# When do you lose interest in a series?



## me3boyz (Jan 10, 2010)

I've come to the conclusion that I can make it through 3 books and then that's it. And it doesn't matter how long or short the books are, once I hit the end of the third book I start to lose interest. Not sure why. Too much information maybe?

Which is interesting because I've read the first 5 books of the Outlander series. I've not read (though I've tried) A Breath of Snow and Ashes or An Echo in the Bone. I'm currently stuck halfway though re-reading Drums of Autumn.


----------



## VictoriaP (Mar 1, 2009)

When the author stops being true to their characters, or does something so incredibly stupid with the plot that I no longer care what happens to the characters. This is also the point I'll cease to buy anything at all that author produces. More typically, the first issue is the problem, but I do think that most authors can't bear to end a series when they probably should.

This can happen anywhere from the second book (_Outlander_--Can't get past the first third of _Dragonfly_) to the 15th (Stephanie Plum). Or I can go 40 without an issue (J.D. Robb's _In Death_ series)--an excellent author can grow their characters without destroying them in the process.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

I lose interest when the author starts writing the same book over and over with just the serial numbers filed off. Frequently after four or five in the series.

Mike


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Besides the obvious things like poor/lazy writing and such, I tend to lose interest when the author just starts adding new plot twists (or maybe characters) for what seems to be no reason other than to keep the story going instead of resolving things in a timely manner. In general, if an author is going to write a series longer than 3 books, then I would prefer that each book be more or less episodic and able to stand on its own, maybe with an underlying story arc that stretches across them, but not the main plot element of each installment (see Pratchett's "Discworld" books and to a lesser extant Brust's "Vlad Taltos" books).


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

For me it is when the quality of the series wanes or the author starts to shark jump.

The waning quality is often less noticeable unless there has been a lot of anticipation for the next book. Shark jumping is jarringly obvious and smacks of author deadlines and publisher pressure, or alternatively a writer who poured everything into the previous books and has nothing left.


----------



## Ryl (Nov 25, 2010)

Sadly, I _don't_ lose interest. Even when I know I'm going to be disappointed, I can't help reading the next book. This may explain why my bookshelves are overflowing...


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

I read all twelve of the Ross Poldark books - a wonderful dramatic saga set in eighteenth century Cornwall. The first seven books are excellent - the old characters maintained, interesting new ones introduced and the intertwining stories always absorbing. From book eight onwards the focus switches to the next generation and, although the original beloved characters are there, they are hard to match - but still first-rate reading. And then the final book. I remember when I came across it newly released in hardback I was as excited as I had ever been over a book (including the much hyped release of later Harry Potter books). I was going to be reunited with old friends! I have never been so disappointed,. The whole tone had changed and become less pleasant. Still, eleven out of twelve isn't too bad.


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

When I see that it's a series.


----------



## D.R. Erickson (Mar 3, 2011)

When the plot begins to spiral off in twenty different directions and it becomes obvious that it'll take the author till book 10 to wrap it all up.


----------



## NapCat (retired) (Jan 17, 2011)

When the word processor becomes obvious......


----------



## KerylR (Dec 28, 2010)

There's no one thing that'll stop me reading a series, but there are two series that broke my heart with how they turned out.

Patricia Cornwell: the Scarpetta books were happily cruising along, and then suddenly she went off the rails.  Every character in the books became mockeries of themselves and one of them rose from the dead.  WTF?  Why?  

Or Hickman and Weis, who for reasons I can't fathom decided to destroy their characters.  And then five years later went back and mucked around with them again. i just didn't get it.  There wasn't any great, pressing need to raise those characters from the dead and mess with them again.  There was nothing new about what they had to add to them.


----------



## William BK. (Mar 8, 2011)

In my case, if the first book manages to hold me, I will usually read the entire series regardless of whether or not I find the quality declining later on. 

Often, if it's an ongoing series, I just stop reading when I get to the end of what's published and never pick it up again. I'm impatient that way, and so don't tend to start a series until I know it's done.


----------



## JimC1946 (Aug 6, 2009)

jmiked said:


> I lose interest when the author starts writing the same book over and over with just the serial numbers filed off. Frequently after four or five in the series.


Mike, you took the words right out of my mouth. When an author shows clear signs of "milking it," and the series loses focus, I'm gone.

I've quit reading two series in the past year for just that reason, and I gave both of them a couple of second chances before I gave up.


----------



## Averydebow (Jan 20, 2011)

When the author seems to be guessing what the readers want most (or has read too many readers' takes on what should happen) and shifts the plot focus to suit.


----------



## Painter John (Mar 6, 2011)

I tend to fall in love with a series through one book, and slowly grow fickle, and throw the series out for keeping too close to that first spark for too long, or pushing too far, I want the perfect progression.  True love is hard to find!


Painter John


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

How about when the author sets up a small team of ghost writers to churn out sequels for him?


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

David Ross Erickson said:


> When the plot begins to spiral off in twenty different directions and it becomes obvious that it'll take the author till book 10 to wrap it all up.


It drives me crazy when a writer does this. Although I fully intend to read _A Dance With Dragons _ when it comes out (along with _A Feast for Crows_, which I refuse to read until ADWD is out), I fear George R.R. Martin has done this with _A Song of Ice and Fire_, which started with such promise. It just feels like too many POV characters for him to keep straight and too many plots, but only time and the entire series being out will tell.

I think each book in a series should either be somewhat stand-alone (or at least not end with too many unanswered questions) or revolve around some central, over-arching plot. _Lord of the Rings_ comes to mind--Tolkien wrote the entire series as one book with one central story line. The publishers were the ones who split it into 3 books. Given, it's a very detailed central story line--but it's still just one main story line.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

When you never get to eat the carrots that have been waved in front of your face.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

The series I read most are mysteries. For a lot of them it's as if the author just runs out of stories and starts forcing them. The books gets shorter (same number of pages, more space between lines and fewer lines per page), and everything about the books just gets "lighter." That's when I quit. I've also seen this in romance series where the author just doesn't have enough good stories for all the characters in a family or group she wants to write them for.

Then sometimes authors who at the beginning of a series show an opinion on a subject go berserk after they have a successful series and let their personal leanings take over. Elizabeth George is an example of this. Her last books have gone off the rails with her criminal as victim attitude.


----------



## GBear (Apr 23, 2009)

KerylR said:


> There's no one thing that'll stop me reading a series, but there are two series that broke my heart with how they turned out.
> 
> Patricia Cornwell: the Scarpetta books were happily cruising along, and then suddenly she went off the rails. Every character in the books became mockeries of themselves and one of them rose from the dead. WTF? Why?


Patricia Cornwell is a perfect example of a series that went sour enough that I stopped reading it. It's not always easy to pinpoint why, but you're right about the characters. I think of the stories as becoming soap operas or comic strips instead of books that can stand on their own merits. And forcing a personal agenda over plot and character development is another warning sign. The Spenser novels by Robert Parker went a similar route.

Still, I have this image of a writer struggling for years to create the "perfect" book, then being expected to recreate that magic on an annual basis for the next ten years. It can't be easy for authors, or any artist for that matter.


----------



## Sandpiper (Oct 28, 2008)

I don't read series.  Are series always fiction?  I read 99% non-fiction.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Sandpiper said:


> I don't read series. Are series always fiction? I read 99% non-fiction.


Would Will and Ariel Durant's eleven-volume _The Story of Civilization_ be considered a series?


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

T.L. Haddix said:


> Exactly. As well, I've noticed that the print tends to get larger. I think it was the last Evanovich release, but when I got it from the library (yes, I'm too cheap to pay those prices), I actually checked to see if it was large print. I wouldn't be horribly surprised to see illustrations in the next one. Don't get me wrong - I love JE's work - but she's better than what she's been producing lately. I know that it can't be easy after being into a series that far, but there also comes a point where common sense should come into play.


Maybe this all begs the question that instead of asking when readers give up on a series: when should an author give up on a series? Unfortunately, knowing how difficult it is for 99% of the authors out there to make any real money, the temptation to stick with a "winning formula" must be nearly irresistible (or the pressure from their publishers if they're not indies), just as movie producers are unable to resist sequels and remakes instead of gambling on totally original fare.


----------



## Labrynth (Dec 31, 2009)

VictoriaP said:


> When the author stops being true to their characters, or does something so incredibly stupid with the plot that I no longer care what happens to the characters. This is also the point I'll cease to buy anything at all that author produces. More typically, the first issue is the problem, but I do think that most authors can't bear to end a series when they probably should.


agreed. I still enjoy Sanford's Davenport books (tho he will probably be retiring him soon favor of Flowers) and find each one entertaining.

But I gave up on Hamilton's Anita Blake series because they just went to crap. She wasn't the character I read so many years ago and loved. She was a raging slut with an excuse. Bleh.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

I think the underlying problem is the traditional publishing model. The publishing house doesn't want to take too many risks, so they milk the author/series for all they can get, probably passing on any proposals for a different book or series to keep the cash cow on track (how's that mixed metaphor?).


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

I prefer series that are all one organic whole, like Lord of the Rings. The length or number of books don't matter if there is one continuous build. However, there are some extremely formulaic books -- basically the same book over and over -- which I will happily read. Two examples are Tarzan and Barbara Cartland. I read every one. And then again in French.

Probably this says something dubious about my taste.


----------



## easyreader (Feb 20, 2011)

I lose interest in authors when they keep writing the same book over and over but just change the names.


----------



## zizekpress (Mar 9, 2011)

Usually when the cover says 'No.1 in a 47 book saga.'

It's like Hollywood and their superhero "origin story" movies, where everything is all set up for the sequel. It's terrible...the equivalent of watching someone putting the pieces on a chessboard before the game.


----------



## TheRiddler (Nov 11, 2010)

It's hard to quantify, and if I'm going to read a series, then I'd rather it be one that's 'complete' so I know what I'm signing up for.

Basically it's at the point of thinking "I just don't care anymore".

Series that are scoped out in advance are usually the best examples (Harry Potter, take a bow), and obviously each book has to be stand alone tales that maybe leave a thread or two hanging over till the next book.

Then of course there are series which are basically stand alone novels with recurring characters - for example LJ Sellers Detective Jackson books, whihc I believe you could read easily as stand alone novels.

Once a series gets more then 5 books, I'm starting to think maybe this isn't for me. Having said that, I can't seem to get enough of the Dresden Files....


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

Some author here on KB said he thought he was done with a series when the publisher asked for two more books. Since writing is such an uncertain business, seeing more checks come your way makes it hard to say no.


----------



## zizekpress (Mar 9, 2011)

TheRiddler said:


> It's hard to quantify, and if I'm going to read a series, then I'd rather it be one that's 'complete' so I know what I'm signing up for.
> 
> Basically it's at the point of thinking "I just don't care anymore".
> 
> ...


Agree on Harry Potter. Each book stands alone, while building slowly to Nosferatu face, Ralph Fiennes. I think it works mainly because the first book is the first year of school for Harry, whereas other books don't have that kind of framework to build on. They just do random adventures.


----------



## TheRiddler (Nov 11, 2010)

zizekpress said:


> Agree on Harry Potter. Each book stands alone, while building slowly to Nosferatu face, Ralph Fiennes. I think it works mainly because the first book is the first year of school for Harry, whereas other books don't have that kind of framework to build on. They just do random adventures.


I think it's actually a bit different - I think it's because JK, by her own admission, knew she was going to write seven books, and mapped out the whole story.
Ok, she had a 'school life' as a framework, but other authors could do something similar - decide on waht you want the story to be, map out the whole arc, then write it.

It's when they start thinking, 'ooh just one more' you get the shark well and truly jumped!


----------



## coffeetx (Feb 12, 2011)

I lose interest when things stray too far from how it all started in the beginning.  I can mostly compare this to long running soap operas.  After watching ATWT for 20 years, I had to quit (even before it was cancelled).  They were doing things with the characters that the original writers would never have written into the script.  You could actually tell that they had completely different writers who did not know the characters as well as the viewers did.  This is probably a bad analogy but I have read books like this where it seems as if the author forgot who their own character is at the core.


----------



## fancynancy (Aug 9, 2009)

When some aspect seems so unreal that I just can't believe in it anymore.  Michael Connelly is an excellent writer, but some of his villains simply do not ring true.  I've just read my 6th J.D. Robb and I just cannot accept Roarke as a real character.  No human can own so many companies and maintain a detailed knowledge of every aspect of every product and service those companies offer.  Even James Bond's impossible stunts get old after a while.  Yes, I want to be entertained, but I also want a dose of reality so I can believe in the stories to some extent. 

I'm wondering what to try next...


----------



## brianrowe (Mar 10, 2011)

I'll lose interest in a series if it's clear after a while that the writer had no set plan with the stories and characters but instead is just making things up as he or she goes along. Whether you write a series of three books or ten, there must be a specific reason other than financial gain to write more than a single book about the same characters!!


----------



## SteveMalley (Sep 22, 2010)

Janet Evanovitch lost me when she admitted in an interview that Stephanie Plum was going to be forever on the verge of thirty, forever torn between Tony and Ranger. 

With no resolution in sight, I quit caring.

By contrast, I LOVE Walter Mosley's Easy Rawlins series: every book finds Easy older, in a different place in life and affected by the events of previous books. 

For me, powerful fiction should change the characters by the story's end. I don't think series are exempt...


----------



## Renee Adams (Mar 14, 2011)

1. When characters stop behaving according to their personality.
2. The moment a character becomes "Mary-Sue" (wiki has a nice description of what this is, if you're not sure).
3. When a specific problem or twenty get dragged out for far too long with no resolution in sight (resolving a problem and a new one popping up is preferable).
4. Re-using old plots over and over. The world is beautiful, complex, and surprising. This really isn't necessary unless the writer is pumping out books like a factory. You get your choice of two: Good, fast, and cheap. You don't get all three.


----------



## spiritualtramp (Feb 3, 2011)

JimC1946 said:


> Mike, you took the words right out of my mouth. When an author shows clear signs of "milking it," and the series loses focus, I'm gone.
> 
> I've quit reading two series in the past year for just that reason, and I gave both of them a couple of second chances before I gave up.


Agreed!

I also lose interest when the main arc of a particular book isn't tied up in that book. It's fair to have a larger "series arc", but each book should have a stand alone plot.


----------



## SidneyW (Aug 6, 2010)

Often a series reaches a point where the formula is obvious. Sometimes I stop for a while until the familiarity has had a little time to wane then return.


----------



## CJArcher (Jan 22, 2011)

Renee Adams said:


> 1. When characters stop behaving according to their personality.
> 2. The moment a character becomes "Mary-Sue" (wiki has a nice description of what this is, if you're not sure).
> 3. When a specific problem or twenty get dragged out for far too long with no resolution in sight (resolving a problem and a new one popping up is preferable).
> 4. Re-using old plots over and over. The world is beautiful, complex, and surprising. This really isn't necessary unless the writer is pumping out books like a factory. You get your choice of two: Good, fast, and cheap. You don't get all three.


I agree with all the above. I'd add that the characters don't change or grow and when there's no end in sight. I've lost interest in the Stephanie Plum novels because each book is just more of the same and as far as I know the author is going to keep it going indefinitely.


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)

TheRiddler said:


> Basically it's at the point of thinking "I just don't care anymore".


Exactly! I lose interest in a series when all of a sudden I realize in the middle of the book that I am really, really tired of spending time with these people, the situation, the environment, etc., and just don't care what happens to them anymore.


----------



## RChaffee (Mar 3, 2011)

Ive read all 11 of Terry Goodkind's 'Sword of Truth' series and I could keep on going. As long as the characters continue to evolve, the story wont get stale. For me its all about the character arc.


----------



## Tom Schreck (Dec 12, 2010)

For me, it's when the series begins to become cliche or over the top. It is difficult to not try to out do the last book and when series get long that can add up to bad plotting. Or, the author tries to go in an opposite direction and it doesn't work for me.


----------



## Julie Christensen (Oct 13, 2010)

I would venture to say that we all lose interest in a favorite series when the writer loses interests in writing it.  Some really clever books start to read like a formula, and then I assume that the writer is as bored as I am.


----------



## Rhiathame (Mar 12, 2009)

I find that I give up when the author ends up spending 30% of the book rehashing the previous book(s). I already read those! Yes I get that, especially if it has been a long time between books, readers may need a reminder or they want new readers to not be lost but then use a prologue. I have seen many authors use prologues to very good effect to either catch people up or give them necessary background. Once they start rehashing too much my finger has already begun its journey to the Home button for a new book.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

If I enjoy the world and characters enough I never lose interest in a series. I'm happy to keep returning to it indefinitely. Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time books are a prime example of this. The man is dead but I'm still reading his books, although they're now being written by a different author. 

I know a lot of fans are bugged about the way TWOT series goes on forever but I'm not one of them. If it's good, I like it to continue.


----------



## Rose Gordon (Mar 18, 2011)

me3boyz said:


> I've come to the conclusion that I can make it through 3 books and then that's it. And it doesn't matter how long or short the books are, once I hit the end of the third book I start to lose interest. Not sure why. Too much information maybe?


I'm all right for three, number four kind of loses it's interest to me. However, I have read several four, six and even one eight book series. What I noticed though was, the first three of all of those, with the exception of A Duke of Her Own by Eloisa James which was actually number six, were the better books.

I think beyond that, the characters get boring/repetitive.

Although, I'm not opposed to seeing characters jump series a bit. For example, a few of the characters from a completely series show up for one or two scenes or are just alluded to in another series. That doesn't bother me as long as they're not the main focus.


----------



## Allan R. Wallace (Mar 15, 2011)

Harry Potter lost me at #3 or #4 when he was once again ostracized and had to once again redeem himself. I like victory against the odds, the first books were enjoyable; but I dislike formulas. I can't read most books or watch movies when I can easily guess what has to happen next.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

When the characters cease to develop and grow in a believable fashion. This is why I stopped reading Stephanie Plum. I _loved_the first six books. Like, it had me in tears laughing. But then Stephanie didn't ever change... at all. Despite years of bounty hunting under her belt, she was still completely inept. That seemed unrealistic to me.

But, on the other hand, I've read almost the entire Amelia Peabody series by Elizabeth Peters. Fantastic writing. She allows her characters to develop in a natural fashion.

Same goes for TV shows, now that I think about it. The Office became redundant. But Avatar: The Last Airbender let the characters grow up.


----------



## patrickt (Aug 28, 2010)

me3boyz said:


> I've come to the conclusion that I can make it through 3 books and then that's it. And it doesn't matter how long or short the books are, once I hit the end of the third book I start to lose interest. Not sure why. Too much information maybe?
> 
> Which is interesting because I've read the first 5 books of the Outlander series. I've not read (though I've tried) A Breath of Snow and Ashes or An Echo in the Bone. I'm currently stuck halfway though re-reading Drums of Autumn.


It's a lot like people you know. When you sit down for coffee already knowing what your friend will want to talk about and what they will say you tend to check out. Okay, I know Spenser is a recovering alcoholic but since Robert Parker has to assume readers are reading their first Spenser book, he has to tell us all again. Or, telling us about the niece who is a lesbian FBI agent and has just lots of problems and you will be reading about them every time you read the series.

I last about three books, too. Then, the interesting detail in the first book becomes a boring repetition.

Of course, being true to the character, which some like, demands the boring repetition. Perhaps the protagonists needs new problems occasionally or perhaps the problems should be limited to relatives and friends who come and go.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

As previously mentioned, when the plot twists, character developments, etc. start feeling random (for example, Terry Goodkind's _Sword of Truth_ series) ... or when it starts feeling like the author is just adding novels to pump out more books (Orson Scott Card's _Ender_ series; Anne Rice's _Vampire Chronicles_).

On the other hand, some authors have written extensively within a single universe without becoming old hat (Terry Pratchett's _Discworld_; Katherine Kurtz' _Deryni _; Julian May's _Galactic Milieu_). In these instances, though, the authors tend to have an overall story arc but they write either separate, stand alone novels or multiple trilogies, duologies, whatever within that single universe. I think this often works better as it allows the author to explore new main characters, time periods, cultures, etc ... Even when main characters or events from other novels or series are referenced - or make cameo appearances - there is a freshness not found when it's the 6th book about the same character.


----------



## markarayner (Mar 14, 2011)

spiritualtramp said:


> Agreed!
> 
> I also lose interest when the main arc of a particular book isn't tied up in that book. It's fair to have a larger "series arc", but each book should have a stand alone plot.


I am with you on this. I'm a firm believer that every book should stand on its own, even if it is part of a series.


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

I lose interest when the books become too 'samey', where you can predict what's going to happen or the characters in each novel are too similar. Also stop reading when an author gets lazy, uses fewer skills and relies more on coincidence to bring a story to conclusion.


----------



## A. S. Warwick (Jan 14, 2011)

When the books start to become too long and full of padding, takes too long between books for them to come out and are obviously being drawn out just for the money.

I've given up half way through most of those big door-stopper fantasy series of late - if it takes over 20 years to reach the end of a series then it has gone way too long.


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

I hated it when Richard Castle killed off Derek Storm to start the Nikki  Heat series.

Sorry.  Couldn't resist.

My favorite two series characters are Sherlock Holmes and James Bond (the original Ian Fleming novels; not the later knockoffs).  In both cases you learn new stuff about each character throughout the series and both characters mature and grow over the course of the series.  As such, the characters never become stale and it's interesting to see how they handle similar situations differently as they become older and wiser.

Contrast that with, say, the Jack Ryan series in which the character starts off as a too-good-to-be-true boy scout and remains a boy scout throughout.  Boring, boring, boring.  Gave up on that series after reading two books and only starting a third before tossing it away.  Another sure-fire series killer is formulaic writing, which is why I gave up on Clive Cussler after many years of enjoyment.


----------



## Moissanitejewel (Mar 17, 2011)

There are three things that will make me give up on a series

1. If the story became dull in one book, I'm done and I don't give the chance to try and hook me again. 

2. If the book employs deus ex machina. I hate deus ex machina, it's like the author thought of something halfway and said 'ooh, sounds good, that'll make it last.' There needs to be something added beforehand, some kind of foreshadowing or groundwork or I won't fall for it.


----------

