How Many Books to a Series? What is your thought?

[Scarlet]

I never actually read a long series... the first thing I check in a new book is how long is the series is because I' scared of reading anything longer than a trilogy.. but I'm trying to open up and start reading longer series just to know how it feels...now I'm reading a 4 books series.. YAY!!!!

[Marina]

I like long series, but I prefer to read them when they are complete. I don't like waiting years in between, then having to remember everything that happened, and also some series get worse over time. I don't want to get committed to a series and get stuck reading 4-5 bad books just to finish; I want to know that the whole series was good.

[carol. , Senor Crabbypants]

Marianne wrote: "Can I say that I have never been a fan of series in general. I like the story to have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Revisting the same characters is almost like being stuck in a bad marriage."

Unless, of course, you like the people... :)

[Sandra]

Marianne wrote: "Even liking the people, I feel the series runs get boring because the author has to keep churning out books. Case in point, I did enjoy all the Harper Connelly novels because of character progressi..."

Well that's just your opinion. I love series if the characters are people I want to spend time with. As to how many? It depends on the story.

[Jim]

Marianne, I was just the opposite with Harris' series. I thought Harper Connelly was too whiny to live & hated her. I much preferred Aurora & Lily. I liked everything else about Harper's world, though. Sookie is fun, but getting old.

Most series that concentrate on a single character get old fairly quickly for me, though. I think your point about the bad marriage is a good one. Some of the long series that I've really liked have kept my attention by having different characters.

L.E. Modesitt Jr.'s Recluce series is a prime example. The order that he wrote them in skips all around through time & characters. That creates so many opportunities to hold my interest. For instance, the early books are all told from one side of a struggle; order & chaos. Half a dozen books in, I was convinced that chaos was bad, but then he wrote a book from one of the chaos wizard's POVs. One early book talked about a struggle a century before & 8 or 10 books later he wrote about it & we get to see how time & politics changed the story. IOW, both books were fascinating for a lot more than the story they told. The series went on, even though individual characters didn't.

[Janny]

The essential point of a long form work is to allow more depth in the depiction the characters and setting. If each book reveals more, and the twists involved surprise the reader with changes in viewpoint of the events in the earlier volumes, the perspective gained makes the length worthwhile. More, if the series sticks with the same characters, then the impact of events must evolve and change them, as life does. The angsty teen can't stay that way for multiple books, their outlook has to mature - that is where a series work comes into its own - it creates the opportunity to handle such depth, and for even secondary characters to grow with the same intricacy usually reserved for protagonists.

It is essential that the series' author knows up front and plans their story for the long haul. Many series that have 'sequels' cobbled together after the fact fail because, so sadly, it becomes glaringly obvious the foresight and depth required for a topflight multi-volume work was never there to begin with.

The knee jerk opinion I've seen bandied about too often - that large series 'only happen' for the money - is in many cases mistaken. NOT every series is created to milk the market. Many were designed as a long form work from the start, and were not ever - one whit motivated by the financial return.

All series can't be unilaterally damned for the flaws of the ones that fail to satisfy. I do feel, given the ongoing glut of the series format, that discernment is necessary. As a reader, I carefully pick and choose for the ones that fit the bill.

[Jalilah]

Compared to others in this group I have not read a lot of series. My favourites are ones that do not have many books out yet; Jane Yellowrock has 5 and Mercedes Thompson 6. The only series I’ve read that was longer was Sookie Stackhouse, and as far as I am concerned, it should have wrapped up and finished a long time ago. It really lost its steam; in fact I have not even been tempted to read the newest one. I agree that trilogies are often best.
While I do get attached to characters and like to keep reading about them, I agree that it must be a difficult task for writers to keep inspired about a series.
I like the way Charles de Lint
created his Newford series. Each novel is a standalone, but they take place in the same universe. I could go on reading that series forever! I wish De Lint would continue!

[Amelia]

Marianne wrote: "What got me thinking about series was Robert Jorden. I have never read his books. My husband interviewed him early on. The author had a clear ending in mind. I do think he was talked into expanding..."

From what I understand, Robert Jordan has completely written the ending. Brandon Sanderson, the author who's finishing the series, is using has immense notes to write the series the way Jordan wanted it to be. He's working closely with Robert Jordan's widow.

[Sharon]

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Well that's just your opinion. I love series if the characters are people I want to spend time with. As to how many? It depends on the story. "

This is one reason I do like finding series/characters that I like, it's just like visiting with a very good friend again.

They do have to have a framework that allows for a complete 'story' within that book, though there will always be some ongoing progression. I have several police/detective series that I've followed for years, would have to count to know how many books to date and I'm not tired of them yet. Robert Parker did it well with his Spenser series, John Sandford with Lucas Davenport in his "Prey" series and before that, John D MacDonald with Travis McGee.

The fantasy series I follow are not as numerous. I think it is more difficult to design a long running series in fantasy. The temptation is to work it around a quest and I do find long quests tiresome. Of the fantasy series I follow, Jane Yellowrock is going strong with 5 books. Mercedes Lackey has designed a series that works well (the 500 Kingdom series) by building story/plot in the same world but each book is framed around a different group of main characters, although some of the original characters return in supporting roles.

I will agree that many series just simply fail to hold my interest but I think it is more because the author runs out of storylines or simply gets tired of the characters and it bleeds through into the books eventually.

[Jim]

Sharon wrote: "...I will agree that many series just simply fail to hold my interest but I think it is more because the author runs out of storylines or simply gets tired of the characters and it bleeds through into the books eventually. "

or they get weird like Laurell K. Hamilton.

[Scott]

Marianne wrote: "Can I say that I have never been a fan of series in general. I like the story to have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Revisting the same characters is almost like being stuck in a bad marriage."

Personally, I prefer a series to single books. I think of them as one big book, they have a beginning middle and end, they are just spread over several books. That is why I prefer to start a series after all the books are written, so that waiting on the next book does not interrupt the bigger story. But that is just me.

[Olga]

I think most series get 'tired' after 5 or 7 books, especially when they are about the same hero. Nothing I've read so far disabused me of that notion. Even when I love the characters in book one, by installment #8 or 10 at the most, the author runs out of things to say. Usually at that point a story grows much darker.
Even series connected by a world, not a hero, like Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar series, become stale after a dozen books.
Most series I ever read are only good in the beginning.

[Brenda]

One series that seems to be consistently good over many volues is te Aubrey and Maturin novels of Patrick O'Brian. However most series do get stale; it is a wise author who can switch protagonists or settings and keep it going.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Olga wrote: "I think most series get 'tired' after 5 or 7 books, especially when they are about the same hero. Nothing I've read so far disabused me of that notion. Even when I love the characters in book one, ..."

This is pretty much how I feel. It's sad but true. And series are starting to explode in both number and page count...while readers are suffering from series overload.

[Sharon]

MrsJoseph wrote: "Olga wrote: "I think most series get 'tired' after 5 or 7 books, especially when they are about the same hero. Nothing I've read so far disabused me of that notion. Even when I love the characters ..."

"This is pretty much how I feel. It's sad but true. And series are starting to explode in both number and page count...while readers are suffering from series overload. "

Series have to be very good before I follow them seriously enough to own to re-read and I have to say that only a few of the long running series have made it there for me and those are mystery or military sci-fi. It seems those two lend themselves better to long running, as the same characters can either have a new case to solve every book, or a new battle to fight.

I can't do the quest fantasy series past a trilogy, and often not even that ... but have to admit with the Kindle downloads I've 'discovered' one UF series that looks like it could make it past the limit, Jane Yellowrock. Local library doesn't carry much of the UF and I discovered Yellowrock from a free download for the first book. It sagged a bit with books 3 and 4 but the last book was very much back to "wow" again so I do have hope it will continue.

[Patrick]

It depends.

Most series tend to suffer as they approach 10 books. Continuing series are worse. If you can't get to the conclusion in 1000 pages, I've generally given up. A series with the same character in multiple stand alone books can do better, like Flashman or Harry Dresden or Spencer or Vlad Taltos, but an author has to try hard not to start repeating him or herself.

I think the market drive fiction that way. Publishers like series because the following books have a built in audience, where stand alone books by the same author may not. If Jim Butcher writes a new Dresden Files book, it's pretty much guaranteed to sell well. If he branches out and tries something different, it's a gamble.

And publishing has become a very risk averse industry.

[Bill]

I don't like to generalize. It depends on the series. I like to have a long stay in a world or universe. "Vacations" are like this. A week or two vacation for me is a hassle. If I go somewhere, like Britain eg, I want to stay for 2 or 3 years before moving on

The very long series I love tend to be artistic and require close reading, especially those that are a continuing series. Janny's magnum opus—Erikson's Malazan series, Dune and Cherryh's Foreigner series, eg. These tend towards literary fiction. The long series I don't like are those I feel are done mainly to make money and not mainly for artistic purposes, like Jordan's travesty.

There are series that occur in the same universe, but are separate stories, like Cherryh's Company Wars, Riftwar, Pern... Some of these have multiple series within a grande series. The aforementioned I love too.

And there are some universes I just am compelled to live in, though the individual novels vary widely in interest and quality. The gigantic Star Wars and Star Trek series are in universes I'd like to never leave.

One series I loved at first, the original several Valdemar trilogies, later became uninteresting. I'm not sure if I got bored with the world or more interesting, better literature came along. SFF has changed a lot since The Last Herald-Mage and not a lot of other epic fantasy was available. I evened like Shannara at first. I guess the point is we've both grown up, fantasy and I.

[Jonathan]

I think however many the story actually warrants. There can come points in series where it's not about the story or the fans but merely milking an old franchise. At that point even many 'die-hard' fans will start becoming cynical.

[Audra]

I think a series that shows character progression/has a great continuing storyline a good thing, but I don't care for formulaic series.

[carol. , Senor Crabbypants]

Jonathan wrote: "I think however many the story actually warrants. There can come points in series where it's not about the story or the fans but merely milking an old franchise. At that point even many 'die-hard' ..."

Yes. In that sense, an author that has a vision for the series can make something very impressive over many books. Ilona Andrews comes to mind--they have 7 books planned for Kate Daniels series with a definite overarching story arc. Or, if the author incorporates character growth--the Matthew Scudder series in detective fiction are interesting for this. But there's many "series" that just rehash the same plot and character interactions. To be fair, they seem to be responding to what some readers want--otherwise, why would they sell so many?

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Carol wrote: "Yes. In that sense, an author that has a vision for the series can make something very impressive over many books. Ilona Andrews comes to mind--they have 7 books planned for Kate Daniels series with a definite overarching story arc. Or, if the author incorporates character growth--the Matthew Scudder series in detective fiction are interesting for this. But there's many "series" that just rehash the same plot and character interactions. To be fair, they seem to be responding to what some readers want--otherwise, why would they sell so many? "

OMG, yes!!!

Andre Norton comes to mind, too. At the end of her series she even "closed the door" to it being restarted or continued in any way past her death. She allowed some shorts and novellas and a 4 series set that discussed "mysteries" found in previous novels... but it should never restart.

[Jonathan]

Carol wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "I think however many the story actually warrants. There can come points in series where it's not about the story or the fans but merely milking an old franchise. At that point even..."

Yes. I like The Wheel of Time novels but there's a point the author reached where even though he had a plan for his series he was prolonging it to make extra dollars off readers in my mind and only his sickness forced him to get things back into shape.

It becomes tricky where each book is technically a stand alone and yet ties into an overall series. At times when the author keeps churning out the books you go 'well it looks like he's prolonging it to make more cash.' It's one reason I'm reluctant to keep going in the Dresden Files from book 1 since it doesn't look like an overall arc like some books but more recurring characters.

[Susan]

*Some* series and I say some because there are lots of series that I like, but some feel like fan fiction from the author themselves. As though they've found some characters to love, already have the setting, so they can just keep writing. Sometimes it is the publisher themselves who insist that an author cut off at a certain point. It is called 'shelf room'.
I know with the trilogy I wrote I set each story five hundred years apart, so the characters are very different but the premise of the world I created remains the same. Even then there is a story arc which goes through each novel.
I found the Wheel of Time tedious after a while, as I did The Game of Thrones to be honest. But people like Dorothy Dunnett and Janny are just not on the same level as far as I am concerned. With those authors you don't always see it as a series but a continuation of a much loved tale which never gets boring. The growth of the characters and their worlds continues to fascinate.

[Sharon]

Susan wrote: "With those authors you don't always see it as a series but a continuation of a much loved tale which never gets boring. The growth of the characters and their worlds continues to fascinate. "

And these are the series/authors that stay on my personal bookshelves for re-reading. Old friends.

[Sandra]

Sharon wrote: "Susan wrote: "With those authors you don't always see it as a series but a continuation of a much loved tale which never gets boring. The growth of the characters and their worlds continues to fasc..."

AMEN!!! Wurts and Dunnett are my favorite authors of all time.

[Susan]

I 'grew up' on Dorothy Dunnett. I fell in love with Lymond and then after that Niccolo. And then Janny comes along with Arithon - what is a poor girl meant to do?
But seriously, sheer writing. Enviable writing, which can make others' pale in comparison.
There are many authors who I adore to read, CJ Cherryh, Kate Elliott, CS Friedman. People who continually work at their craft and don't compromise, who all have very indivudual voices. I think they've all written eries or trilogies at one time or another and I've never been bored. It is never the length of a series just how they are written.

[Sandra]

It would be appreciated if remarks about being an author were confined to threads that are appropriate. There are plenty of them in this group. They are under 'Self Promotion' or 'Group Authors' or a TOPIC IN FOCUS for new authors. Please do this.

[Susan]

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "It would be appreciated if remarks about being an author were confined to threads that are appropriate. There are plenty of them in this group. They are under 'Self Promotion' or 'Group Authors' ..."
Sorry Sandra, I didn't see it as a comment about me but the way my thought processes work. Duly noted.

[Jim]

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "It would be appreciated if remarks about being an author were confined to threads that are appropriate. There are plenty of them in this group. They are under 'Self Promotion' or 'Group Authors' ..."

I didn't see anything out of line. I've left two groups because the moderators bashed authors too much. I hope this group isn't another such.

I'd guess an author spends a lot of time thinking about their story & their thoughts on why they extended times or settings to continue series are certainly as valid as the rest of our opinions. No books were mentioned by name. I think it was a nasty comment.

[R.M.F.]

I, Curmudgeon wrote: "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..."

So you'll be the first to but book 14 in the wheel of time series then? :)

14 book is crazy. I mentioned it in another thread on this site, but how much further can they take this saga. It makes War and Peace look like the description on a cereal box!

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Jim wrote: "I've left two groups because the moderators bashed authors too much. I hope this group isn't another such."

This group is sensitive to spamming - but we do not allow the bashing or harassing of anyone. If you notice anyone being harassed or something like that, please contact a Mod asap.

[Nyssa, Don't make me get the ruler!]

I might have agreed with the "dead wood" statement if The Dresden Files didn't just throw that theory right out of the window!! Cold Days is one of the best books in the now 14 books, but intended to be, 23 books series!
Jim Butcher has already planned out his over all story with 20 "single" books and a trilogy conclusion. His writing has improved with each book.

The Honor Harrington series' first 8 books were fantastic, but took a toll (IMO) in book 9. The Black Dagger Brother series is still going strong 10 books in, as is The Hollows. So really,m it all just depends on the author and the reader.

[carol. , Senor Crabbypants]

Jim wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "It would be appreciated if remarks about being an author were confined to threads that are appropriate. There are plenty of them in this group. They are under 'Self Promot..."


Since Sandy's statement didn't make sense in the context of Marianne's, but who is comfortable bringing up her works, I'm guessing Marianne edited her statement.

As MrsJ said, we aren't anti-author. I happen to love their products as a whole. But I am strongly anti-advertisement, no matter how veiled. Some start threads or engage in conversations merely to mention their own books. It's usually obvious from checking their posts--they all seem to be about themselves, and not about the reading experience, but how they wrote such and such this way to avoid this and that. It's a very sore spot for me--I believe the groups I've joined are specifically for book readers (or social), and authors who join as a medium for introducing their books are breaking that social contract. It's adding insult to injury when the ingenuous response is "oh, that's not what I meant."

So not anti-author. Just burned by experience from the self-promoting ones.

[carol. , Senor Crabbypants]

Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "It would be appreciated if remarks about being an author were confined to threads that are appropriate. There are plenty of them in this group. They are under 'Self Promotion' or 'Group Authors' ..."

To be honest, re-reading, I think this was a mis-post on Sandy's or GR's part. As you may or may not know, Sandy moderates another fantasy group that has a "Topics in Focus" section.

[Jim]

Carol, the reply of Sandra's in #83 seems to be directed at Susan in #78. Am I incorrect? If so, my apologies to Sandra. I am aware of two groups she moderates, although I am not a member of either.

If this was a mis-post, I think we should hear that from Sandra since Susan apologized in #84 & that is what I thought was unfair. If authors feel they need to apologize for well thought out answers, we'll never hear from them, which is our loss - at least mine. I'm interested in books & their opinions from their side of the craft. It's a different perspective, one with their experience behind it.

It's not self-promotion to say they handled something a specific way in a general group of books (which Susan did, not even naming them) it's simply a statement of fact & one I would have liked to explore more. 500 years is a long time & I'm not sure the world would remain the same. Ours certainly hasn't, but that sort of static world seems to be the rule in many fantasy worlds. It does tend to help tie the world together, but what are the pitfalls?

[Jim]

One of the things that limits series for me is time. How much action can happen in a certain amount of time before my suspension of belief snaps & it's just ridiculous? A lot depends on how popular the character(s) become which can become a function of the shelf space that Susan mentioned in #78. Doc Savage comes to mind. That series was just popular, but never tried to be anything other than fun.

Some try to stay serious to some extent, so the heroes become ageless, like James Bond. That's tough to do well. It's always a weak point & their origins get lost. Today's Bond obviously couldn't have learned his trade in WWII as the original did. I don't think Knight could do that in his Vampire Earth series, though. Valentine is aging. If he stops, it might ruin the series for me.

Fantasy books can have more leeway with character age, of course. KEW's Kane is immortal, cursed by a mad god to live until the violence he brought into the race brings him down. Last I read, he was still alive & kicking in modern London, but Wagner's time line for Kane's world doesn't try for a lot of realism. It's shrouded in myth & magic. That works well for keeping that series going, but today there is more of a trend toward realism in fantasy, at least for me.

Back in #57, I mentioned Modesitt's Recluse series. He does what Susan mentions she did & covers a long span of time, but Modesitt does it better than most, IMO. While the physical world remains much the same, society & technology change. Characters speak of older civilizations with slight name changes & understandable historical inaccuracies. It adds a lot of realism & depth to the series & helps keep it interesting.

Modesitt also skips around in the chronology of the world as he builds different themes & our understanding of the rules of the world. About midway through the series, the latest in the chronology, one of the major themes culminates, but I'm still interested in reading about the rest of the world. That's pretty cool.

What other devices have been used to break logical limitations on series like time? What are the other logical limitations?

Technology comes to mind as one. I've lost my taste for fantasy worlds that have static technology. Tolkien's world is one such. While I loved the original books, I never cared for expanding the history much because there wasn't enough technological change in it, IMO. Obviously, it worked for a lot of people, though.

[R.M.F.]

Carol wrote: "Jim wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "It would be appreciated if remarks about being an author were confined to threads that are appropriate. There are plenty of them in this group. They are under ..."

That's a fair point. I write books, but on this forum (and others) I'm a reader first and foremost.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Ok, so. Jim seems to be very offended regarding Sandra's comments to...

Susan?

Marianne?

Jim's not sure and neither am I. Carol had spoken on the matter but it seems Jim is still annoyed.

I will be PMing all parties in this matter. If it is brought up again in thread (outside of a Mods' comments) all comments regarding the matter will be deleted.

[Sandra]

OOOOOPPPPPPPSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SENIOR MOMENT HERE!!

SO sorry! I got confused about which group I was posting in so PLEASE PLEASE forgive my unforgivable, opinionated, nose butting in where it had no business remark.

SO SORRY. **slinks away with red face and tail between my legs***

[Robert]

"Episodic" series --Dresden, Star Trek, Doc Savage,etc--where books tell a story that stands alone can go almost indefinitely if the author(s) are still offer up a solid, creative tale. I still love a good Sherlock Holmes story, long after Conan Doyle is dead and countless others have touched the character.

Multi-part stories, for me, usually can't sustain past 3 or 4 books unless they take on some of the traits of the episodic tales. Thinking Harry Potter here, for example. The first few tell fairly stand-alone stories while laying the groundwork for an interwoven, over-arching storyline.

[Nyssa, Don't make me get the ruler!]

Robert wrote: ""Episodic" series --Dresden, Star Trek, Doc Savage,etc--where books tell a story that stands alone can go almost indefinitely if the author(s) are still offer up a solid, creative tale. I still lov..."


Excellent post Robert!!

[Brenda]

It is difficult, but possible, to write an openended series in which all the appealing and attractive things stay the same (so that readers can continue to return and enjoy the dragons, or the magic system or whatever) and yet have a cast of characters who develop, change, grow, and succeed or fail. A good example of one might be the Vorkosigan novels by Bujold, which have gone ten or twelve volumes now. Each one is different, and there is considerable growth of the various characters (except for the ones that die).

[Sophie]

Brenda wrote: "Each one is different, and there is considerable growth of the various characters (except for the ones that die). "

I had to laugh, but my cousin (killjoy) made the argument that in Fantasy it is possible for dead characters to continue "growing" since death doesn't always mean a character disappears. =/

In my experience, a series that never has any grand changes, like a death, tend to grow stagnant. It sounds strange to say, but I like when a major character dies. It means things will change, it means I might cry or celebrate. It makes the overall story more meaningful and gives me that much more reason to be attached to it. Why read the next book when I know its only a "Red Shirt" that will kick the bucket?

What I especially hate is the promise of an over-arching storyline that you never get close to. That was the biggest reason I gave up on Laurell K Hamilton. It was one step forward and ten steps back. Seanan McGuire's October Daye series is 6 books in now and I'm not in the least tired of it. It does have a very episodic feel, but every book has moved that little bit closer to the bigger picture. As long as McGuire keeps that momentum I'll keep reading.

[Brenda]

A great example of series where no real change is possible is the comic books. You know Superman will never die. Even when he does die -- and there is a funeral, a tombstone, and they probate his will! -- he gets better. How could it be otherwise, when there are movies to be made? Even any major change is not really possible; Batman will never lose his left leg at the knee (again, movies) or get married, settle down, and devote his energies to Worlds of Warcraft. It is still possible to write a great Batman or Superman story, but it's no longer easy.

[Heather]

I agree in that it depends on the series. As much ridicule as I got in high school, I love the Xanth series, which comprises of literally hundreds of novels. The reason he gets away with such things is Anthony has thousands of characters, only some of which are recurring (the king in Castle Roogna, his daughters Melody, Harmony, and Rhythm, etc.)
I also was a fan of the Harry Potter books and will admit that it was a well mapped out story line and that's what kept it from going stale. However, I'm reading the Sword of Truth series and will say that it's going quite stale because while it's mapped out, Goodkind appears to like to write long winded books, and it worked in first couple books, but in books where there is little to no action *glares at Faith of the Fallen* it just causes the reader to lose interest.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Heather wrote: "I agree in that it depends on the series. As much ridicule as I got in high school, I love the Xanth series, which comprises of literally hundreds of novels. The reason he gets away with such thing..."

I loved the Xanth series in HS.

[Heather]

MrsJoseph wrote: "Heather wrote: "I agree in that it depends on the series. As much ridicule as I got in high school, I love the Xanth series, which comprises of literally hundreds of novels. The reason he gets away..."

I'm so glad not to be the only one who loved them. It still hasn't become acceptable by most people to read them because they haven't been exposed by hipsters yet, but I won't be surprised when it does.
Had someone told me in high school that everything I loved and got made fun of for, from Star Wars to the Dune saga (which really shouldn't have been made into a series) would be cool in five years, I would have laughed in their face. But now... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFhgup...

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

You know!



But I do feel that way as well. I've been reading (and getting harassed about reading) this stuff since forever. Now it's everywhere and "cool."

But I'm not sure why piers never caught on to the hipsters. I think part of it is the fact that he's so ornery.

[carol. , Senor Crabbypants]

Could it be because he got excessively creepy?
Firefly

[Heather]

MrsJoseph wrote: "You know!





But I do feel that way as well. I've been reading (and getting harassed about reading) this stuff since forever. Now it's everywhere and "cool."

But I'm not sure why piers nev..."

I was the only high schooler who played D&D at my school, and now I'm finding out that it's become so popular that my sister's friends, who made fun of me for liking that sort of thing, are now DMing at my local used book shop on weekends.
Even funnier, I've noticed that the neurological condition that resulted in my social awkwardness and lack of coordination is now popular to use as a way to seem nerdy. In fact, I had a dealing with one of my friends making that claim even though he's the most neurotypical guy I know.
It could be that he's ornery, or that plays on words have never been popular, and his works are riddled with them. Personally, those kinds of things crack me up because it takes a few seconds to disseminate it, and then elicits a giggle. It could also be the whole panty obsession that a lot of his male characters seemed to have, but I would think that would appeal more to male readers who often encompass the fantasy genre.