SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

I thought I would throw this one out there & who knows maybe an author might see the thread;-) I'll start by saying that my first introduction to a long series was Wheel of Time - so long that Jordan died before finishing it, then GoT with 6 years, 7 years & who knows how long between for the next in the series. My current read The Aldoran Chronicles, was chosen in the mistaken belief that it was complete at 4 Books & not exactly happy that that isn't the case & Book 5 is only in the early stages! I've lost track of the amount of ongoing series that I'm currently waiting on & in some cases I'll be highly unlikely to finish!
So how many Books is too much ?

if I like the series, and it continues to produce good books, there is no number that is too much

if I don't like the series (hate book 1), then two books is too many

There can never be too many as long as (a) I love it, or (b) the story maintains its quality. For example, Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe series has #22 coming out the end of this year. When I found out that he had written another, I did an undignified happy dance!

A single story should be over in four books or less. Longer series are fine, as long as there are regular resolutions to plotlines.

Michelle loved early Sharpe - India,Portugal/spain but my interest started to wain, could never understand why the TV Series didn't start with the first Book!

However many is too many for the author to finish the series is my rough guesstimate.

Amy worst is when the author has multiple series going at once! I contacted one to find out when Book 2 was coming out & with assurances that it would be soon....7 years later I'm still waiting & he's released multiple Books in multiple different series since!

it's less the number of books, than the reason there are multiple books. Too many series are series because "series sell" not because the story needs 2 or more books.

Often I've had book 1 meander along, setting things up, then do a rushed kind of climax but you really need to continue. I never do with those because it is obvious to me that the author was deliberately stretching things out.

Some series are too long for a single, reasonably sized book - LotR being the obvious example. But do any stories *really* need more than 1000-1500 pages to tell?

NOW.... I'm talking about series that are telling a single story, e.g. LotR where there's a beginning, middle and end. There are other kinds of series where characters have stories set in a shared world with some stories perhaps relying on others and some note. Banks' Culture novels are like this (loosely) as are Gladstone's Craft Sequence and Kadrey's Sandman Slim series.

The key for those is simply "is the author milking this for cash and the books have gone far past the point where they are interesting? Or are they telling interesting new stories?"

Kadrey wrapped up the Sandman Slim series at 10 books and it felt like time not because they were repetitive but because the nature of the story was that it couldn't really be open ended. Gladstone, likewise, is ending the Craft Sequence with a trilogy of novels. Both feel right though I enjoyed all of the books in each series.

PS: This essay by Jo Walton in the types of series might interest some of you: https://www.tor.com/2014/01/24/what-m...

The length of the series doesn't really matter as long as it's good, and entertaining. And the author finishes it ( looking at you George R.R. Martin).

Depends on the series. For some the story can be nicely finished in a few books and therefore shouldn't be drawn out as much, but for others a longer format works, for example Discworld!

I think Rick is spot on. If it's a series with an overarching plot, i.e. beginning, middle, end, then I think anything over seven is a bit much. And even less if I'm not enjoying it!

If you are talking about series that really only showcase characters and their continuing adventures, where each installment can stand on it's own, then the more the better!

Charlton wrote: "The length of the series doesn't really matter as long as it's good, and entertaining. And the author finishes it ( looking at you George R.R. Martin)."

and Patrick Rothfuss

10 is my limit, if it's still going after ten books.... it better be the best damn book series I'll ever read.

If the series continues to keep my interest and keeps me engaged in the story then I am good continuing as long as the author wants to keep it going. K.D. Edwards The Tarot Sequence is planned as a 9 book series but separated into 3 trilogies, the first of which is complete now. So while each book so far has wrapped up the storyline in each there is an over-arcing story that I think will not be completely resolved until book 9. There aren't cliffhangers but still very important parts of the story unresolved and I am here for it lol

That being said if an author like GRRM or even Jim Butcher (haven't read Rothfuss until if it is ever finished) delays books many times it annoys me. If Winds is released I may not read it until A Dream of Spring is as well.

I think 3-6 is the best. I tend to be much more reluctant to start a series that's 10+ books, unless they're really short. However, if it's several shorter and connected series, that's easier to go with for me, even if the total is over 10.

best amount of books in a series is however many that are finished. refuse to start anymore that are not complete, still bitter at that george rrrrrrrrrr guy.

For me it depends on what the series is. Is it one story? Or a serial? Cause my answer differs. If it's one story, I'm really not sure how you get more than 4 books without a TON of unnecessary filler. But for serials, I'll take as many as the author is willing to put out so long as the stories are interesting and the quality is level(ish).

Shuggi849aol.Com wrote: "Amy worst is when the author has multiple series going at once! I contacted one to find out when Book 2 was coming out & with assurances that it would be soon....7 years later I'm still waiting & h..."

That upsets me, too. I always worry when an author starts a new series before wrapping up the ongoing one. It makes me nervous that the first series will never be finished. That's happened before.

Melani wrote: "For me it depends on what the series is. Is it one story? Or a serial? Cause my answer differs. If it's one story, I'm really not sure how you get more than 4 books without a TON of unnecessary fil..."

This is the topic of the Walton essay I linked above and is, I agree, crucial to how I look at series. For a series that's all one story, I think a trilogy is ideal and more than that usually is padding. Why 3 books? Sonata form:

Sonata form is a musical structure generally consisting of three main sections: an exposition, a development, and a recapitulation.

Applied to a book series this means that the first book sets up the world, the characters and the conflict. The second book explores those, the third book wraps them up.

The best example I've ever seen of this is Harry Connelly's The Great Way trilogy a complex fantasy work with none of the fat of Martin or Jordan. No books that are all traveling and talking, no long chapters musing about events.... all story. But complex, well rounded characters and a plot that hangs together from beginning to end.

I stopped reading the Horus Heresy series at book 31. They're at the final "sub series" now with over 50 books in the total series but I don't exactly feel the urge to get back in. This is clearly too many.

Friends of mine are very frustrated with the Malazan series. There are only 10 books in the main series but it apparently spreads out into many spinoffs making it hard to follow.
Goodreads librarians have done a good job keeping track of the series pages but just look at this page as an example. https://www.goodreads.com/series/4967...

If the series was truly planned, I'll read it all. Truly planned usually caps at book five or six. If a series is dozens of books, it isn't a single story. To me it feels like an excuse for the author to keep printing money, more akin to a decades long soap opera.

Mikael wrote: "Friends of mine are very frustrated with the Malazan series. There are only 10 books in the main series but it apparently spreads out into many spinoffs making it hard to follow."

I mean, honestly, I found book ONE hard to follow, and DNF'd it... soooo... LOL

For me, I agree with those saying that no quantity of books in a series is too much if the quality of the series stays high. I loved The Expanse series, which is 9 decently long books. I would have happily continued that series on for another 9, or 19 because all of the books were satisfying on their own, and as a whole series the story felt cohesive and complete. The characters stayed well-written and interesting, and managed to stay true to themselves even while dealing with murky and terrible situations. It just worked for me on all of the levels.

The Harry Bosch+ series, on the other hand... I finally threw in the towel at book 21. I initially loved Bosch's character, but then he just started to not be who he was anymore. It started feeling like an effort to just keep his series going as a cash cow, and constantly ramp up the action and tension to keep people invested, meaning that authorial decisions were made about the main character that I did not like, agree with, or want to read anymore.

So for me, maybe it's more along the lines of whether there's a plan or a goal for the whole series or not. If there is, and the books are good, then let's go. But if they are just a paycheck with no quality control or SERIES STORY to tell, then what are we doing?

Personally, I tend to like things in 3, 5, and 7 if they are epic type novels. (Brent Weeks comes to mind with this. He is good at wrapping up a story) However, I will continue to read shorter novels in a series as long as the main storyline is continuing. (October Daye novels for instance) Those are one person's storyline continuing while they have basically side adventures. Works for me. I think it's less of a how many are too many, but rather where did the story actually end. Not a book, but Supernatural the show was like that for me. The actual ending the creators had in mind was season 5, but they kept going for the fans and it just did not have the same oomph the first 5 seasons did.

There's series and there's series

one type has takes multiple books to wrap up a story MWheel of Time, Game of Thrones, etc)
and
the other has one story per book (Dresden Files, and a lot of mystery series) and it mostly wraps up in that book.

If a series describes the life of adventure/drama of one or more character who is interesting and has new things happen to him/her/they, then that series can go on as long as it stays entertaining. But don't let the readers anguish for years between books, à la G.R.R. Martin.

(I'm loving this chat)

The Vlad Taltos series by Steven Brust seems to be pretty successful. He’s been writing them since the early ‘80s and I believe there are supposed to be 19 books in the end. There is an overarching narrative but the books have been written out of order and stand alone nicely.

Becky - I agree with you on both of your examples (The Expanse and the Harry Bosch series - after the last Bosch book I read, I think I'm done with those). One thing I think The Expanse does really well is that is has completed story arcs within the longer series - so you get a mostly complete story every two to three books, even though there are also elements that go from the first book to the last. And the quality and characters are consistent throughout.

I am in the group who has said that single stories should be wrapped up in fewer books (like a trilogy) while series that share a common world and characters but mostly separate storylines can continue as long as they can be done well. I have a few mystery series that I have been reading for a long time where the author should probably stop writing them (or have stopped a few books back) - yet, I continue to read them. :-)

Stephen wrote: "The Vlad Taltos series by Steven Brust seems to be pretty successful. He’s been writing them since the early ‘80s and I believe there are supposed to be 19 books in the end. There is an overarching..."

I love that series! I'll keep reading them if he keeps making more!

Michelle wrote: "Stephen wrote: "The Vlad Taltos series by Steven Brust seems to be pretty successful. He’s been writing them since the early ‘80s and I believe there are supposed to be 19 books in the end. There i..."

there's one coming out soon:

Tsalmoth (Vlad Book 16)
$14.99
This title will be released on April 25, 2023.

and the odd thing about this series is that it's not written in sequence - a book may be before or after the one you're currently reading

A series that I like is Raymond E. Feist and his work with the Riftwar cycle. It's 30 books but divided into trilogies and qaurtets.

I’m hesitant to start a series if I know it has a ton of books. I just picked up the first Discworld knowing I probably won’t have time to read them all.

I think we need to define what we mean by 'series'. To me there are a few kinds:

1) Series that tell one overarching story, e.g. LotR.

2) Series that follow the same characters on recurring adventures where other books in the series may be referenced but where the stories are separate. May be interspersed with books that stand alone (Craft Sequence, Dresden etc)

3) Series where the stories exist in the same universe but where the books are very loosely or not at all related to one another (Culture, etc)


5) Series comprised of other sub-series (Discworld) with or without standalones involved.


The first kind are where I have issues with more than 3 or 4 books simply because I've not run across one that really needs more than 1500 to 2000 pages to tell its story. When they go past that, it's padding so that the writer and readers can stay in that world, but that stuff isn't necessary to tell the actual story (WoT, ASoIaF)

I really like the Vlad Taltos books myself and will certainly get Tsalmoth when it comes out.

Stephen wrote: "I really like the Vlad Taltos books myself and will certainly get Tsalmoth when it comes out."

I preordered it as soon as it became available, Stephen!

Honestly, I don’t even care if it’s padded… IF the padding is done well and adds something to the whole. If it stays true to itself and stays quality, I’ll stick around. A great example of this is Stephen King’s The Stand. I had only ever read the uncut/unedited version for years, and then when I read the “original” abridged/edited version, it felt severely lacking to me. Characters that I loved were missing and whole scenes and sections I really liked were gone. It’s arguable whether all of the content and characters were strictly “necessary” to tell the story, and had I not known they were missing maybe it would have been fine, but their being there added to it and made it more enjoyable as a whole for me.

I'm still enjoying the Harry Dresden series and it's well into the teens by now. It has a planned arc and endpoint though. Most series couldn't/shouldn't do this. It's got to get stale for the author after a while, you'd think?

Jacqie wrote: "I'm still enjoying the Harry Dresden series and it's well into the teens by now. It has a planned arc and endpoint though. Most series couldn't/shouldn't do this. It's got to get stale for the auth..."

All depends on the talent and imagination of the author. If he/she has plenty of both, then I will continue to read their books.

which do you prefer the most? Books that end in a single series or the soap opera?

Jacqie wrote: "I'm still enjoying the Harry Dresden series and it's well into the teens by now. It has a planned arc and endpoint though. Most series couldn't/shouldn't do this. It's got to get stale for the auth..."

Dresden is satisfying because each book is also a whole book. It's very rare for there to be a cliffhanger or unresolved ending, so even though it's a long series, it still feels like a smaller investment.

yep, the Harry Dresden books are more like Mystery book series with a different plot and an ending in each book

Monster of the day weeknovel.

Rick wrote: "I think we need to define what we mean by 'series'. To me there are a few kinds:

1) Series that tell one overarching story, e.g. LotR.

2) Series that follow the same characters on recurring adv..."

I've read a few series in the first category that were around 1k pages per book. I would say I have only ran into a bit of padding here and there with some authors (WoT was one, I gave up after he repeated conversations word for word for the romances). In many cases? Maybe it feels like padding and then later on in another chapter I'm sitting there going "ohhhh that's why!" The Lightbringer series by Brent Weeks was kind of like this. So many characters stories and you're sitting there going why does this very minor character have such a big thing on them. One of the nice things about him, is I have read enough of his other books/series to know that the question of why this character will be answered. The Lightbringer series ended up being 5 books long and I think it was originally planned for 3 books? The fact was that both the 4th and 5th needed to wrap all the stories up. In which case I was fine with it. He also does shorter trilogies which is how I started reading his books. Could he have done shorter novels for the Lightbringer series? Probably, but it wouldn't have had the amazing ending that it did. As we all know (those of us still waiting on Rothfuss and others), ending the story is as important as beginning the story.

I'm an October Daye girl rather than a Dresden fan, but that type of urban fantasy is exactly why I look askance at firm number limits. Also I'm not sure that 'tells one overarching story' and 'follows the life of a particular character' are necessarily different things. The Daye books are of course chasing their heroine through one disaster after another, one per book, but there very much is also an overarching story about what happened to the fae that resulted in them living the way they are. There is also a planned ending for that one, and a lot of this comes down to author skill in keeping a metastory on point over multiple books.

Shuggi849aol.Com wrote: "Amy worst is when the author has multiple series going at once!"

I so agree it's painful to get a book in a series that's not 'my' series when I so want an update! A lot of times there are publisher issues involved with that, too, which can result in really impossible situations.

I'm not a fan of long series. I got pretty bored during series like WoT, The Expanse or ASoIaF. If it has to be a series then 3 is a nice number for good plot development.
The two cases where a longer series actually worked for me were Tchaikovsky's "Shadows of the Apt" series (finished with 10 books) and (not finished, but already well over 5000 pages) "Stormlight Archive" by Sanderson. The second one of course still can loose me, since it's not finished yet.

Stormlight Archive has taken its place on the list of "series I will (maybe) finish when they do". I read book one, and though I loved it, even that ONE book was a chunkster time investment, and with a proposed 10 books of similar length, that's a hell of a time investment. As much as I loved The Way of Kings, I think I might join Rick in the "surely we don't need THAT many pages to tell this story" camp for this series. LOL

I'm good with five (thinking Lady Trent series). Long as it's a good, engaging story, though, I'll keep reading beyond (Harry Potter for instance, though it did get a little ponderous around book six).

I am also not a fan of long series. I don't have an exact number of books in mind, but somewhere around a half dozen is it (depending on length of the individual books). Two types of long series, in particular, are problematic for me.

1) Where the author seems to be working from a template (I call it turning the crank). The characters solve a mystery (or have an adventure) in one book. In the next book, the same characters solve a different mystery (or have a different adventure) and so it goes, ad infinitum. The specifics of the adventure or mystery vary from book to book, but the pacing and the story arc are always the same. It looks like pieces dropped into a template.
2) A series of more than 5 or 6 books that have to be read in sequence in order to follow the story. If I haven't been reading from the time of the first book, I won't go near it. It's too much of an investment of time.

I am also not a fan of long series. I don't have an exact number of books in mind, but somewhere around a half dozen is it (depending on length of the individual books). Two types of long series, in particular, are problematic for me.

1) Where the author seems to be working from a template (I call it turning the crank). The characters solve a mystery (or have an adventure) in one book. In the next book, the same characters solve a different mystery (or have a different adventure) and so it goes, ad infinitum. The specifics of the adventure or mystery vary from book to book, but the pacing and the story arc are always the same. It looks like pieces dropped into a template.
2) A series of more than 5 or 6 books that have to be read in sequence in order to follow the story. If I haven't been reading from the time of the first book, I won't go near it. It's too much of an investment of time.