How many Books in a Series is too much?

[Yrret]

Any number over 4 books.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

For me it's about the arc. Does the author have a plan? Are they sticking to it? How much feels like filler? Does each book progress the story in a meaningful and satisfying way? If so, I'll read all of them if I like each book in the series!

But once that author hits filler? I'm out, unless it's for very VERY good reason and still fun in its own right.

[Mei ☽︎]

Yeah, for me, the sweet spot is also about 3-5. As others said, it definitely depends on the author though. It is fun to read longer series if there are standalones/duets within it too though!

[Rick]

'tells one overarching story' and 'follows the life of a particular character' are necessarily different things.

I think they are. What you describe as 'why are the fae living the way they are' isn't really a story, is it? It's more of a background theme.

The Dresden series follows the life and times of one Harry Dresden, but that doesn't make those life and times single story.

As for number of books... I think more than a trilogy needs to be justified by the additional books/pages being necessary to tell the story.

There are two kinds of padding that I dislike... one is where nothing much happens but the pages are just there to let the writer and the reader to spend time in the world. The second kind is the "let's add 14 different subplots just because" variety.

Ok, 14 is an exaggeration but you get the point. The writer is inviting me in to tell me a story. Don't leave that to talk about things that don't really affect the main story you lured me in with. SOME subplots etc are necessary. Some are not. The former kind usually contribute to illuminate the main story.

[Becky]

Rick wrote: "Ok, 14 is an exaggeration but you get the point. The writer is inviting me in to tell me a story. Don't leave that to talk about things that don't really affect the main story you lured me in with. SOME subplots etc are necessary. Some are not. The former kind usually contribute to illuminate the main story."

I think it really comes down to the author and their skill at making me CARE about the subplots and side-quests and stuff, and those pieces being relevant. I am all for a complex and interconnected and nuanced world with many moving parts and aspects, if it adds to the whole. But if it's just lack of focus or pacing, then I'm with you - let's stay on topic and follow the story we're all here for.

[Steen]

I love series... I feel comfortable with series.. that be series like Lotr, Star trek or ranger's apprentice. A few underrated series (imho) is Jovian Uprising, 2315 or his Time patrol series starting with Codename: Athena

Most of the series i prefer is series where the story is completed within 1 or 2 books... and a new story starts. This way i dont have to connect with a new main character

[Jacqueline]

I seem to lose interest after about 4 or 5 so I’m saying 5. Except for Murderbot. There is no limit for Murderbot.

I read the first 4 Outlander books and then was eagerly waiting for 5 to come out and even though I bought it I have never got around to reading it. I ended up felling “meh” about what happened to them after 4 even though I loved the first 4 books. And I’m so over them I can’t be bothered watching the TV series.

I was really enjoying Karen Marie Moning’s Fever series and got to 4 or 5 and never got back to them.

Love love loved Assassin’s Apprentice by Robin Hobb but was overwhelmed by the amount of other books in the series and haven’t got any further with it even though I own most of them. One day….one day. Same goes for Jasper Fforde and the Thursday Next novels, Chronicles of St Mary’s, and the Stephanie Plum books. Oh and Sue Grafton’s books. I think I got bored at C is for Corpse. And I’m stuck at 3 or 4 in James Patersons Women’s Murder Club series. I’d like to read Wheel of Time and the other series with lots of books but they’re just too overwhelming for me.

[Stephen]

I started Sue Grafton’s series when “N” was the most recent, went back to “A” and read the earlier ones, and then followed them through to the end. (“Y” I think?) My take is that I like the Kinsey Milhone character and love her voice, in which the books are narrated, but I think the earliest books are the tightest and most interestingly written. Some of the later ones were fairly weak. I just started a reread and in fact read C is for Corpse just this past week. Good book, in my opinion.

An interesting thing Grafton did was to actually have Kinsey age at a rate of several months between the books, so that by the end the world of the stories was somewhere in the late 80s, though the novels were being published in the 2010s. Interesting as a workaround to the problem of either ignoring the passage of time or else having a 60-something main character running around acting much younger.

[Kaia]

Jacqueline wrote: "I seem to lose interest after about 4 or 5 so I’m saying 5. Except for Murderbot. There is no limit for Murderbot.”

Agreed, Jacqueline! I could keep reading Murderbot books indefinitely. :-)

[Jerome]

Really depends on the overall arc and the writer's plan for the story. I don't like it when a series is announced for a certain number (eg, trilogy) and then later grows to a higher number.

[Becky]

Jerome wrote: "Really depends on the overall arc and the writer's plan for the story. I don't like it when a series is announced for a certain number (eg, trilogy) and then later grows to a higher number."

Like The Hitchhiker’s Guide 5 book trilogy with an extra 6th book!

[Joseph]

That would be like 2 trilogies.

[David]

More than Tolkien, but less than Jordan!

[Becky]

Joseph wrote: "That would be like 2 trilogies."

But it’s not! Lol

[Mihai]

I`m just rereading the Stormlight Archive series and this topic is very timely.

My feeling is that many series should have stopped at one book, max three. For example, Dune, The Sword of Truth by Terry Goodkind, The Wheel of Time, Riftwar or The Stormlight Archive. It becomes obvious that many chapters or books are just filler content made to increase sales. Ofc I have some guilty pleasure series where I ignore this fault.

[Ryan, Your favourite moderators favourite moderator]

I'm perfectly fine with an author flexing their literary muscles over any number of books in a series, but the longer it goes on the harder it is to earn a high rating from me. Much of it becomes mundane in a cosy manner with the author doing little new. I can still like it but when I think about my enjoyment of the later books in a series I'm not sure how much of it is due to the groundwork previuosly laid.

I recently read the sixth book in Rachel Neumeier's Tuyo series and absolutely loved it even though it essentially did all the things the series always does, highlight the importance of consent. I'm almost guaranteed to be a day one reader of book seven when it's released later this year.

The problem with filler is only when it takes up an entire book or we readers are left only caring about the culmination of the story. I want enjoyable and thorough explorations of an idea linked to the setting, even if it comes at the cost of ignoring the plot.

[Amy (Other Amy)]

Rick wrote: " What you describe as 'why are the fae living the way they are' isn't really a story, is it? It's more of a background theme."

I think it's the most interesting story, myself. (And in this series at least, what is background in early books becomes central plot later on.) Totally agree with you on padding for the sake of padding, though.

[Ryan, Your favourite moderators favourite moderator]

'Why do these people live like this?' is a story I'm much more interested in reading than 'how do we stop this power hungry megalomaniac from killing us all?'.

[Becky]

Ryan wrote: "'Why do these people live like this?' is a story I'm much more interested in reading than 'how do we stop this power hungry megalomaniac from killing us all?'."

Agreed. Cultures and peoples are interesting. Power hungry megalomaniacs are boring and predictable.

[Rick]

Ryan wrote: "'Why do these people live like this?' is a story I'm much more interested in reading than 'how do we stop this power hungry megalomaniac from killing us all?'."

well yes. But my point is that the question isn't a story in itself. The answer to it can be but then I'd wonder how many answers do we as readers need to have? Certainly there can be more than one since (to continue the fae example) there are different fae characters and in lore, different types of fae. But do we need 8 answers to this? 20? 50?

In a series that tells different stories but in a shared world, I think the response to that is "as many as are distinct answers and thus distinct stories." Which brings us back to the issue of padding. Fiction IS a flat circ... wait what?

[Leonie]

I'm currently re-reading Jim Butcher's Dresden series again, and I have to say I'm really enjoying the fact that there are currently 17. I do like a good series, and don't mind how long it is as long as each book is good.

[Banshee]

I don't believe there exists such a thing as "too many books in a series". From personal perspective, I can enjoy both trilogies and series that have 10+ installments as long as they keep me interested. It doesn't matter, if there's one overarching storyline, or the novels are more loosely connected. If it's well-written, I'll keep reading. If I lose interest, I'll just DNF, and there will always be other people who will keep enjoying that series.

What also came to my mind when reading this thread was the discussions that keep re-surfacing when a standalone or a series unexpectedly gets a companion. This happened among others to Twilight series, The Hunger Games series and The Handmaid's Tale. Every time there were a lot of angry voices calling those new books "unnecessary" or "a cash grab". But there were also so many people that were happy that those novels came out. I strongly believe that as long as there are readers who are happy for them, there is no such thing as an unnecessary sequel/prequel or a series that's too long.

[Hans]

It really depends on the series. For example, the Alex Verus series by Benedict Jacka with 12 books in my opinion overstayed its welcome by at least two books. It kept repeating the same conflicts and basically concentrated on one main story arc for its entire duration, which felt stretched.

And while I was really looking forward to the return of the Dresden Files, book 16 and 17 felt surprisingly stale and now I'm not so sure anymore whether I want this series to go on for much longer.

On the other hand, the Sandman Slim series by Richard Kadrey didn't need to end with book 12 if I had anything to say about it and the Daniel Faust series by Craig Schaefer can go on forever if the quality stays the same. Same goes for the Charlie Parker books by John Connolly.

So I guess it really depends on the series and wether the author can still come up with good ideas and keep things fresh.

[Rick]

I love the Sandman Slim series but I can see how it was getting hard to tell fresh stories. I mean, Stark's endgame was never going to be 'settle down and sell insurance.' The Daniel Faust books are fun but again, it can't go on forever.

But I'm not a reader who likes a book just because it lets me revisit a familiar world. Sure, that's fun, but if the characters aren't growing and the plot is a retread... move on.

[Lana ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ]

How many books should a series have? Most people seem to agree 3-5 which I agree with, but I think it depends on the genre and how much time each book dedicates to world building.

[Mary]

If it's a single story, three, maybe four books.

If it contains stories, it can go on forever, as long as the stories, and still more, character arcs, end

Therefore, in my experience, the best series are those in which the unifying factor is the setting, not the characters, even. If you want a continuing character (maybe two, possibly three), put that character where he would plausibly be meeting new situations and new supporting characters. Keep the main character the same, let him resolve the problem, and let their interaction with him cause the supporting characters to have character arcs and then separate from him so as to leave a place for a new character.

[Amy (Other Amy)]

That's interesting, Mary. I find I have a hard time continuing a series through cast changes. (Following a beloved side character into their own arc works well, though.) It almost becomes a different series in my mind.

[ShooF]

To me there is a difference in how the author deals with it, for instance (my first introduction to the fantasy genre) the Mallorean is 5 books , likewise the Bellgariad (David Eddings) but each book is a step closer to the climatic end, nothing is over done. Terry Goodkinds Sword of Truth was the same until about Book6 then it really was "rinse & repeat" & although I could be reading the wrong authors! That seems to be what I'm finding more a more of, especially where we have to believe that the MC is so naïve time after time after time.
I agree with Amy as far as characters go, far easier to continue reading when you have something invested in the character, Anthony Ryan's Raven's Shadow is a case in point, the MC from Books 1&2 becomes little more than a bit character in Book 3, so much so that I have never finished the series nor read another of his novels- why risk reading a series if the character/s that you invest in are no longer part of the story in later Books!

[Bnz]

Well, it depends on what constitutes "a series". Here are several examples:

Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan saga consists of 16 novels and 5 novellas (IIRC) - I had no problems reading them all, in internal chronological sequence, during the lockdown and I didn't have enough.

Iain M. Banks's Culture series shares the same universe, but only one human character (plus another, kind of) appears in two works (there might be recurring appearances of Minds - I am not sure). There is no real "story arc", although one monumental event, central to one of the novels, is mentioned elsewhere. Again, I could have one new one monthly, instead one every two years the late Master produced in good years. (Note to fans: don't neglect "non-M" works!)

Then there are good crime authors, such as P. D. James or Louise Penny - I read all by the former and have just started the latter, but one a year seems to be a good cadence. Baroness James has not faltered in her writing skills - I could certainly continue reading her work has death not stopped her.

OTOH, there are (usually new) authors whose first novels are often marked as "first in epic saga" or somesuch. Those are usually not worth reading at all.

In short, there might be too long "story arc" series, but if they are good (like Bujold's), one arc fluidly transforms into the next, with an occasional side-trip, everything worth reading. In those series there are no "cliff-hangers" - every novel or novella stand for themselves, although a bit of context usually helps. OTOH, if one gets tired by the series, it is usually pretty close to the beginning - they are just not good.

[Mary]

Amy (Other Amy) wrote: "That's interesting, Mary. I find I have a hard time continuing a series through cast changes. (Following a beloved side character into their own arc works well, though.) It almost becomes a differe..."

True, it's hard to keep a series going solely through a setting, but there are those who manage it. Terry Pratchett pops to mind.

[J.M.A.]

A new volume needs to introduce significant deepening of setting/lore, or to develop and resolve established, major storylines. I think the storylines are much more important.

[Sarah]

The Cradle series by Will Wight successfully tells one character's POV/plot over the course of 13 books (so far).

And I think he does need 13 books to explore that storyline which is unique for sure.

[Tyler]

My opinion, long as the story stays alive and doesn’t have an empty feel or a “god will this ever end” feel can’t be too long. There are series that have left me wishing it wasn’t over.

[Sam]

I think any number around 10 is okay, such as 8-15 books in a series. Other than that, it's too much. Especially, if each book is 400+ pages.

[Tyler]

@Sam yeah I can see that. Trying to get through The Wheel of Time series, on book 7 and I think there are like 14 of them. Every one 900+ pages. Lol!! 😂

[Dana]

Quick answer, no, there is no number that's too many.
To explain, as long as the author has something to say, and is not just trying to fulfill a contract for example, I am ok with as many as is needed or the author wants to write.
OTOH there are series where number 2 was too many.
And you need to answer what is a series. The Expanse books, yes. Banks SF books, mostly, but most are not directly connected.

[Tyler]

@Dana yes The Expanse is an excellent example. I have read book 1 & 2 but I know that series is huge!

[Kandice]

Tyler wrote: "@Dana yes The Expanse is an excellent example. I have read book 1 & 2 but I know that series is huge!"

It is, but is in no way bloated! It deserves every volume.

[Tyler]

That’s why I started it, because I heard the volume was very much needed, and in no way feels dragged on. I can wait to start the third book, three quarters way through Book 7 in The Wheel of Time series right now.

By the way, how did you reply like that? By showing what you replying too. Can’t find a way to do that with the phone app.

[Kandice]

Tyler wrote: "That’s why I started it, because I heard the volume was very much needed, and in no way feels dragged on. I can wait to start the third book, three quarters way through Book 7 in The Wheel of Time ..."

I don't think you can on the app. You have to open GR in a browser.

[Rick]

Gerald wrote: "If the books are short 12 episodes are great
If the books are big four should be maximum"

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes"

(which is one of the more amusingly ironic quotes in the Star Wars universe)

[Tyler]

@Rick awesome! Love the comment 🤣

[Paulette]

I love C J Cherryh's Foreigner series. It's up to 19 volumes now with another scheduled for the fall. I reread the whole series whenever a new book comes out.

[Becky]

Tyler wrote: "@Dana yes The Expanse is an excellent example. I have read book 1 & 2 but I know that series is huge!"

It is, but SO good. I'm currently re-reading the entire thing, including side stories, in publish order. It's my happy place right now, despite nothing in it being happy-making at all. LOL

It's EXCELLENT on audio, if you're into audiobooks. Jefferson Mays is fantastic.

[Tyler]

Yes The Expanse is awesome, I just finished book two I love how it ended!!! 😁

[Phil]

Working on the 15th and final volume of Anderson's Into the Storm Destroyermen series. Probably the longest series I have read, but so good!

That stated, it is rare to find a series more than a trilogy that keeps my interest.

[Beth]

Becky wrote: "So for me, maybe it's more along the lines of whether there's a plan or a goal for the whole series or not. If there is, and the books are good, then let's go. But if they are just a paycheck with no quality control or SERIES STORY to tell, then what are we doing?"

Becky's answer here is my ideal, but

Jacqueline wrote: "I seem to lose interest after about 4 or 5 so I’m saying 5. Except for Murderbot. There is no limit for Murderbot."

Jacqueline's is more how things turn out in practice for me. I have an actual spreadsheet of series I'm following and/or have completed, and aside from Discworld, which I've read a good dozen volumes of, I haven't read more than five volumes of any series, whether of the "one long story in 2+ books" or "standalone stories with the same setting and/or characters" type.

I get tired of an author's style, their repetition of basic plot arcs, pacing, tone, etc. after about five volumes go by. (this includes Discworld, btw) And there's always a new author's books to try, so not finishing much of anything series-wise shouldn't bother me all that much... though it does.

[Beth]

As an addendum, in Jo Walton's blog post that Rick pointed out way back in message 8, she says: "What I can’t stand is when I pick up a random book in a bookshop or the library and it’s part of a series and that isn’t clearly indicated anywhere on it."

There's a series that I'm five volumes into (I will not say the series name or author) where the publisher, from the beginning, has only put the title and series name on the cover. From reviews I've read on here, this series is starting to lose long-term readers because a good chunk of each volume is spent explaining previous events in the series, and not getting to the new stuff until hundreds of pages have gone by. I can't imagine new readers getting much out of a volume fifteen, or whatever, that takes this approach, either. To me it seems like author, publisher and readers would benefit from the honesty of putting the volume number visibly on the cover. But, as Walton herself notes in the post, that isn't within the author's control, but the marketing team's.

[Becky]

Beth wrote: "From reviews I've read on here, this series is starting to lose long-term readers because a good chunk of each volume is spent explaining previous events in the series, and not getting to the new stuff until hundreds of pages have gone by. I can't imagine new readers getting much out of a volume fifteen, or whatever, that takes this approach, either. To me it seems like author, publisher and readers would benefit from the honesty of putting the volume number visibly on the cover."

This is crazy. I can understand a certain amount of recapping, but HUNDREDS of pages before the current volume can even start is insane. There's no way I would want to read that. Some reminders are OK, but I would prefer for the onus to be on the reader to have worked their way to that point and know what happened to get there, unless the author can include reminders in a better way than rehashing everything again and again.

I'm sure everyone is sick of my comments on the Expanse series, but I'm gonna go for one more, because the way that they incorporated past events and reminders into the story worked really really well. There was no infodumping, it would just come up in dialogue or a character's internal musing or some sort of organic way when past info was relevant to the reader to remember what happened before - even several books before, and as that series does have a full and overarching series storyline which each book tells a smaller part of, it's really well done to keep things moving but not lose track of the way that so many things happened to get from point A to point Z.

[Nicky]

Allison wrote: "For me it's about the arc. Does the author have a plan? Are they sticking to it? How much feels like filler? Does each book progress the story in a meaningful and satisfying way? If so, I'll read a..."

I'm just butting in this thread and say I agree here. I used to like the series of The First Mountain Man and subsequent books, but once I hit book 3 or 4, it began to feel like a gigantic filler, with storylines that didn't make sense and the main character who didn't seem to grow as a person. There was no arc or progression. 😢
I knew from the beginning that the books were no artistic masterpiece, more like a dime a dozen novels, but at least the new-ness of them was fun, they were refreshing and tummy-aching funny. But once that's worn off, I was left with nothing.😠
I'll let you have a stab at how many books there are in the series. Hint: there are 30 of them .

I'll tell you even better, this author is still going strong on another series of his, beginning with The Last Mountain Man. Number of books? Book 51 is coming out this year.😱

I'm sorry, but I've long tapped out.