Fantasy Aficionados discussion
Discussions about books
>
How Many Books to a Series? What is your thought?
Couldn't agree more, Tammy. Discworld would be another case of an endless series in that regard, although that's clever in that it's not a series in quite the normal sense.Since the whole series discussion seems to be cropping up all over the site (there are a series of discussions, it appears), I've expanded my thoughts into a blog post - a bit too long for a comment here. Feel free to drop by and chip in if you're interested.
Generally I think a trilogy seems the optimum length for a series. Beyond that it's easy for a story to get a bit sprawling and lose cohesion.Setting different stories in the same world, sometimes with overlapping characters, seems to offer most of the advantages of a series (familiar background and people) with fewer of the issues (loss of focus, for example).
Mind you, I did like the Codex Alera by Jim Butcher, and that's six volumes.
There is also the point that authors have their natural length -- the way horses have a race that they're bred to run in. There are writers (Kate Elliott, Susannah Clarke) who naturally write real long. A writer who is not good at doing it should not try.
Andrew wrote: "Couldn't agree more, Tammy. Discworld would be another case of an endless series in that regard, although that's clever in that it's not a series in quite the normal sense.Since the whole series ..."
That is a long post.
But...here's the thing. Have you - as a reader - ever had an ENTIRE YEAR where every book you picked up was a series??
Do you know how that feels? To NEVER have a finished story? My God! It's too much.
I stand by my feelings that - like Thaddeus - a trilogy is best. Past that...more than likely I'm giving you the side eye.
The exception - for me - is the series that has a complete story in each book but the "series" has a larger plot arc. Like Kate Daniels or Harry Dresden.
After that, writers can (and will) write what pleases THEM.. But I reserve the right not to buy into or read the series until its either 100% complete or pretty darn close.
There are few authors that have earned my trust as complete-ists. Those are the only ones who I trust to give me the full story before they A) Die or B) get bored and move on. I'll buy into those authors' 23 book series. But not others. It takes quite some time to build up that type of reader trust, IMO.
Trilogies can be a problem, though, from a creative sense. The first book introduces everything, the second book muddles along, and the third book ends in some epic battle. It can be a bit cliched at times.
R.M.F wrote: "Trilogies can be a problem, though, from a creative sense. The first book introduces everything, the second book muddles along, and the third book ends in some epic battle. It can be a bit cliched ..."True. But the classics are the classics for a reason.
I learned something in middle school that has never failed to be true:
When my 3rd grade teacher was trying to teach us how to write a 5 paragraph essay, he said this:
Paragraph 1: Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em.
Paragraph 2 - 4: Tell 'em
Paragraph 5: Tell 'em what you told 'em
That statement was true when he taught it to me and it's still true today. It may be boring but it's still true.
And trilogies still work best when dealing with a long story. It can be boring but it's still true.
It's up to the writer to figure out freshness.
Three if you're going for the play in three acts trope. I find that some creatives, especially screenwriters, are too slavish to that format, though. That said, the series is over when you've developed your themes to conclusion. If you can do that in two books, great. If it takes a fourth, fine.
A lot of series length is arbitrary.[i]Lord of the Rings[/i] was split into three books for economics. A single thousand page book would have cost more to print than the publisher was willing to spend for the price of a book, and they didn't think they could sell it at a higher price, so they broke it up and sold it as three volumes.
Any one of Terry Goodkind's books is way over the length of the LOTR trilogy, but publishing is different these days.
So, if it takes a thousand pages to tell a story, that might be one book, or it might be a trilogy.
I think it takes as long as it takes. I tend to give up when a book or series starts to repeat itself.
Patrick wrote: "I think it takes as long as it takes."True. It takes as many pages as it takes.
But I'm likely to be turned off learning that a series has 10+ books in it (and that's completed).
I'm also likely to be turned off by a new author starting off by writing a series and not a stand alone.
Series take a lot of dedication and patience. I've been burned by too many authors who seem to only go the series route for financial and/or trending reasons. Either it becomes repetitive, is never completed, ends on a cliff hanger and/or is filled with meaningless filler to get to that all important page count.
*Note: This excludes books that are part of a series arc but have complete endings within themselves. Like Dresden.
I understand your point of view Mrs. Joseph even though I don't share it whatsoever. I actually prefer longer series, and even if I have all the books, I'll still pointedly NOT read them back-to-back, as I always feel a little sad when I come to the end of a good book/series. When I've found a good series, I like to string it out as long as I can stand it!On a related note, I think that one of the main reasons fantasy lends itself to series more often than not is because of worldbuilding. To make a really well fleshed-out and believable world, the prospective fantasy author has to invent quite a few details; there are maps, nations, customs, currencies...and that's not even getting into history and backstory. Tolkien wrote a whole book on it! Doing all this creating only to write a 300 page novel and never looking at this stuff again would be super depressing, it seems to me. I totally understand the fantasy author's desire to write more books in an already established world, if for no other reason than it would be a hassle to create a new world from scratch every time you want to write a new book!
Bryan wrote: " I totally understand the fantasy author's desire to write more books in an already established world, if for no other reason than it would be a hassle to create a new world from scratch every time you want to write a new book! "You can do that without a 10 book series. Andre Norton's Witch World has over 20+ books. But no "series" is more than a trilogy in that body of work. She did trilogies, stand alones and 2 book series. It made it easier to get into, stories were completed but the history of the world was deepened.
Mercedes Lackey and Piers Anthony did the same. There are tons of books in Mercedes Lackey's Heralds of Valdemar series. But she does mostly trilogies. It works and (mostly) kept the series fresh. Piers Anthony's Xanth series is just a group of stand alones. But it makes it easy for readers to jump in. I can't jump into The Wheel of Time or A Song of Ice and Fire. It's too much. The same goes with The Malazan Book of the Fallen.
I understand what you're saying about standalone books sharing a world and this being easier for the potential new reader to jump into, but this is somewhat of a moot point to me. If and when I start reading the Harry Dresden books, I'm certainly not going to start on book 4 or 5, and I don't know too many readers who knowingly would. I'm going to get ahold of the first book and work my way progressively through the series, just as if I were reading an epic series.So here we come to the crux of the issue, the epic elephants in the room, so to speak. It seems to me, Mrs. Joseph, that you simply don't like long epics. And that's fine, they're certainly not for everyone, but I don't think that's a flaw inherent in the style. It's merely personal preference.
You can pick up any of the Dresden books, though, or read them out of order and it's no big deal. The same goes for Glen Cook's Garrett series. There are recurring characters, but even if you miss their intro, you can get up to speed pretty fast.I generally try out new authors at the library, so if I'm disappointed for free, I'm not upset. If I pay good hard cash for a book and hate it, I gte annoyed. If I like the authors I try, then I'll buy their books.
So I often can't find book one of a series. I don't think that's a big deal if they can stand alone. I started Robert B Parker's Spencer series in the middle, then read all 40 of them in the order I could find them. That wouldn't have been possible with Martin or Jordan.
I really liked the first two books of A Song of Ice and Fire, but then I found they just got repetitive, so I lost interest. Ditto for Wheel of Time, although even the first book didn't really excite me. It was ok, but not ok enough to read the next million pages.
Glen Cook's Black Company series kept me interested for ten or so books, and Zelanzy's Amber series kept me eagerly panting after the next book for ten volumes. I can be entertained for a dozen books, but many authors tend to bog down after a thousand pages.
It shouldn't take 14 tomes of incredible length to tell a story. It just shouldn't. When the series was begun, it was supposed to be a trilogy. But, somewhere along the way it felt like Mr. Moneymaker came into the room and decided if I just keep stretching this out, I can make more money. And, that is exactly how the middle novels felt. Not to mention the DECADES waiting for closure.
Bryan wrote: "So here we come to the crux of the issue, the epic elephants in the room, so to speak. It seems to me, Mrs. Joseph, that you simply don't like long epics. And that's fine, they're certainly not for everyone, but I don't think that's a flaw inherent in the style. It's merely personal preference. "I'm going to disagree with you here. I've read more than my fair share of epics. I dislike the current trend of writing epics for the sake of - as I said earlier - trend or money. Because that's what it seems like is happening to me. The story is never finished and I am a completeist. I like things getting wrapped up. I dislike - as Sonja mentioned - waiting DECADES to finish up a book.
Take The Clan of the Cave Bear series. I started that series back in HIGH SCHOOL as a freshman. She just finished it last year. I'm not going to say how long I've been out of high school...but let's just say that I have completed a college degree.
And even though I love him and he mostly gets a pass - look at King's Dark Tower series. I started that in college as a Freshman (I think). He was already 4 books in. And then there was a 10 year break before he finished the rest. I own the entire series (in hardback and audio) but I'll probably never read it. He lost me as a reader during that 10 year break he took. Plus, let's just be honest, if you've ever studied Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came then you have a decent idea of what's going to happen. And King taking a 10 year break made me no longer interested in his take on that poem.
But then, I am a student of Literature. I know what wonders the word can create. If it didn't take 14 tomes of incredible length (I love this phrase) to write great works of Literature that have stood the test of centuries...why can't pop culture writers who's works are merely fads do the same? I don't have the patience to wait around for them to figure it out. I like writers who care enough about their craft to become wordsmiths. Lately all I've seen is a trend to dumb things down into 15 books what could have been said in 3. That's not disliking epics...that's disliking waste.
I know I am coming late to the party here, but I just joined this group.IMHO a good writer can keep and epic fantasy going theoretically forever, but in reality the series will tend to fall under its own weight beginning by book 4, and really disintegrate by book 7.
These are my observations but I think it is due to a variety of factors (I'm sure already discussed in the previous pages I need to catch up on) I think any good epic story works best in three acts. on a micro level, this happens within one volume, but it tends to happen over three volumes as well. There's the challenge, the ordeal, the resolution. I'm simplifying but bear with me here...
If you add an act four and greater, that means you've delayed your resolution or your ordeal longer than what feels organically consistent. The reader begins to lose patience. Hell, the author begins to lose patience, apparently. So for a series to go beyond three either means you have to repeat the arching cycle so that book 4 is the new challenge, 5 the new ordeal, and 6 the new resolution... OR it means you have to extend those beyond what is reasonable.
Now, the best series will create substantially NEW challenge, ordeal, resolution cycle so that its engaging but not repetitive.
You'll see some series repeat almost a xerox of the first trilogy cycle, and when that happens, it becomes really old. As much as I love Eddings, there are legs of his journey that become a bit predictable in the higher ranges of the extended epic.
anyways, that's my first post in this thread. I've always wanted to make just this observation, so I guess I have. And hello.
John wrote: "I know I am coming late to the party here, but I just joined this group.IMHO a good writer can keep and epic fantasy going theoretically forever, but in reality the series will tend to fall under..."
I love this comment!
This really caught my attention, too:
You'll see some series repeat almost a xerox of the first trilogy cycle, and when that happens, it becomes really old. As much as I love Eddings, there are legs of his journey that become a bit predictable in the higher ranges of the extended epic.
I've read a ton of Eddings...and he does exactly what you say. He gets really repetitive and very predicable. Sadly, he also recycles plot points to death.
I have no problem with long series, especially multiple stories told in the same verse, but I do have distaste when I read a book in a series and it feels like nothing happened. Books in series do not have to be stand-alone, but they should have some resolution and stuff needs to happen.Once you get more than 5 books, I think there is a tendency by the author to treat certain books as we treat transitional chapters. That book exists to set up the next book. Don't do that! Just skip ahead!
As I've said before, long series are fine if the quality and freshness is there, but even Martin's fire and ice books are starting to get a bit samey, so even the best can struggle.
R.M.F wrote: "As I've said before, long series are fine if the quality and freshness is there, but even Martin's fire and ice books are starting to get a bit samey, so even the best can struggle."Definitely. I wonder if the series would be better if there were only going to be six books, or if his editor (assuming he has one brave enough to do so) could say, "Maybe it's time to start wrapping up a few of these story threads, George. It is going on a bit..."
I would like my book to be the first of a trilogy, as I know I have enough ideas for an arc running through three solid books. If somebody suggested a longer series, I would have to say that the source material isn't there. Does Martin ever so occasionally have the same thought?
I think while writing is certainly art, for professional authors, it's also business. If I were offered a ten book contract to continue a series, and knew that it would pay my bills for the next decade, i think I could stretch my source material.
Got mouths to feed, and maybe my publisher wants to pay me for an established series, but isn't so sure he wants to take a chance on a totally new series. So maybe I alternate and write on new "Tales of the Redundant Heroes" and then a volume of "Experimental Fresh Ideas" and keep everybody happy. If the new series catches on, I'm golden. If not, I'm still paying my rent.
And I think that's the trap that many authors of the Endless Series fall into.
There are also sad cases of writers who are writing a series under a gun -- severe health issues, say. If you're writing for your cancer treatments, a series may not be very good but it keeps you going.
Andrew wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "As I've said before, long series are fine if the quality and freshness is there, but even Martin's fire and ice books are starting to get a bit samey, so even the best can struggle."..."
The TV series will probably trim a lot. There is no way that HBO will let it get out of hand as the books have been doing.
I didn't mind seven books for Harry Potter because it was clearly planned out from the beginning. And then the series ENDED! I'd say that seven is probably my limit for a series, although I have read other series with multiple "trilogies" where a plotline is completed with the third book but then there may be other books in the same world with different characters. (Like DragonLance). I don't regard those as a continuation of the original series since you don't have to read them. You've finished a story.
Today I saw an advertisement for Book 14 of the Game of Thrones. I thought "Fourteen books? I don't know if I want to commit myself to that long a series." So I may never read the first one. I gave up after Book 5 of the Wheel of Time series. I am reading Book 6 of
Stephen King's "The Tower" but again I know there is an ending eventually because it's already done.
MrsJoseph, like you, I like to intersperse my series reads with individual stand alone books.
Judy wrote: "I didn't mind seven books for Harry Potter because it was clearly planned out from the beginning. And then the series ENDED! I'd say that seven is probably my limit for a series, although I have..."
14??? O_O
Having looked up the series now on Amazon, perhaps it was Book 4 instead. But yes, if a series WAS 14 books, I'd probably never start it.
Most of the series I've read that have gone more than 3 or 4 books seem to simply run out of new things to say. There are a few that I've followed much longer, but most of those are built around something similar to the detective/mystery series that have the same characters but a 'new case' for each book in the series and so manage to tell a complete story with each separate book.Most of the ongoing series with multiple books that I follow are like this ... maybe old fashioned of me, but I want a book to have a beginning, a middle and an end ... even if it is one book in a series.
Sharon wrote: "Most of the series I've read that have gone more than 3 or 4 books seem to simply run out of new things to say. There are a few that I've followed much longer, but most of those are built around so..."My thoughts exactly.
Judy wrote: "Having looked up the series now on Amazon, perhaps it was Book 4 instead. But yes, if a series WAS 14 books, I'd probably never start it."I kinda feel like I have to chime in here: ASOFAI is planned to be 7 books long (then again, you never can tell, it was supposed to be 2x 3 books to start with). Maybe you saw an ad for the 14th Wheel of Time book? That was released earlier this year, and that series is now finished.
These days (mostly thanks to WOT, and to some degree ASOIAF) I refuse to start a long running series unless the last book has made it to its publisher. Unless it's something like Discworld or Charles DeLint's Newford series where each book is pretty much stand alone.
Evilynn wrote: "I kinda feel like I have to chime in here: ASOFAI is planned to be 7 books long "Isn't he going to run out of protagonists to kill by then?
Patrick wrote: "Evilynn wrote: "I kinda feel like I have to chime in here: ASOFAI is planned to be 7 books long "Isn't he going to run out of protagonists to kill by then?"
He's killed off one major POV (view spoiler), so he's got some left. :P ((view spoiler))
And you see, this is one of the major reasons I don't read these. I am a character-driven reader ... I'm old enough to have lost a number of friends and family in real life ... I don't need to have my fictional 'friends and family' killed off in the name of entertainment. Sorry ... I am not entertained ...
Sharon wrote: "And you see, this is one of the major reasons I don't read these. I am a character-driven reader ... I'm old enough to have lost a number of friends and family in real life ... I don't need to have..."I've had real life friends and family pass away too, and if that would have stopped me from reading books with death in them I never would've made it through Literature class at university.
GRRM is occasionally bleak, but sometimes it seems like people think ASOFAI is three murders and five rapes to the page (and the rest is weirdly disconnected info dump-y sex scenes - thanks HBO!), and it really isn't. It's not David Eddings, but it's not exactly Thomas Hardy on the depressing scale either.
Evilynn wrote: "I've had real life friends and family pass away too, and if that would have stopped me from reading books with death in them I never would've made it through Literature class at university. "When I was in my 20s and 30s grim and death didn't bother me in books and literature classes ... and even some of the books I read and found entertaining were pretty bleak and grim. I guess, at 70, I just don't find death/grim entertaining and since I read strictly for entertainment it's simply my choice not to go there.
At my age I certainly do not believe in 'happy ever after' ... but I want my fantasies to be that way, more or less anyway. For me, that's why they are fantasies.
Sharon wrote: "At my age I certainly do not believe in 'happy ever after' ... but I want my fantasies to be that way, more or less anyway. For me, that's why they are fantasies. "I agree.
My husband read Joe Ambercrombie recently...and it depresses him. The moral of the story: everyone dies and good hardly ever wins.
I know life sucks...so I want my entertainment not to remind me of it. I read for escapism.
MrsJoseph wrote: "I know life sucks...so I want my entertainment not to remind me of it. I read for escapism."So true! Real life is all the 'reality' I want!
I think the problem isn't too many books, but deadlines authors are faced with.They sign up for however many number of books and they have a deadline to write them. So when they get near the deadline they rush and produce a shabbier book.
If they didn't have those deadlines... (then again when is GRRM's deadlines.....) then they would be more able to just be creative with their writing and produce a natural number of books for their series.
Although I would say, it takes as many books as it takes to resolve a conflict and develop the characters. Then again, when you see an author like Eddings who often recycles plots, conflicts and character development....
Todd wrote: "I think the problem isn't too many books, but deadlines authors are faced with.They sign up for however many number of books and they have a deadline to write them. So when they get near the dead..."
I can see what you are saying...but deadlines are a part of the territory. How else would anything ever get done. I don't think the deadline is the problem for most of them - it's the storyline.
I have a theory: certain story types have a limited shelf-life. The more focused the story, the shorter the shelf-life. I think the problem comes in when an author tries to take a focused story with a short shelf-life and extend it. In TV it's called "jumping the shark." We don't have a name for it in books...maybe we should call it "The Anita Effect?"
And Eddings. While I love the entire Belgariad series...I could kill him for wasting my money on the same crap over and over again. I learned my lesson from the last series.
Oh, thank God I never read those. A peek at the first volume was plenty for me, same as for WHEEL OF TIME. And I will never read GAME OF THRONES either. Life is too short.
Brenda wrote: "Oh, thank God I never read those. A peek at the first volume was plenty for me, same as for WHEEL OF TIME. And I will never read GAME OF THRONES either. Life is too short."Very definitely! I never got through the first book of Wheel of Time and while I did get through the first book of Game of Thrones, I definitely did not make it through the second. As you say ... life is too short!
MrsJoseph wrote: "The more focused the story, the shorter the shelf-life. I think the problem comes in when an author tries to take a focused story with a short shelf-life and extend it. In TV it's called "jumping the shark." We don't have a name for it in books...maybe we should call it "The Anita Effect?" "Hm, I would think the "Anita Effect" would be when the introduction of sexual escapades takes over a non-erotica based series to become erotica. But I think your second example is perfect--"The Eddings Effect" ie. recycling your plot again and again in a feeble attempt to maintain shelf life.
I am beginning to think that the right number for a series is two. This forces everything to move along briskly. Even LOTR could've been two volumes, especially if they had left out all the appendices at the back.
Carol wrote: "Hm, I would think the "Anita Effect" would be when the introduction of sexual escapades takes over a non-erotica based series to become erotica. But I think your second example is perfect--"The Eddings Effect" ie. recycling your plot again and again in a feeble attempt to maintain shelf life. "*dies laughing*
Great point! The Eddings Effect it is.
No set number for me. My all-time favorite series is The Wheel of Time which was 14 books before it finally ended. Most were quite entertaining. A few, in the middle were a little on the dull side and not much action or movement in the storyline, but overall it was great.I think it just depends on the series.
Well... I generally think trilogies are the safe bet. The The Way of Shadows at no point did I feel like it was too stretched. Even the prequel he released was a nice addition. Abercrombie's series has six books and I really don't think it's too much and I look forward to the next.
I guess it isn't deadlines.... or publishers setting up book numbers when contracts are made.
I guess the point is that writing a good book is difficult. There are so many terrible Fantasy books out there too.
I think the thing is a lot of writers settle on a book that isn't perfect.
I'm sure GRRM would deny it, but I can't imagine him looking at Dance of Dragons or Feast of Crows and saying either are that good. Rather, he has an idea where he wants to the plot to go and seems to be stumbling to get there.
Name of the Wind compared to Wise Man's Fear, Patrick Rothfuss is one of the biggest names in Fantasy right now... which is weird... because he only has two books out, and I've read tons of complaints about the 2nd book. But most authors are continually apologizing about taking so long to write their next book. Fans are all over Rothfuss, I sure that pressure to get something done, crushes an authors pursuit or even willingness to hold back or take longer to make a better book.
It's really more with the audience having high expectations. Getting into a debut author or a new book/new world by a favorite author is a surprise. But then you go into sequels with expectations.
It has to be said that series are preferred by publishers for commercial reasons. Fans of a book are more likely to buy the rest of the series than to buy a totally new stand alone book by the same author. Many publishers have deals with an author to produce more books in the same series.That said, it's hard to keep a series fresh past a certain point.
So it's sometimes a balancing act between art and economics.
Troy wrote: "No set number for me. My all-time favorite series is The Wheel of Time which was 14 books before it finally ended. Most were quite entertaining. A few, in the middle were a little on the dull si..."WOT is a good example of too many books. The ones in the middle were terrible. Too much like a soap opera. Thankfully, they picked up again toward the end.
Lots of books set in the same world but with standalone stories seems to work. Look at the Discworld books. Or the Malazan series. But if they all follow directly on from one another, I think five is pushing it. I love GRR Martin but I'm beginning to flag with the series!
That could be one, two, three or more volumes, but even the most avid reader will eventually become tired of the same cast of characters and wander off in search of something new.Exactly. It is imperative to keep an over-arching plot going, without too many repetitive subplots. There will also be a certain amount of reader preference as to how long the reader is willing to go without apparent resolution - the Song of Ice and Fire books would be an excellent example there, as some readers are delighted to see the ever-deepening complexity, waiting for an elaborately-designed resolution, and others have since wandered off and will wait to hear about the series when it's finished.
On the other hand, as a few people have mentioned, there are some authors that have successfully explored many aspects of a universe without writing books that are part of one series, per se. I would say there's a much larger limit there, if there even is one!
If there's no resolution of any type at the end of an individual book, I think 3-5 is the limit. If there's an overarching plot but each book resolves a sub-story or has its own internal theme that it draws to a conclusion while at the same time continuing the main plot... Those could go on indefinitely, I think, because at least each book accomplishes -something-. I've been reading a series for about 24 books now, and while the early ones had a decent sense of closure about them, the most recent ones seem to just cliffhanger into each other, which is frustrating.
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...
If there's no overarching plot at all and the books just share a setting and possibly characters, it can potentially last pretty much indefinitely depending on how much can be done within its universe (the Oz books are probably the best example of such a "limitless" series, though opinions likely differ on whether or not they become stale at some point).