscovers use of Gift or some other McGuffin, and "it's the easiest thing in the world" the end the story... )
I could tolerate the formula more if they did some real character development, but they never really get that far, either. But, still, they're fun popcorn reads - but, now, instead of going "Ooh, there's a new X book out, I have to get it" it's "Oh, there's a new X book out... I guess I'll get it when I run out of other stuff."
I still read and enjoy Harry Dresden. Hmm the Anita Blake series ma be too long but I don't think the Merry Gentry books are. ohh I think the Stepheny Plum series has gone on too long.
I should probably clarify that I'm only 4 books in on the Dresden series and I don't *personally* think it has gone on too long. I was just using it as an example. I think it's an excellent point that a series will stay fresh so long as the author continues to have original ideas and develops the characters. Unfortunately I see many series which have just become a "cash cow" for the author and he/she continues to crank out books regardless on quality.
I think that what often happens with a popular series is that the author accepts a contract to write a certain number of books and then has to produce them even if they've run out of ideas.
Harrison originally planned to end the Rachel Morgan series with The Outlaw Demon Wails, and I think you can see get a sense of that when you read it. Then again, I'd already heard her say that when I read it so I wasn't exactly neutral.I definitely felt like White Witch Black Curse had some elements of "crap, there's more story, I have to unresolve the things I just resolved."
**spoilers**
I really like Rachel and Ivy and I was disappointed that they didn't get together at the end of The Outlaw Demon Wails but frankly I was glad they finally seemed to reach a resolution and even if it wasn't the one I would have preferred, at least the will they/won't they was finally over. And then, of course, it wasn't.
/spoiler
Jim Butcher at one point said he had 22 or 23 books plotted out for Dresden. I'm okay with that. My peeve with him is that you really have to track down all his stories in anthologies or you can miss important things.
He also has a habit of skipping a year or more between books because he thinks his characters should have lives between books. For Harry and other magic/supernatural creatures that's fine, but if he keeps doing it Murphy will be in a retirement home before the end.
I do think the Nightside series has gone on too long. It seems to have lost focus.
If you like Walker, I'd recommend The Spy Who Haunted Me, which is part of his Shaman Bond series. Walker plays a prominent part in that book.
I agree that some series definitely go on too long. I'm feeling that way about Kenyon's Dark Hunters. Although I'm really looking forward to Fang and Aimee's story next month, I don't care for the change in direction the series has taken post Acheron. And really, I think it should have ended with his book.
I've only read the first of the Shaman Bond series so far. Simon Green seems to have one general plotline, with slightly different characters and settings. Don't get me wrong - they can be fun popcorn books, but I haven't decided whether or not I want to commit myself to another series which is already all too familiar. (I've read his Hawk & Fisher series, too, aside from the Nightside one.)
blackrose wrote: "I've only read the first of the Shaman Bond series so far. Simon Green seems to have one general plotline, with slightly different characters and settings. Don't get me wrong - they can be fun po..."I've got the first 2 Shaman Bond books, but haven't read either of them. Something else always seems to be calling my name.
blackrose,The Spy Who Haunted Me is different from the other books in the series. There's very little mention of Drood family politics and the only time he deals with the rest of the Drood family is in the beginning. Molly isn't in it very long either. I really liked the change.
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.
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.
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"!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: "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.
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*
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).
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. :)
**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.
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.
*****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.
Zombie?!?! I missed something... I may have to re-read that book again.Spoiler ~~~ Spoiler
Oh Pierce...the ghost dude. Right?
*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.
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.
Vanessa, I would love for Rachel and Al to end up together! Al is my favorite character - even more so than Jenks.
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.
Urban Fantasy
Books mentioned in this topic
Any Given Doomsday (other topics)The Spy Who Haunted Me (other topics)
White Witch, Black Curse (other topics)
The Spy Who Haunted Me (other topics)
The Outlaw Demon Wails (other topics)
More...
I made a comment on another thread that I felt that Laurell K. Hamilton's Merry Gentry series had gone on for too long. Let's be honest- how long can an author really drag out a book that's based on a premise of sex with a gang of dudes until a pregnancy results?
I was wondering if other people feel the same way about A) that series in particular and B) other series in general. While the Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice are not urban fantasy, I think that's a good example of another series that ran too long. It's something that occurred to me as some favourite series are starting to really stack up a huge number of books- Riley Jensen, Harry Dresden, and Rachel Morgan all spring to mind.
Thoughts?