# How long should a series go on?



## joshtremino (Jul 31, 2010)

Some of my friends were talking about True Blood. One person loved it because there were so many books. My other friend couldn't stand it for the same reason. I then started thinking about writers like Robert Jordan and Harry Turtledove whose series go on and on.

So I'm wondering, how long do you want your favorite series to go on?


----------



## MLPMom (Nov 27, 2009)

I don't think there is a set limit to any series as long as it is well written and still going strong.
Some series, yes should have ended long ago but others have books in the double digits and still are fabulous and just as good as the earlier books. Granted that is rare but it does happen.
I think when it becomes obvious the storyline is getting old and the characters aren't growing anymore then it is time to end it. I can name a few series that I feel should have ended long ago and haven't and then I have a few series that I was sad to see end and wish there would have been more books. I also have series that I am reading that have 10 plus books and I still adore them. 
I think it really just depends on the writer and how well that writing is holding up.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

I think as long as a series stays fresh, it's fine.  But it can be very challenging for an author!  I think the problem with Sookie is that, since the series is written in first person, all the reader knows is her POV, and that can be limiting.  Then again, I do love those books, lol.


----------



## SimonSmithWilson (Jul 26, 2011)

I am a big fan of japanese novels and some of those have 20 - 30 books. I think it does depend on the genre too. I mean with my fantasy adventure books I could do loads of them, as there are no rules I have to go by. I can do all sorts of different stories, but certain genres have to stay a certain way. If the author is clever they can keep it fresh, but if you change to much you can lose the die hard fans. I think the genre is important.


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

Forever is good for me.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

If each book is a stand-alone story with its own beginning, middle, and end; I can deal with a series going on for as long as the author is able to continue putting out a good product with something fresh each time. Unfortunately, most authors don't know when to stop (or publishers don't let them).

If it is truly a series where you don't get to any real sort of ending until the last book, then I prefer that it be a trilogy, or at most 4-5 books. Robert Jordan started great, but by book #6 or #7 he lost me as a reader, and I now have no interest in the second half of that series: he built up suspense and then went off on so many tangents, that you would think everyone had forgotten why they'd all started the adventure to begin with (to save the world).

One of the reasons I love Terry Pratchett's "Discworld" books is that each is a self-contained story that can be read in isolation (with the exception of the first two, which should be read in sequence). Yes, they're even better if you've read the earlier books within a given story arc, but it's not necessary in order to enjoy them. My other favorite author, Roger Zelazny, wrote mostly all stand-alone books, with the exception of his two 5-book Amber series (and each 5-book series could probably fit into one George R. R. Martin book.)


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

In theory, there is no real limit beyond the writers imagination and desire.  But in practice I am really leery if it goes beyond five as I have yet to find a lengthy series that did not disappoint.  Trilogies are ideal for me.

Rewriting history is a big no-no for me.  If I am paying $8 or $9 bucks a pop for your novels and you want to disregard what I already paid to read and remake the character or story, I will feel cheated.  If book number four in your series wasn't correct, can I have my money back?


----------



## Lynn Mixon (Jan 2, 2011)

I don't really think there is a maximum length, so long as the author can keep the character growing. If things start feeling the same between books, it's time to move on.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

I think Piers Anthony's Xanth series is nearing 30 books.


----------



## CollinKelley (Sep 1, 2011)

This might be unpopular with some, but I think Anne Rice ran the Vampire Chronicles absolutely into the ground, backed over it and ran it into the ground again. The first three -- Interview With A Vampire, Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned -- were beautifully written and realized. Every book after that was more painful than the last. Then she merged it with The Witching Hour timeline. I just sort of pretend like the other books don't exist.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

I agree Collin..


----------



## Lyndl (Apr 2, 2010)

I don’t mind how long a series goes on, as long as the characters continue to grow and the story actually moves forward (unlike the last few Jordan books).  One of my pet hates, which usually happens in movie sequels, and sometimes in books, is when the main characters who got together by the end of the book/movie are now estranged simply as a plot device to justify the sequel. 

Sookie’s Southern Vampire mysteries have been fun, up until the last one  #11.  Apart from Sookie doing some housework and throwing the freeloaders out, nothing happened!  It felt like something thrown together to satisfy the fans.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

joshtremino said:


> Some of my friends were talking about True Blood. One person loved it because there were so many books. My other friend couldn't stand it for the same reason. I then started thinking about writers like Robert Jordan and Harry Turtledove whose series go on and on.
> 
> So I'm wondering, how long do you want your favorite series to go on?


I think the trilogy is the perfect length. Lots of room for meat and complexity, but still with a tight structure and an end in sight. Why write 6 or 9 books in one series when you could have 2 or 3 trilogies?


----------



## jonathanmoeller (Apr 19, 2011)

As actor Troy McClure said, until such time as it is no longer profitable.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

You do have to know when to quit. Collin, you are spot on with Anne Rice, everthing after The Tale of the Body Thief was downhill.


----------



## youngadultfiction (Jul 28, 2011)

I agree that it really does depend on which genre. I think the hunger games is a classic example of a series that just didn't need a third book. It almost felt like Collins wanted to stretch everything out, so that it could be three books in total. I'm currently reading 'Uglies' and it is very good so far, but there are another 3 books in the series. It will be interesting to see if it can stay good! Still think the first hunger games is a classic book though.


----------



## Robert S. Wilson (Jul 21, 2011)

For me if a series goes on a natural course and the story works every step of the way then who cares how many books it takes. But if it stales out or gets to a point that there's just nothing fresh or nothing really new happening, then it's time to wrap it up. You see this with a lot of older sci-fi series where the publisher just keeps pushing the author to keep going and going and beating that poor dead horse.


----------



## naomi_jay (Feb 1, 2011)

As long as it stays fresh and enjoyable, let the series run, I say. I'm not entirely sure who the best judge of that is though - the readers or the writers? Some authors do seem to drag series out past their natural deaths, and it shows badly. Whether that's because they love the characters too much to let go or because there's still money to be made, I don't know, but I'd rather see an author end a series on a high because they know there's nowhere else to take it, than see a series I've loved be flogged to death.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2011)

While it's still enjoyable, why not keep reading a series? It isn't length or number of books that makes me stop following a series, it's more major continuity issues, or the author obviously losing interest. An example of the first is Willard Price's Adventure series, which has several continuity glitches, some that can be attributed to science and attitudes changing over the time they were written (14 books between 1949 and 1980).    

The other thing that annoys me is where, for the series to go on, credibility must be stretched beyond the limit, or a reset button hit for every new book.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

Personally,
I really like when a series has a defined beginning and end - in other words is designed with a certain story arc in mind. If the series is really popular, and fans clamour for more, then do a prequel or take certain characters and spin them off. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I'm reading book 8 of S.M. Stirling's Emberverse which just came out on Tuesday.  It has a planned story arc and I know there are only 2 books to go but it is getting exhausting.  The first 3 are the story of the collapse of civilization and the ensuing post-apocalyptic rebuilding - and they're wonderful.  The middle three are 25 years later and a quest across North America from Oregon to Nantucket and they're great.  Now there are 4 books left and they're the grand war against the bad guys .... I think he stuck one too many in here as I'm halfway through book and so far it's mostly back story on what happened in Oregon while books 4-6 were happening .... now it's dragging.  Perhaps he would have been better served writing this as a trilogy of trilogies ....

There are other series I gave up on after book 4 or 5 when they start feeling like they're rambling.  But, I like how authors like Katherine Kurtz and Harry Turtledove write series of trilogies within a single universe.  Kurtz' Dernyi novels are 4 trilogies (OK, 4.66 trilogies as she's 2/3 through another) with some individual books around the sides.  Each trilogy can be read as a stand alone series or as part of the greater whole and I never felt she lost her direction anywhere within these 12 books.


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

+1. Do you know how compelling the first half of a book would have to be for me to commit to even a 10 book series with no stand alones? The first page? I don't think it could be written. Even a million monkeys with a million typewriters for a million years would be hard pressed. There would have to be an army of believers, composed mostly of people who's taste and intelligence I held in the highest esteem, all begging me to read these books for my own good, and the prose would have to fairly glow. Like, you look at the page, and you see sunspots kind of thing.

Life is so short. There are so many books. A series with no resolution for 10+ books is quite an investment; the return better be fantastic.



NogDog said:


> If each book is a stand-alone story with its own beginning, middle, and end; I can deal with a series going on for as long as the author is able to continue putting out a good product with something fresh each time. Unfortunately, most authors don't know when to stop (or publishers don't let them).
> 
> If it is truly a series where you don't get to any real sort of ending until the last book, then I prefer that it be a trilogy, or at most 4-5 books. Robert Jordan started great, but by book #6 or #7 he lost me as a reader, and I now have no interest in the second half of that series: he built up suspense and then went off on so many tangents, that you would think everyone had forgotten why they'd all started the adventure to begin with (to save the world).
> 
> One of the reasons I love Terry Pratchett's "Discworld" books is that each is a self-contained story that can be read in isolation (with the exception of the first two, which should be read in sequence). Yes, they're even better if you've read the earlier books within a given story arc, but it's not necessary in order to enjoy them. My other favorite author, Roger Zelazny, wrote mostly all stand-alone books, with the exception of his two 5-book Amber series (and each 5-book series could probably fit into one George R. R. Martin book.)


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

BTackitt said:


> I agree Collin..


Agree, and same phenom with Jean Auel's _Clan_ series.

Probably more a function of the commercial publisher contract requiring output on X schedule, and that ignored the reality of what was produced to meet the deadlines: quantity over quality.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

If it's a series of one story with one set of characters, then it should go on as long as it needs to to tell the story.

If it's a series comprised of multiple trilogies and/or stand alone books with separate stores--like R.A. Salvatore's long running Forgotten Realms series--then it can keep going indefinitely as long as the author is still writing good stories and developing the characters.

Like anything, it's quality that matters.  Not quantity.  There's no such thing as too much of a good thing in this instance IMO.  I love Salvatore's characters and stories and will keep reading them as long as he keeps writing them at a quality level.  Quality drops off, things get repetitive etc. then that's a different story.


----------



## Linda Andrews (Aug 16, 2011)

I agree with the trilogy mentality but if a series is still a great read in the 5 or 6th book I'll keep reading.

Linda


----------



## GerrieFerrisFinger (Jun 1, 2011)

joshtremino said:


> Some of my friends were talking about True Blood. One person loved it because there were so many books. My other friend couldn't stand it for the same reason. I then started thinking about writers like Robert Jordan and Harry Turtledove whose series go on and on.
> 
> So I'm wondering, how long do you want your favorite series to go on?


I guess the short answer is until I'm tired of it. I seem to like the first three, maybe four, then they get repetitive. I think Dennis Lehane had it right with the Patrick and Angie series, an absolute favorite series. Moonlight Mile should never have been written. JMHO.
Gerrie


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

I think it should go on as long as the story requires it.  If the author wants to limit it, then it should be limited.  As long as people keep buying a series that goes on and on...then the author should keep writing it as long as they feel they can.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

CollinKelley said:


> This might be unpopular with some, but I think Anne Rice ran the Vampire Chronicles absolutely into the ground, backed over it and ran it into the ground again. The first three -- Interview With A Vampire, Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned -- were beautifully written and realized. Every book after that was more painful than the last. Then she merged it with The Witching Hour timeline. I just sort of pretend like the other books don't exist.


Couldn't agree more. I'm really worried that GRRM's _Song of Ice and Fire _ is heading toward the same destination via a different route. In my mind, _Song of Ice and Fire _ is the first three books--the last two don't exist for me until he finishes the series and I can see how he wraps it up. I think sometimes when a series is wildly successful, the publishers encourage the writer to keep producing more and more books in that particular series because A) the series has an established audience and B) the publishers don't want to spend their ever tightening advertising budgets on something new/different that might be a risk even for an author with an established name. It's unfortunate and short-sighted if this is the case because readers aren't that easily fooled.

I have a JRR Tolkien view of series--he saw _Lord of the Rings_ as one volume and resisted having it divided into three books at first because in his mind, it was one overarching story. The numerous subplots all feed into the main story of Frodo and Sam's quest.


----------



## jason10mm (Apr 7, 2009)

I'm of two minds on this. For starters, there are series that are really "serials" which are typically short, repetitive, but narrowly focused on a core audience. Stuff like Cornwells Sharpe series, James Bond, and all sorts of pulp books. Read too many close together and they will out stay their welcome. They are intended to be annual reads, spaced out over time. These books are almost like comics in this regard.

Then there is one story fragmented into parts, like Hamilton's Night's Dawn, Whel of Time, Erikson's Malazan:Book of the Fallen, etc. I prefer these to be trilogies as I can't imagine any author can just sit down and sketch out a 10 book plot arc that isn't 90% filler. Using trilogies gives the reader (and author) a shorter plot arc and resolution, stringing them together with some meta-arcs linking them is acceptible. I'm 1 book short of the Malazan series (GRRM's ADWD took my epic summer fantasy spot!) and actually FINISHED L. Ron Hubbard's Mission:Earth decology (yeah, I'm slow sometimes  so my series completion tolerance is almost OCD quality, but even I saw the light with Wheel of Time and ripcorded out around book 7.


----------



## David M. Baum (Apr 21, 2011)

NogDog said:


> If each book is a stand-alone story with its own beginning, middle, and end; I can deal with a series going on for as long as the author is able to continue putting out a good product with something fresh each time. Unfortunately, most authors don't know when to stop (or publishers don't let them).
> 
> If it is truly a series where you don't get to any real sort of ending until the last book, then I prefer that it be a trilogy, or at most 4-5 books. Robert Jordan started great, but by book #6 or #7 he lost me as a reader, and I now have no interest in the second half of that series: he built up suspense and then went off on so many tangents, that you would think everyone had forgotten why they'd all started the adventure to begin with (to save the world).


I agree. When the seperate books are good as stand alone, there is a better chance for me to swallow a series. Discworld is a good example, as is Bernard Cornwell's the Saxon Stories series.

I think in general, trilogies hit the sweet spot. Not many can create a continuous series of more than 3 or 4 books which remains fresh, compelling and at a good pace.


----------



## Tamara Rose Blodgett (Apr 1, 2011)

@OP:For as long as it's decent and relevant. Janet Evanovich got stale with her Stephanie Plum series but Laurell K. Hamilton is starting to get her Anita Blake series back to what made it super-good before book ten. True Blood...the last book was "meh." But, I will read the next installment and see if Harris progresses the series or if it's lost its luster. I just finished my 2nd book and my hat's off to these authors that _can_ write a long series; it's challenging! As a reader, I love to see the ongoing evolution of a character/story that I've grown to love. When it's done well, a stand-alone can't compare!


----------



## Ben White (Feb 11, 2011)

Until there's no more story to tell; until the story has been told.


----------



## RJMcDonnell (Jan 29, 2011)

How is this for a never-ending series? The final series for Lawrence Sanders featured discreet inquirer, Archie McNally. He wrote seven novels before he died in the late 90s. The series was so popular that Vincent Lardo picked it up and wrote six more novels in the Lawrence Sanders style. It was like seeing a top tribute band posthumously creating original material to keep the vibe going.


----------



## CollinKelley (Sep 1, 2011)

As for Anne Rice, I can't even get behind Tale of the Body Thief. I remembering being so excited the Vampire Chronicles was continuing and feeling completely let down by the book. There was a time when Anne Rice had a "no edit" clause in her contract and it became more and more obvious.


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

I agree with the comments that the series should continue while it's still enjoyable. For me this means that there are interesting changes in the protagonist's life and circumstances. For me, one of the great appeals of a series is to see what the protagonist is up to with their love lives, or family lives, job, etc. I'm speaking of mysteries here, because this is the genre I read most.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

I really depends. Diana Gabaldon is working on number eight in her Outlander series. Can't wait for the next one. Kim Harrison just put our her tenth on the Hollows series. Personally, I thought the the last one was the best.

On the other hand I am tired of the Sookie series and the Stephanie Plum series. Usually either a trilogy or six books for a series is the sweet spot for me. But if they are well done, the characters still grow, and the world doesn't suddenly morph into something convenient, then I say bring it on.

Harry Potter eight anyone?


----------



## Elizabeth Black (Apr 8, 2011)

I think a series should go on as long as it needs to go on. When the series gets old it shows in the writing. It's like TV shows I enjoy. Sometimes they go on a few seasons too long when they should have been cut years earlier. Same with books.


----------



## barbara elsborg (Oct 13, 2010)

The answer - as long as they keep selling.
But there are many series that should have stopped sooner, IMO. It always seems a shame to me that writers get pushed by their publishers to keep churning out stories about the same characters when they'd have been better to do something new. Patricia Cornwall lost me, Kellerman lost me, JR Ward...well I could go on and on.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

CollinKelley said:


> As for Anne Rice, I can't even get behind Tale of the Body Thief. I remembering being so excited the Vampire Chronicles was continuing and feeling completely let down by the book. There was a time when Anne Rice had a "no edit" clause in her contract and it became more and more obvious.


You noticed the long rambling diatribes about the wonders of great art and literature too?

Marius' obsession with Botticelli in Blood and Gold felt more like being lectured by an arts professor than reading a novel.


----------



## MLPMom (Nov 27, 2009)

DChase said:


> I really depends. Diana Gabaldon is working on number eight in her Outlander series. Can't wait for the next one. Kim Harrison just put our her tenth on the Hollows series. Personally, I thought the the last one was the best.
> 
> On the other hand I am tired of the Sookie series and the Stephanie Plum series. Usually either a trilogy or six books for a series is the sweet spot for me. But if they are well done, the characters still grow, and the world doesn't suddenly morph into something convenient, then I say bring it on.
> 
> Harry Potter eight anyone?


It is funny how even as readers our opinions on when a series should end is even different. I love the Outlander series but I really think it could have ended books (yes plural) ago and have been fantastic. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed the last few books but the story wasn't the same as the first three books in the series and I LOVE Jamie, so that is hard to admit.

As for Stephanie Plum I have only read the first 10 books (out of the seventeen) but I am still loving the series.

Jeanine Frost, Deanne Raybourn, J.D. Robb, Ilona Andrews, Karen Moning are all wonderful examples (to me) on authors that can make a series really work still after more than 3 books.

And I do agree the Sookie series just isn't what it use to be. Thankfully there are only two more books left before it ends and even though the series is super frustrating to me now, I will still read the last two books because, I just need to know how it ends (pathetic, I know).


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

MLPMom said:


> It is funny how even as readers our opinions on when a series should end is even different. I love the Outlander series but I really think it could have ended books (yes plural) ago and have been fantastic. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed the last few books but the story wasn't the same as the first three books in the series and I LOVE Jamie, so that is hard to admit.
> 
> As for Stephanie Plum I have only read the first 10 books (out of the seventeen) but I am still loving the series.
> 
> ...


I understand what you mean about the Outlander series. After book three they morphed into something different. But that's okay for me. I love the relationship between Claire and Jamie. Plus there's the history. To be honest Brianna irritates me, but I love Roger.

I agree with you about Frost and Andrews. Ilona Andrews is one of my favorite writers right now. I'll also add Richelle Mead and Adrian Phoenix to the list of authors making it work after book three.


----------



## Ash Stirling (Mar 2, 2011)

As long as it stays entertaining I don't mind how long it goes - but once it gets to the stage of putting out a book simply to continue padding the series (as some of the Wheel of Time books ended up doing) then that is when it should stop.


----------



## TheSFReader (Jan 20, 2011)

tkkenyon said:


> I like series.
> 
> That said, I actually like epics with a long plot arc, like Harry Potter or His Dark Materials.
> 
> ...


While I may agree that the latest Vorkosigan may not be the best one, the last chapter/epilogue redeems it almost totally.
I'll keep on buying her books...


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

Totally think Harris jumped the shark with the Sookie series. It was really great and then it wasn't. Personally I love a trilogy but a five book series has also been known to work for me. Obviously I've broken away from those but in general, I find the 3 & 5 book series leave me feeling the happiest over all.


----------



## AnnieOldham (Sep 1, 2011)

youngadultfiction said:


> I agree that it really does depend on which genre. I think the hunger games is a classic example of a series that just didn't need a third book. It almost felt like Collins wanted to stretch everything out, so that it could be three books in total. I'm currently reading 'Uglies' and it is very good so far, but there are another 3 books in the series. It will be interesting to see if it can stay good! Still think the first hunger games is a classic book though.


Uglies is a great series because Pretties and Specials both examine a different social group in that society--it offers something different. I feel Extras is more of a companion book because Tally's story ends with Specials. Extras tells someone else's story, has different characters, different themes. Still a great read, though.

I really enjoy when a series examines a different aspect of the existing mythology. Ursula K. LeGuin's Earthsea Cycle is great that way. She takes previous aspects of her world and turns them on their head, such as her assumptions about magic and death.

I also think stand-alone books are refreshing. It seems like there are just so many series out there. I like being done with a story in one volume. I was torn with Hunger Games. I loved the first and third books. I got into the second one, and I thought "You've got to be kidding me. She's going BACK to the arena?"


----------



## Jason Kristopher (Jun 1, 2011)

As long as it takes.

I know that sounds trite, but good authors will take as long as they take to tell the story. If I like the story, I'm in it until the end.

That said, there are series like Piers Anthony's oft-maligned Xanth books that, at some point, even he should've run screaming from. Once they all became essentially the same story (somewhere around #14 or 15, where I stopped reading), he should have bowed out gracefully.

Then again, they were/are still making him boatloads of cash, so... I suppose it's a tossup.


----------



## joshtremino (Jul 31, 2010)

Gregory Lynn said:


> Forever is good for me.


LOL. I like your attitude. =-)


----------



## Beth Groundwater (Apr 6, 2011)

As long as readers are enjoying it and buying the books--and more importantly, as long as the author hasn't gotten bored writing the series books yet. Too many times, I've seen the quality of late-in-the-series books go down and plots get rehashed. I think it's because the author is bored with the whole thing and wants to move on to something else. However, the money's too good and the readers and publisher want more, so the author keeps churning them out. I've vowed to never do that with my series. If I get bored with them, I'll walk away from them rather than let the quality go down.


----------



## WriterCTaylor (Jul 11, 2011)

Some authors are great at keeping a series alive because each story is fresh. Others, well they should be told enough already. Check out the long running (but old) series by Enid Blyton. The Famous five and The Secret Seven. Childhood favourites of mine.


----------



## GerrieFerrisFinger (Jun 1, 2011)

CollinKelley said:


> As for Anne Rice, I can't even get behind Tale of the Body Thief. I remembering being so excited the Vampire Chronicles was continuing and feeling completely let down by the book. There was a time when Anne Rice had a "no edit" clause in her contract and it became more and more obvious.


Taltos was worse.
I loved the Lestat series, though.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

I've been working on a series -- not on Kindle -- of supernatural thrillers the last few years. I'm currently writing #5. And my attitude is, it'll be over when it's over. The characters keep on evolving, I introduce some new ones occasionally, I'm not repeating myself in terms of story or theme, and so long as the novels and the protagonists stay fresh I can see no particular reason to stop. And my readers seem entirely happy with that.


----------



## CollinKelley (Sep 1, 2011)

tim290280 said:


> You noticed the long rambling diatribes about the wonders of great art and literature too?
> 
> Marius' obsession with Botticelli in Blood and Gold felt more like being lectured by an arts professor than reading a novel.


Yes, I did notice that. A good editor would have made her cut it down. Sadly, she didn't have one.

Don't even get me started on TV series that should have ended. Weeds is one. I used to love that show and now it's jumped several sharks and floundering on land. Mary Louise Parker must be making big bank to stay around so long.


----------



## Marc Johnson (Feb 25, 2011)

For me and when reading fantasy, I start to get tired of series around the 4th book or so. I would love it if a series would wrap up around then. I have loved series that run 7 books long.

I prefer trilogies these days. My problem is when they have a 2nd trilogy. I feel cheated and wonder why they didn't just make it 6 books to begin with.

Much like TV shows, I would much rather have a series end on top than continue to drag out.


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

I love long series, but prefer when they have an end in sight. It doesn't matter how long it takes to get there, as long as the ending is satisfying -- none one my fave characters better die pointlessly and someone better be hitched.


----------



## djgross (May 24, 2011)

NogDog said:


> If each book is a stand-alone story with its own beginning, middle, and end; I can deal with a series going on for as long as the author is able to continue putting out a good product with something fresh each time.


Yes!

Another vote for Ilona Andrews - the Kate Daniels series started off strong and keeps getting stronger. Ditto for Seanan McGuire's October Daye series.


----------



## Nancy Beck (Jul 1, 2011)

NogDog said:


> If it is truly a series where you don't get to any real sort of ending until the last book, then I prefer that it be a trilogy, or at most 4-5 books. Robert Jordan started great, but by book #6 or #7 he lost me as a reader, and I now have no interest in the second half of that series: he built up suspense and then went off on so many tangents, that you would think everyone had forgotten why they'd all started the adventure to begin with (to save the world).


NogDog,

Couldn't agree more about WoT; didn't keep me as a reader after a certain point. I really think it got out of hand.

One series, IMHO, that has gotten better and better with each book is The Dresden Files (Jim Butcher). It started out decently, but picked up speed with each successive book (and I mean that in a good way ). It got to the point where I couldn't wait for the ppbk and got a hard copy - me, who doesn't "do" hard copy books, lol! Altho there's an ongoing overall story arc, each book's story is self contained.


----------



## RedTash (Aug 14, 2011)

It should go on as long as it's still got something to say.  Some characters need to leave us alone after the first book, in my opinion, and it can be so hard to deal with the fact that the writer's style varies from the first book to the last.

On the other hand, we wouldn't want to kill of Nancy Drew after three books!

Always leave 'em wanting more, I say.

This Brilliant Darkness is book one of two.  Troll or Derby will be a stand-alone, but if it's popular I wouldn't mind revisiting that world to write more.  Perhaps I'd write side-stories for minor characters, I don't know.  I can't think that far ahead yet, just focusing on the work I'm doing now, for now!

Everyone in this house loves a good series, keyword there being "good."


----------



## BrianPBorcky (Aug 7, 2011)

I'll agree with the masses -- as long as you're still telling a story and it's selling, a series can go on in perpetuity, even though it does get sad when something you loved gets staler than old bread.

The trick is to find a series that isn't afraid to shake things up -- add and subtract characters, make things happen. It also depends on the genre a bit for me -- I can read a dozen books from my favorite mystery writers, all in the same series, but most of the time they're selling the case, and the characters are the seasoning on the steak, so to speak.

This post made me hungry.


----------



## mattposner (Oct 28, 2010)

Michael_J_Sullivan said:


> Personally,
> I really like when a series has a defined beginning and end - in other words is designed with a certain story arc in mind. If the series is really popular, and fans clamour for more, then do a prequel or take certain characters and spin them off. Just my 2 cents.


I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Sullivan. I am now writing the fourth book of my series (published the second earlier this week) and I can't imagine readers wanting to stay with my protagonist Simon after he has graduated from School of the Ages. It's a coming-of-age series. At the end of book five, he and his classmates will have come of age. At this point, the series will end. Prequels -- books focusing on other characters -- that's all good. But the narrative drive of the original set will be gone. The appropriate length of a story arc varies, of course, and some series need to be longer than others, but they should end when the main story has been fully developed and concluded.


----------



## jayreddy publisher (Jun 13, 2011)

As long as the story takes to write. I know many authors who have a set number of books they want in their series, but I always advise them just to see where the story takes them. 

As a reader, I want to always be intrigued by the next book, but many times I seem to fall off on a series on the third book. I can't tell if this is me getting sick of the series, or if the storyline just gets stagnant. I can only think of a few series that I have read all the way through.


----------



## Coral Moore (Nov 29, 2009)

KindleChickie said:


> In theory, there is no real limit beyond the writers imagination and desire. But in practice I am really leery if it goes beyond five as I have yet to find a lengthy series that did not disappoint. Trilogies are ideal for me.


I absolutely agree with this. I often start a series loving the characters and storyline and wishing it could go on forever, only to find that by the fourth of fifth book I really don't want to have anything to do with the books anymore. This has happened to me multiple times. I have rarely kept reading in a series that went beyond four.


----------



## mattlynn (Jun 10, 2011)

I've just handed the 4th book in the Death Force series into the publisher, and now I reckon it is time for something different.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Until the author thinks enough is enough, I should think. At that point a wise editor lets him/her/it start a new series, or write some singletons.

I'm editing the uniform reissue of writer who had two series already in his oeuvre, one with three books, and a looser arrangement with two books. The publisher commissioned two more in the bigger series, and one more in the smaller one, because that's all he would agree to. I think he's right. We can always talk again when we have the new books in hand, discuss whether he is still enthusiastic about those characters.

One of my protege started a series with the idea that there might be ten books in it, and a firm intention of stopping if she got bored with the characters. Now she has nine books finished, a tenth nearly finished, several more with bits and pieces written to "taste" the characters and see if she likes them, with the current total projected being 13. That's organic growth. But a series that big is viable for her because she intended from the beginning to have a different lead character in each novel. So the novels can be presented as either selfstanding or a series; from next month we'll launch them as a series, and we'll soon know if readers "see" the series or instead regard the set as closely interconnected rather than a series in the sense of a sequence.

Two classes of writer that as a writer I feel sorry for, though as an editor I would probably tell them sternly to pull themselves together and laugh all the way to the bank:

The ones who write fifty or sixty "police procedurals" about the same copper, or similar. That must be soul-deadening.

The ones who're always whining that their series-work, which has made them rich, prevents them expressing their true artistic destiny. Did you know that Arthur Conan Doyle and Arthur Sullivan (the composer-half of Gilbert & Sullivan) both suffered from this unattractive disease. Conan Doyle wanted to kill Holmes off after the second volume and only his mother could stop him. (I have an image of this formidable lady grabbing the great man by the ear and sitting him down at his desk... In truth she did it with a letter that is still the very model of a modern major act of emotional blackmail.) Sullivan didn't want to write jumped-up, music hall tunes, which is how he thought of light opera, but serious, dull symphonies. Pompous idiots, the pair of them.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

I think some readers are more psychologically tuned to series than others, just as some people are more tuned to different genres.  Would it be going too far out on a limb to say that some people like series (especially the really long 10+ series) as "comfort" reads? 

For me, series should top out at four or five books, and each new book should progressively build from the previous.  The series should be telling a large story that can’t fit into the constraints of one book and not just separate and individual episodes per book.  Whenever an author claims books in the series can be read in any order, I put the book down as easily as backing away from an angry rattlesnake.  I’m also OK with huge elements of story or character development left swinging in the breeze at the end between books.


----------



## Bridges (Jul 16, 2011)

I usually read the first five or six books in a series... I love the Diana Gabaldon books!


----------



## Nicki Leigh (Aug 25, 2011)

I'm not so focused on the number of books as I am the author's ability to carry the story through that series of books. Years ago, I read The Black Gryphon by Mercedes Lackey. I loved the book and felt it ended on a wonderful not. But then she wrote book 2, The White Gryphon. I went ahead and picked it up, but the second book wasn't necessary and I was a little upset by how the book was written. The third book in the series doesn't even follow the same character. In instances such as this, I think it's better for authors to write one book and leave it at that.

I'd love to write a trilogy, but I know at least 1.5 of those books would be forced, and I don't want to do that to my readers just to have a higher amount of books. I prefer stand-alone books.


----------



## brianrowe (Mar 10, 2011)

I like when there is an end in sight. Even the best books, and the best book series, can get stale after a while. I think five to seven books is fine... more than ten and it starts to get a bit too much. I'd much rather start a series that I know ends after seven books, as opposed to a series that has forty books and counting in its never-ending series.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

I'm one of those people who really fall in love with the characters. Reading series books is like being a voyeur into their life and when it ends, I'm always sad. So for me, I prefer the longer series books. I'm just not satisfied with one or two books. I want more.


----------



## Ben Dobson (Mar 27, 2011)

This depends heavily on the type of series it is.  You've got your single epic story series...es, like Harry Potter or Song of Ice and Fire, and they should be done in as few books as you can possibly tell the story properly in, otherwise you start to get rumblings about books where nothing seems to happen or the plot doesn't show enough movement or such.  No one wants pointless padding.  For example, the Wheel of Time series could have been like eight books shorter and been better for it.  I'm partial to three books or less, though all the aforementioned broke that (and Song of Ice and Fire, much as I love it, might be suffering for it).

Then you've got your ongoing-but-separate-story serieses (I'm sticking with that pluralization), like Discworld or the Dresden files, in which case they can really go on as long as you have stories to tell without suffering.  It's nice to check back in with the characters at different points in their lives and see things evolve and different stories happen.  The danger here, however, is retreading the same ground.  If you can't tell a story you haven't told before with the series, or every story basically reverts back to the same status quo and nothing changes, for me it gets boring fast.


----------



## tensen (May 17, 2011)

BTackitt said:


> I think Piers Anthony's Xanth series is nearing 30 books.


I think it was at 35 title this year. Almost a book a year since around 1977.
Every now and again I pick up a book to read in the series to enjoy myself, but I gave up following it regularly a long long time ago.


----------



## tensen (May 17, 2011)

E. S. Lark said:


> I'm not so focused on the number of books as I am the author's ability to carry the story through that series of books. Years ago, I read The Black Gryphon by Mercedes Lackey. I loved the book and felt it ended on a wonderful not. But then she wrote book 2, The White Gryphon. I went ahead and picked it up, but the second book wasn't necessary and I was a little upset by how the book was written. The third book in the series doesn't even follow the same character. In instances such as this, I think it's better for authors to write one book and leave it at that.


Misty always had a problem with trilogies. Her second book was usually lesser quality and was almost never worth standing on its own. I love her work though.

I like when author do series like she does. Trilogies or duologies that stand alone. But part of the overall world. So you can pick up at any point with the new trilogy as a fan or new reader without feeling you need to read it all.


----------



## joshtremino (Jul 31, 2010)

Ben Dobson said:


> This depends heavily on the type of series it is. You've got your single epic story series...es, like Harry Potter or Song of Ice and Fire, and they should be done in as few books as you can possibly tell the story properly in, otherwise you start to get rumblings about books where nothing seems to happen or the plot doesn't show enough movement or such. No one wants pointless padding. For example, the Wheel of Time series could have been like eight books shorter and been better for it. I'm partial to three books or less, though all the aforementioned broke that (and Song of Ice and Fire, much as I love it, might be suffering for it).
> 
> Then you've got your ongoing-but-separate-story serieses (I'm sticking with that pluralization), like Discworld or the Dresden files, in which case they can really go on as long as you have stories to tell without suffering. It's nice to check back in with the characters at different points in their lives and see things evolve and different stories happen. The danger here, however, is retreading the same ground. If you can't tell a story you haven't told before with the series, or every story basically reverts back to the same status quo and nothing changes, for me it gets boring fast.


That's a good distinction. I tend to be a fan of self-contained stories even if they're a part of a series.


----------



## JackDAlbrecht (Sep 24, 2011)

I happen to think that the Wheel of Time books have continued to be great. The Sword of Truth series however... That one should have ended when Terry Goodkind could not think of a better way to end Confessor. I am continuing to read both as the books come out, out of morbid curiosity with Terry Goodkind. The Wheel of time books still hold my interest, and even more so now that Brandon Sanderson is finishing the series.  I feel that a series should continue until the whole story is told, or until the author thinks themselves so good that they don't care about writing a good book anymore.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

joshtremino said:


> I tend to be a fan of self-contained stories even if they're a part of a series.


Right. Even a story in a series must have a beginning, a middle and an end in order to stand up as novel in its own right.


----------



## Diane Capri (Sep 28, 2011)

Ummm, as long as I still like it?? Some series seem to lose me a lot earlier than others. Is that just me?

Diane Capri


----------



## Ben Dobson (Mar 27, 2011)

Diane Capri said:


> Ummm, as long as I still like it?? Some series seem to lose me a lot earlier than others. Is that just me?
> 
> Diane Capri


I almost always prefer a series to end while I still want more, myself. The problem with going on as long as everyone likes it is that it implies eventually they _don't_ like it anymore, and by that time it's already too late for the series to make a graceful exit.

For example, this is the problem with network TV. Shows don't have an ending, they go until they lose ratings and everyone is sick of them, and then they get cancelled. You don't get a satisfying end. And if you do get an ending, it's after everyone has stopped watching or caring. My favorite shows are the ones that say "We're ending now because the story is done" and then follow through on that and give some great last moments.

In terms of books, exactly where to end a series is going to vary based on the type of series it is and such. But I'm always going to prefer a series that gives me a great ending on it's own terms because it was time as opposed to a series that clings depressingly to life when the author should just pull the plug already.


----------



## GerrieFerrisFinger (Jun 1, 2011)

I think until the writer runs dry of plots and character arcs and twists. Some never seem to like Janet E, but who can argue with success.


----------



## Thomas D. Taylor (Oct 12, 2011)

As much as some of my fans have loved some of the stuff I have written, or the characters within them, I will not write sequels to anything unless what I am writing can stand on its own. I am writing a sequel to one of my books now. 

The obvious next step would be to make it a trilogy, because this seems to be what is expected, but if no decent plot or storyline comes to mind, there will be no third book.


----------



## Amera (May 22, 2011)

In fantasy, I tend to think the answer is too often "two books ago."  

Seriously speaking, though, there's too much variation for any type of solid rule. I really agree with the Network TV comment, though. It's a great example of how not having a planned, fixed ending can often sour the whole thing. I know a lot of people felt that way with "Lost" (I never watched it) and there are numerous other examples.


----------



## Mark Young (Dec 13, 2010)

As a reader, I want my favorite series to go on forever as long as the writer tries to stretch and pull the character as they develop. Otherwise we are stuck the same old story, rehashed over and over. As a writer, I don't know how long I could keep the drive alive. One way I've tried to do this is to create several main characters, and have favorite characters cross over. Writers like John Lescroart have done this very successfully, and writers like Michael Connelly have used two characters his case, half-brothers-- to keep his series going. Very effective. And there is Lee Childs, whose Jack Reacher may live forever.


----------



## KealanPatrick (Sep 5, 2010)

I would say a series should go on only until the story has been told.


----------



## SheenahFreitas (Oct 7, 2011)

I think it depends on the series. If it's fantastic and every book in the series sounds fresh and exciting with a lovable ensemble of characters, I'll keep reading. But if the books begin to get redundant and boring, I think it's time for the series to end.


----------



## yingko2 (Jul 26, 2011)

In my opinion as long as people enjoy reading it and/or it remains fresh. The Shadow pulp series ran 325 books. Some still wanted more. Really depends on the series and readers.
Cheers,
Howard


----------



## rachelsholiday (Sep 9, 2011)

I really think it depends on what the author is going for and hir (gender neutral pronoun) should set that up in the beginning.

For example, I'm working on a four book series about a young woman named Paisley Tines.  She's in high school, so the reader will follow her through the high school experience.


----------



## JennieCoughlin (Sep 9, 2011)

Good question! I think for mystery series, where the case is the story and the characters are the world in which it's set, you can go many more books in a series than you can for other types. That said, even some of those can drag on too long — I wish Lilian Jackson Braun's Cat Who books had stopped a few earlier than they did. But I can think of others — any of Charlotte MacLeod's series or Emma Lathan's John Putnam Thatcher books — that I could have easily read more of. 

For non-mysteries, I'm a big fan of the trilogy. Unless, as somebody pointed out, it's like Pratchett's Discworld where they can stand alone. I know my own series will be at least six books, but it's the setting that ties them together. Different books focus on different characters, and each stands alone. I think that's something of a different beast.


----------

