Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Series: Is there a disadvantage to the number of books?

+0
−0

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.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

1 answer

+0
−0

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.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »