Series: Is there a disadvantage to the number of books?
I'm an aspiring author. Though I am fairly certain of the answer to the question below, I figured I would make sure, or at least collect opinions, since I have not 'been there.'
My question is this: In the event that you are writing a series, is there a disadvantageous number of books you can publish in that series?
Some series are trilogies. Some contain seven books, some four, some five, and some just seem to go on with no end. Is there a disadvantageous number of books you can have in a series? And if so, why?
Thanks in advance.
P.S. I am aware that it can be a bad idea to write more books in a series simply because the first book was successful. This question is aimed more at planned series.
1 answer
The number of books in the series is irrelevant. What matters is whether you still have story to tell.
JK Rowling planned the Potter series to have seven books; Harry's arc is finished. GRRMartin originally planned for four, but he's got so much to say that he's expanded to at least seven (and eight wouldn't surprise me if he lives that long). David Eddings's Belgariad was written as three books, but the publisher broke it somewhat arbitrarily into five. CE Murphy's Walker Papers needed 10 books and a novella to complete Joanne's story.
Conversely, I thought Carol Berg's Transformation was a perfect standalone, and I disliked the second and third in the rai-kirah trilogy. I thought the concepts introduced were boring and obscure, and didn't add anything.
So it doesn't matter how many books are in the series. It matters whether the characters still have interesting things to do, and whether we care about them doing those things. That can take one book or twenty.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads