Fantasy Aficionados discussion
Discussions about books
>
How Many Books to a Series? What is your thought?
I think maximum four books maximum, unless you have a really good story like Harry Potter.
I like trilogies and heptologies. Any series that contain more than 7 books must be very good or highly recommended so that i can consider reading it.
My only hard and fast rule is not to have hard and fast rules.I've enjoyed series with literally 40 books in them, and I've dropped series after two when i felt it was just going nowhere.
It's rare to see a series that doesn't feel stale after it hits double digits, but I don't have an arbitrary limit.
Narmin wrote: "I like trilogies and heptologies. Any series that contain more than 7 books must be very good or highly recommended so that i can consider reading it."I agree.
A great example of a successful miltivol. series would be the Aubrey-Maturin novels by Patrick O'Brian. I forget, it was maybe 21 vols? The term 'roman fleuve' comes into play at that length.
I like trilogies. But I've done more, and I've done less. Just depends on how interesting the story line is. I've got a quad where the first three are great, and the 4th just seems like an add on. And after 3 books of the Wheel of Time series, there were just too many story lines for me. But I like the Midnight Hour series. So it just depends.
I love reading a series if it's well-written, just because I read so quickly I need several books at a time. If the first book is bad, chances are I won't touch the second. But if the first book is excellent, and I like the story and characters, then I'll devour as many books as it takes. It looks like a lot of people have the same opinion as me (depends on the author, how it's written, etc.) so I won't expand on that. But yes, I do love a good series.
I know of readers who deliberately select multi-volume works, so that there will be plenty of volumes to enjoy. I know of other readers who will not begin a multi-volume set until the series is complete, so that there may be no delay in gratification at all and they can just zip through to the end. These are the people who are hoarding George R.R. Martin, unread, until he finishes the series, and who were sadly disappointed by David Gerrold, who never finished the Chtorr series at all.
Brenda wrote: "I know of readers who deliberately select multi-volume works, so that there will be plenty of volumes to enjoy. I know of other readers who will not begin a multi-volume set until the series is co..."People maybe starting The Wheel of Times for the first time because it is now complete and finish, so they can read the complete story straight through.
Brenda wrote: "I know of readers who deliberately select multi-volume works, so that there will be plenty of volumes to enjoy. I know of other readers who will not begin a multi-volume set until the series is co..."I can't imagine waiting that long, if I knew the series existed at the time. If I read the first book and the second wasn't out, I wouldn't want to wait years for, say, the third and fourth to be out before I bought any of them after the first. It must take a lot of patience. I've never met someone who didn't rabidly wait for the books and buy them the instant they're available.
I prefer reading series because they take longer to get through; I can't even imagine an author not finishing one...that must be incredibly disappointing. Talk about no closure. I'd rather read a stand-alone than an incomplete series.
Brenda wrote: "I know of readers who deliberately select multi-volume works, so that there will be plenty of volumes to enjoy. I know of other readers who will not begin a multi-volume set until the series is co..."I'm in both column "A" and Column "B". I love series! I love getting to know the characters and spending quality time in their world, watching them grow, learn, change...
I do prefer finished series when possible, but have no problem staring newer or incomplete ones, Iif the author releases on a regular basis (like Jim Butcher & The Dresden Files).
One series I'm "stockpiling", however, is Charlaine Harris' Southern Vampire series. I had read the first 8 or 9, when I learned that she had planned to finish the series with book # 13. I've been collecting the paperbacks ever since, and plan to read the whole hing from beginning to end when the series is done. I'm hoping there is (or will be) a collection of the short stories as well, so that I can add them in wherever they belong.
I think a series compromises of 4+ books. Anything less is a trilogy or a book with a sequel. I also think waiting for a full series is kind of bogus to do. I had one trilogy where the 3rd book has finally been released, after 10 years from when the second book was released. I wasn't the only person waiting for that book to come out too. I also agree that one has to have a lot of patience for a series that is currently in the process of being written.I have been an avid Weis and Hickman fan, since I read the Death Gate Cycle of theirs. Been waiting for the next book in there Dragonships of Vindras series to be released.
Since I have never been able to fully get into the D&D universe, I have not actually pursued many books that fall into its realms.
But getting back to the topic at hand. Definitely has to be 4 or more to be considered a series, and just like the D&D books, its a universe series compromised usually of trilogy books from what I have seen.
I've been following some series since I was a girl, so I've been trained to wait. Bruce Coville's Unicorn Chronicles started in 1995. I was nine when I read the first book, thirteen when I read the second and the last book only came out when I was twenty-four. Not being able to read the last book when I wanted never made reading the first any less enjoyable.It is much more satisfying when a series has a conclusion to look forward to, but I'm not the kind of person to hold off on the fun I can have now just for an ending.
Though, I think I'd much rather an abrupt end with no closure than to watch characters and a world I've grown to love decline into strange caricatures of what they used to be.
Kevin wrote: "Brenda wrote: "I know of readers who deliberately select multi-volume works, so that there will be plenty of volumes to enjoy. I know of other readers who will not begin a multi-volume set until t..."I gave up on the wheel of time. Before I started it, some people warned me off it, calling it the waste of time, but I ploughed on. Big mistake.
Nyssa wrote: One series I'm "stockpiling", however, is Charlaine Harris' Southern Vampire series. I had read the first 8 or 9, when I learned that she had planned to finish the series with book # 13. I've been collecting the paperbacks ever since, and plan to read the whole hing from beginning to end when the series is done. I'm hoping there is (or will be) a collection of the short stories as well, so that I can add them in wherever they belong. i>I did not know that. I am curious how it will end!
I would say it really depends on how good the books are. I personally think GRRM could have completed the series in three books. I have to admit while I really enjoy the story as a whole, there are several times I'm tempted to skip paragraphs because I feel like they don't add anything to the story. But I keep reading them because I like the series enough, so either way, he has my attention.
Steve wrote: "More and more, I'm leaning toward stand-alone novels. There are just too many authors and worlds that I want to try." I like to read stand-alone novels, too, for the same reason! And because I feel like sometimes I pay too much money to read a whole series, then have to wait to read something new because I just spend all my money.
The other thing to do in a series, if it is many volumes, is to freshen it up by taking a sharp left turn in either tone, plot or substance. Laurie R. King did this with her Mary Russell series, now up to 12 volumes. #11, THE PIRATE KING, was almost a farce, as the characters all zoomed off into the silent film business. With the new one, GARMENT OF SHADOWS, we are back to the usual taut peril and chase scenes through exotic locales.
Laura wrote: "I would say it really depends on how good the books are. I personally think GRRM could have completed the series in three books. I have to admit while I really enjoy the story as a whole, there a..."A very good summary of the series. GRRM is a fantastic writer, but the series could do with a lot of pruning.
"Only as many as are needed, Majesty - neither more nor less".More interesting, perhaps, to ask WHY long series often fail. I think there are several different reasons:
- the plot isn't long enough to sustain that many words. Typically if the author is afraid of including serious changes, so tries to stretch things out longer than warrented
- the style changes so much that original fans no longer like it. The opposite of the above...
- the books were always fundamentally rubbish, but their novelty made them look shiny and attractive. With the loss of novelty, the flaws become more and more obvious.
- the author loses control due to continuity, number of characters, synchronisation between subplots, etc.
Or a combination of the above: I think WOT suffered from all but the second. The books became stretched out, subplots got out of hand, and there wasn't enough inherent quality to sustain support (some authors might be able to write an entire volume of people sitting around making tea and chatting to each other, and have it be a good read... Jordan wasn't one of those writers).
I think ASOIAF is mostly just suffering from the last (if anything, i think the writing itself is improving), so hopefully there may be some chance of him getting things under control again in the final volumes.
ASOIAF ??
A Song Of Ice And Fire - Game of Thrones series
Ah. thank you. :)
I love three book series, personally.I don't usually like super long series anymore. I started both the Wheel of Time series and The Sword of Truth, and stopped both when the plot seemed to be going nowhere.
I'm finding that many books do not need more than 3 books. Perhaps some even fewer. A story such as A Song Of Fire and Ice, is one such instance. Perhaps the same could be said about Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time, although I really do like the series most as is.Frank Herbert's Dune, on the other hand, is a series that I think needed as many novels as it has, though.
It seems to me that stories can have multiple books as long as there is movement between each book. George R. R. Martin's novels have started to lack this movement.
If the story is not in the position to make sweeping changes from each book then there doesn't seem a point to have them going past 3 or so books. How long is a reader supposed to endure the same unending story line?
At some point a writer needs to stop filling white space with a forest of question marks.
It seems that as a writer goes on, the books get bigger. One theory is that the writer is less obligated to listen to the editor once he or she gains popularity. So more stuff that would have been cut from the work of a new author gets left in.
I think this is plausible, looking at Jordan, Rowling and Martin. The later books meander a lot more than the early ones.
Chris wrote: "I also think waiting for a full series is kind of bogus to do."Why? I hate reading the beginning of stories with no guarantee of a completion. I think it's not fair to me. So...I usually don't start series if they haven't been finished yet. Or I'll read one book and then just stockpile the rest. It's a personal reading preference...I'd be loath to call it "bogus."
Chris wrote: "I also think waiting for a full series is kind of bogus to do."MrsJoseph wrote: "Why? I hate reading the beginning of stories with no guarantee of a completion. I think it's not fair to me. So...I..."
I totally agree with you MrsJ. I started with the first book as they were written of too many series that have yet to be completed. Cliff hangars especially bother me. If have to wait 20 years for the author to finish his story, I will make the story my own and finish it the way *I* want it ended. Which of course means happily ever after. I have been known to do this even when the author HAS finished - but I just don't like his/her ending. Have a friend that teases me about this all the time. :D
The only issue with waiting for the full series is that a new author might not sell very many copies of Book One of a series, so Books Two and upward won't get published.
MrsJoseph wrote: "Chris wrote: "I also think waiting for a full series is kind of bogus to do."Why? I hate reading the beginning of stories with no guarantee of a completion. I think it's not fair to me. So...I..."
This, exactly! I don't read/follow many trilogies or series that are not complete because the first one I actually remember reading was a trilogy by Sterling Lanier. First book could be a stand-alone and it was (and still is) one of my faorites. He didn't write the second book until 10 years later and I've often wondered if he intended the first book to be the only book. Anyway, the second book was definitely the second of a trilogy or series as it was pretty much a cliffhanger ending.
He died 20 years later ... never wrote the third book. I have eyed all trilogies/series with great suspicion ever since and I hate cliffhanger endings.
Consequently, I try to avoid "Book One" of anything and books with cliffhanger endings usually go on my blacklist. There are occasional exceptions, but not often.
Patrick wrote: "The only issue with waiting for the full series is that a new author might not sell very many copies of Book One of a series, so Books Two and upward won't get published."That's not my problem. I'm not here to make sure a writer sells 3 books. They should start with one and see how that works. I think it starts to become a big piece of bullshit that no new writer can manage to come out with a contained story. Why must your work be 57 volumes and take 25 years to complete? Then you look at readers and blame them for the full story not coming out. "Yall should have bought books 1-50! It's your fault!"
Or they get mad because the originally planned 3 book series has turned into a 15 book series and readers want the author to get off his fat ass and finish it already. Then we get comments like "GRRM is not your bitch."
Thanks. I'll pass. I like to read the overachievers who complete stuff.
Sharon wrote: "This, exactly! I don't read/follow many trilogies or series that are not complete because the first one I actually remember reading was a trilogy by Sterling Lanier. First book could be a stand-alone and it was (and still is) one of my faorites. He didn't write the second book until 10 years later and I've often wondered if he intended the first book to be the only book. Anyway, the second book was definitely the second of a trilogy or series as it was pretty much a cliffhanger ending.He died 20 years later ... never wrote the third book. I have eyed all trilogies/series with great suspicion ever since and I hate cliffhanger endings.
Consequently, I try to avoid "Book One" of anything and books with cliffhanger endings usually go on my blacklist. There are occasional exceptions, but not often. "
I'm pretty much the same way. I mostly don't pick up books that are Book 1 in a series. The exception to that are books that are series and also contained within themselves (i.e. Dresden, Kate Daniels, etc).
I also make exceptions for authors who have proven themselves to be completists, like Jacqueline Carey.
Sonja wrote: "If have to wait 20 years for the author to finish his story, I will make the story my own and finish it the way *I* want it ended. Which of course means happily ever after. I have been known to do this even when the author HAS finished - but I just don't like his/her ending. Have a friend that teases me about this all the time. :D"This made me laugh! That is something I would totally do. In fact, I think I've done it when a series I originally liked went somewhere I didn't want it to, lol. It had too many books, of course. They should have stopped at four or five and left it alone. Then maybe I would have left their ending the way they intended. xD
We must distinguish between series in which each book can stand alone (the Vorkosigan books by Bujold would be examples of this), and series which are really slices cut from one long loaf of a story -- the three volumes of LORD OF THE RINGS are like this.An ongoing series of freestanding volumes can go on for ever, or as long as the author can make the stories fun. A slice-from-loaf book is a calamity if the author dies or fails to finish the story.
Brenda wrote: "We must distinguish between series in which each book can stand alone (the Vorkosigan books by Bujold would be examples of this), and series which are really slices cut from one long loaf of a stor..."Very true. The series I keep and re-read, as well as new ones I start, are from the 'can be read alone' type. I only have two exceptions to this, one I didn't start until it was completed and the other 'ongoing' but from a writer that I'm very familiar with who does complete series.
I have to admit, however, that the completed series, with 5 books, would not have made it on my shelves except for the fact I discovered it only after it had been completed and got the entire series at the same time. It is not only a 'slice-from-the-loaf' kind of series, with 5 books, every one of them except for the last ended with a cliffhanger.
Brenda wrote: "We must distinguish between series in which each book can stand alone (the Vorkosigan books by Bujold would be examples of this), and series which are really slices cut from one long loaf of a stor..."Agreed. Sadly, they are both called "series" but one is more like a SU and the other is a sliced up story.
Sharon wrote: "It is not only a 'slice-from-the-loaf' kind of series, with 5 books, every one of them except for the last ended with a cliffhanger. "Grrrrrr! I hate that! It's a surefire way to get me to stop reading you. I've even started reading a book and stopped in the middle of the book when I realized it was a trilogy and books 2 & 3 were not written.
I think that some (but not all!) publishers give you a clue about this on the cover. If under the title it says "Book 4 in the Battle-Song of the Hurkles Series", then it's the fourth slice of a loaf. If it says "A Russell-Holmes novel" then it is, hopefully, a stand-alone about Russell and Holmes, of which you have already read a couple books.
MrsJoseph wrote: "Sharon wrote: "It is not only a 'slice-from-the-loaf' kind of series, with 5 books, every one of them except for the last ended with a cliffhanger. "Grrrrrr! I hate that! It's a surefire way to get me to stop reading you ..."
I probably wouldn't have kept on with this particular series if I hadn't known it was completed. It was a military series and each book did have a separate storyline which was completed in that book (battle against a group, battle won) but it always ended with the General being recalled by a paranoid king who didn't trust him. Anyway, that is the only real series I have, do re-read and enjoy, that is the total exception to my preferences.
Out of curiosity, anyone know of another "stand alone series" where the books are relatively independent of each other? Are Steven Brust 's Vlad Taltos books like that?
Yes, the Taltos books are each a self contained story. There is character development through the series, but there are no cliffhanger endings, and you can pick up any book in the series and read it without having read the rest of them.
Brenda wrote: "I think that some (but not all!) publishers give you a clue about this on the cover. If under the title it says "Book 4 in the Battle-Song of the Hurkles Series", then it's the fourth slice of a l..."True. At least, the used to. Sadly, a lot of them are not doing that. Even worse are romance writers that started breaking complete novels in to serials and then selling that at $1.99 or $2.99 a pop...and usually no *real* warning. Those people go on my DNR automatically.
Mercedes Lackey writes two series that are connected by world and magic system, with stories about new characters for each book and characters from previous books only occasionally returning briefly. One is the 500 Kingdoms series and the other the Elemental Masters series.Lois Bujold's Chalion series is like this as well, trilogy with the same world/magic system but different characters. Three books ... and I hope there will be more.
Thanks, Patrick and Sharon. I have some of the Taltos books, but I never picked any up because I prefer to read in chronological order (storyline wise), but if it they stand alone maybe I'll move them up the pile a bit. I like series, but I'm committed to a few too many at the moment. It's nice to pick up something less demanding every once in a while.I've had so many recommendations for Chalion, I'm eager to read it, but I can't seem to find it anywhere =( . I may have to bite the bullet and finally order it online.
The odd thing about the Taltos books is that they weren't written in chronological order. The first book is "Jhereg." Some of the later books are set earlier, some later, but "Jhereg" is a good starting point, since it was the first book written and published, and assumed no prior knowledge.The series is closer to "Dresden Files" than "Wheel of Time." Each episode is stand alone, but stuff that happens in referenced in later books, and things change and characters grow as time goes on.
It's a very good series. Brust is a great writer, and a fun guy. He did an interview for "Quantum Muse" when I was a contributor, and he's interesting to talk to.
If you have an e-reader, the Kindle of CHALION is on Amazon at a mere 99 cents! Or it was, earlier this month -- it can't last, so snap it up now.The case has been made that there should, logically, be six novels in the CHALION universe, but Bujold may not feel this way.
Sophie wrote: "Out of curiosity, anyone know of another "stand alone series" where the books are relatively independent of each other? Are Steven Brust 's Vlad Taltos books like that?"As far as I remember, Wen Spencer's Ukiah Oregon series consist of independent books, although all of them are about the same characters. I read some time ago and liked them. Another example - Sharon Shinn. All her novels are stand-alone, even if they belong to a series. You can read them in any order.
Thanks for the heads up, Brenda! ereading is not my preferred format, but it'd be dumb to pass up on a 99 cent copy. In case anyone else is wondering, the sale is still going. =)I've been looking for Wen Spencer's Tinker forever. She's another one that's difficult to find.
Ironically, the one stand alone book I wish was made into a series is Robin McKinley's Sunshine. I have the Hero and the Crown, but for some reason never got around to it.
Fantasy Aficionados
Books mentioned in this topic
The Magic of Recluce (other topics)Gauntlgrym (other topics)
The Way of Kings (other topics)
The Way of Shadows (other topics)
The Clan of the Cave Bear (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
R.A. Salvatore (other topics)L.E. Modesitt Jr. (other topics)
Brandon Sanderson (other topics)
Sharon Shinn (other topics)
Wen Spencer (other topics)
More...
The secret is not being afraid (as an author) to shake things up. Some readers will get angry when a favorite character dies, for instance, but ALL readers get angry when they read two books in a row where nothing of any surprise or significance happens.