SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

@nicky - anything with that many volumes is just the author milking a series for money. There are no stories, at all, that take dozens of volumes.

Who reads these? My theory is that there are readers who just like to 'live' in a particular world and as long as they get to visit that world and spend time in it, perhaps with characters they like, that's fine. The plot is secondary as is story advancement or character development. It's the fiction equivalent of visiting old friends. Sure you might hear a bit about their latest vacation but really you just enjoy hanging out with them.

"Again, a beautiful object, whether it be a living organism or any whole composed of parts, must not only have an orderly arrangement of parts, but must also be of a certain magnitude; for beauty depends on magnitude and order. Hence a very small animal organism cannot be beautiful; for the view of it is confused, the object being seen in an almost imperceptible moment of time. Nor, again, can one of vast size be beautiful; for as the eye cannot take it all in at once, the unity and sense of the whole is lost for the spectator; as for instance if there were one a thousand miles long. As, therefore, in the case of animate bodies and organisms a certain magnitude is necessary, and a magnitude which may be easily embraced in one view; so in the plot, a certain length is necessary, and a length which can be easily embraced by the memory. The limit of length in relation to dramatic competition and sensuous presentment is no part of artistic theory. For had it been the rule for a hundred tragedies to compete together, the performance would have been regulated by the waterclock—as indeed we are told was formerly done. But the limit as fixed by the nature of the drama itself is this: the greater the length, the more beautiful will the piece be by reason of its size, provided that the whole be perspicuous. And to define the matter roughly, we may say that the proper magnitude is comprised within such limits, that the sequence of events, according to the law of probability or necessity, will admit of a change from bad fortune to good, or from good fortune to bad." Aristotle

I think 12. The same author could write a new series.

It takes a great story to have me read all 12.

Interesting topic that I had originally skipped, but which mentions half a ton series whose existence I ignored, and will probably soon forget afresh.

I am a slow reader.

I also have the kamikaze habit of rereading (or, more often, rewatching) everything before a new installment. I mostly avoid this by not venturing into anything that isn't already concluded: I'm waiting for Marlon James to wrap up his fantasy series because I don't trust my ability to go years between volumes of unreliable narrators...

I like books that work in pairs (also musical albums, but that's off topic).
A trilogy might be preferable because, as somebody already pointed out, three is the quintessential odd number that breaks the dichotomy. Certain writers have relied on trilogies throughout their careers, e.g. William Gibson, who's basically published a new trilogy every decade, even when certain novels, like Idoru, were substantially standalone.

Empirical studies show that I'm apparently unable to go beyond book three of anything.
As an example, I have every intention of sailing through the entire Earthsea cycle, but as it happened I was forced by external events to stop at The Farthest Shore, for the time being.
On the other hand, I deliberately stopped at the third novel in the Expanse series (plus a handful of stories & novellas), but that had to do with the quality of the writing and the annoying habit of the authors to describe in minute details even what could have been abridged or left out completely. Not to mention the fact that Caliban's War repeated the structure of Leviathan Wakes and was rushed through its entire final third.

edit:
Going through my shelf I realised I have read the entire and rather lengthy His Dark Materials plus extra short stories, and I'm waiting for Pullman to write the final installment of the new trilogy before diving into that.

Rick wrote: “My theory is that there are readers who just like to 'live' in a particular world and as long as they get to visit that world and spend time in it, perhaps with characters they like, that's fine. The plot is secondary as is story advancement or character development. It's the fiction equivalent of visiting old friends. Sure you might hear a bit about their latest vacation but really you just enjoy hanging out with them.

Rick, I think you really expressed this well. My son and I have been reading this one YA fantasy adventure series together for a long time. Even though the newer books are not that good and pretty predictable, we still read each one when it comes out and enjoy it because we get to spend time in a loved world with our character friends. I think this works best with a series that is made up of separate novels with the same characters and world, though. A series with one story told over that many books would be a slog (for me).

I think that's more similar to the serialism of comic books?

Mary wrote: ""Again, a beautiful object, whether it be a living organism or any whole composed of parts, must not only have an orderly arrangement of parts, but must also be of a certain magnitude; for beauty depends on magnitude and order. Hence a very small animal organism cannot be beautiful; for the view of it is confused, the object being seen in an almost imperceptible moment of time. Nor, again, can one of vast size be beautiful; for as the eye cannot take it all in at once, the unity and sense of the whole is lost for the spectator; as for instance if there were one a thousand miles long.""

I'd argue that Aristotle didn't have the tools necessary to allow the proper scale for appreciation of the very large and very small. The Earth is too large to be seen all at once from the ground, but seen from far enough away, it's beautiful. Micro-organisms are beautiful when seen under the microscope.

Still, I think the gist of his argument is fair in terms of storytelling - a great series story needs a certain degree of cohesion and order to work, otherwise it can lose the "sense of the whole" and just devolve into a mess.

Rick wrote: "@nicky - anything with that many volumes is just the author milking a series for money. There are no stories, at all, that take dozens of volumes.

Who reads these? My theory is that there are readers who just like to 'live' in a particular world and as long as they get to visit that world and spend time in it, perhaps with characters they like, that's fine."

My favorite--perhaps because it's at second hand and I don't personally have to account for it--example of this is Nora Roberts' near-future SF-y mystery series that starts with Naked in Death. My sister's been reading this series since shortly after it started, and going on 60 volumes later, both author and sister are still at it!* She enjoys mysteries, and likes the cast, so what you're saying seems to be correct when it comes to this one anecdote.

* sometime in the late 40s or early 50s she was tempted to quit because she felt the mystery scenarios were getting too repetitive, so it wasn't just the characters keeping her going.

@beth and @kaia...

This is why I don't think there's a single answer to the thread's question. I need story advancement and character development and simply visiting the world and characters isn't enough for me. For others, it is.

The setting can be the same, but even there I want to see new aspects of the world. The Vlad Taltos books are a good example for me - some characters recur and it's nice having them there but things change over time (internal order is not the same as pub order) and each book reveals at least a bit about the world.

There are 16 or 17 of these but there's also an end in sight as Brust has made each book have one of the Houses as the book's theme and there are only so many Houses.

I think 3-5 books in a series is quite enough. If Tolkien limited himself to a trilogy, what's stopping modern writers from doing the same?
When a series gets too long, both readers and writers can find themselves in one of three situations:
1. Robert Jordan's option. The poor author may die before he can finish his great series.
2. George R.R. Martin's option. In this case, poor readers can die of unquenched curiosity, waiting in vain for the next instalment.
3. Robert Salvatore's option. Despite my admiration for his great talent, I have to say that he sometimes starts to repeat himself in his Drizzt books. For example, the story of the conquest of Gauntlgrym by the dwarves is very similar to the story of the conquest of Mithral Hallthe same dwarves. In this case, no one will die, but everyone will be very bored reading an endless epic story.

Becky wrote: I'd argue that Aristotle didn't have the tools necessary to allow the proper scale for appreciation of the very large and very small. The Earth is too large to be seen all at once from the ground, but seen from far enough away, it's beautiful. Micro-organisms are beautiful when seen under the microscope.."

The thing is, both those things are made beautiful by making them appear to be a size that we can take in. In particular, the Earth has most of its detail elided in the process of shrinking its apparent size.

You get the same effect in a Grand! Sweeping! Epic! tale of, say, WWII. We know that despite the length, the book -- or perhaps trilogy -- will focus on a small set of characters who are positioned to give us some of the epic scope, but it's nothing like the vastness of the war.

Ambereyes wrote: "I think 3-5 books in a series is quite enough. If Tolkien limited himself to a trilogy, what's stopping modern writers from doing the same?"

Weeeeeellllllll... Did he though?

The Lord of the Rings was originally written as one work, and split up by his publisher into three volumes, each containing 2 books.

But he certainly didn't limit himself. Tolkien wrote about Middle-Earth for 40+ years until his death, and most of his work was published posthumously. The Lord of the Rings is only a small part of the larger story/world/history he wrote, and which his son then continued after his death. :)

Mary wrote: "The thing is, both those things are made beautiful by making them appear to be a size that we can take in. In particular, the Earth has most of its detail elided in the process of shrinking its apparent size."

This is true. The audience definitely must be able to get the full picture, I don't disagree there!

As long as there is some fresh materiel and new ideas incorporated in them, series can be as long as the readers will continue to like them. Endless repeats and warmed up stuff, not so much.

Michel wrote: "As long as there is some fresh materiel and new ideas incorporated in them, series can be as long as the readers will continue to like them. Endless repeats and warmed up stuff, not so much."

agreed

Becky wrote: "Ambereyes wrote: "I think 3-5 books in a series is quite enough. If Tolkien limited himself to a trilogy, what's stopping modern writers from doing the same?"

Weeeeeellllllll... Did he though?

T..."
He described the same world, but the characters and plots were different in the different books. So it doesn't count.

Writing many stories with different plots in the same world is a great idea. Many classic authors have done something similar -- Andre Norton, for example. In her sci-fi books you can find the same names of inhabited planets and sentient races, and I like that. But the characters and plots are always different from book to book.
But writing the same story for an infinite number of volumes is not so great.

Creed wrote: "Xanth has new characters and plots in each book."

This is roughly the same thing as the Andre Norton sci-fi universe I mentioned above.

When I wrote that authors should limit themselves to trilogies or pentalogies, I meant one long story with a single plot, not many different stories set in the same fictional world.

Maybe I just didn't explain my thoughts very well. I hope I didn't offend anyone!

By the way, I really like Xanth too, especially the story about the Zombie Master and Millie.

Ambereyes wrote: "He described the same world, but the characters and plots were different in the different books. So it doesn't count."

I guess that depends on what we think the story is. I am no Tolkien expert, (I haven't even read all of his other works, and I'm turning 42 this year, I'm not sure I have time left :P) but I think HE was writing the story of Middle-Earth, not just the story of the Ring. That being said, I was mainly replying based on the concept of him limiting himself, not necessarily whether I think the other books are to be read as part of the series. (I don't.)

GRRM is doing something similar with all of his Westeros historical stuff, the only difference is that Tolkien gave readers a satisfying story arc ending as well. Sigh.

Creed wrote: "Yeah, that one was good."

There are a lot of good books in these series, but this one - my favourite. Who would have thought that a tapestry could take you back in time? And the ending was so unexpected. :)

Becky wrote: "Ambereyes wrote: "He described the same world, but the characters and plots were different in the different books. So it doesn't count."

I guess that depends on what we think the story is. I am no..."

I'm younger than you, so I have plenty of time to read all of Tolkien's works. So far I've only read The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings and some short stories. And some poetry.

But I'm afraid our discussion is really going to turn into a discussion about what can be considered a single story and what can be considered an arc. And then we will become like history professors arguing about the differences between a chiefdom and an early state, or astronomers deciding whether the moon is a planetary-mass object or a satellite planet. In short, it's a matter of terminology.

But when I wrote the word "historians", it occurred to me that Tolkien was not writing the story, but the history of Middle-earth. At least in the case of The Silmarillion.

Ambereyes wrote: "But I'm afraid our discussion is really going to turn into a discussion about what can be considered a single story and what can be considered an arc. And then we will become like history professors arguing about the differences between a chiefdom and an early state, or astronomers deciding whether the moon is a planetary-mass object or a satellite planet. In short, it's a matter of terminology.

But when I wrote the word "historians", it occurred to me that Tolkien was not writing the story, but the history of Middle-earth. At least in the case of The Silmarillion."

I agree, Ambereyes. It is a matter of terminology and perspective and even preference. I've read about the same amount of Tolkien as you, and I'm pretty content with letting the rest go, and ceding the original point of your argument. For what it's worth, I think the LOTR trilogy + The Hobbit is sufficient - at least for myself. :)

I will have to admit that it depends on the series as I've read some that have as many as 10 or 15 books in the series. But they were great reads and I very much enjoyed the series so I didn't complain on putting out the money for their books and reading them.

Amy (Other Amy) wrote: "However many is too many for the author to finish the series is my rough guesstimate."

That's a good observation. Hard to know what that would be when starting out.

I remember reading Stephen King's Dark Tower decades ago and loooved it. It was a standalone book, and I always believed it would stay that way. A couple decades later he releases book two, then three. Damn near dies in an accident and finishes the rest.

I can't stand the series that drag on, dancing around the main arc with side-plots taking entire books to get through.

Rick wrote: "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 meande..."

That's a good article (~4 mins read, if anyone else on this thread is intrested in how long it too). Jo makes a good observation on marketing dictating books within the series won't be labelled as such because, they believe (perhaps with sales data?), browsing-people won't purchase book 2 of a series if they haven't first read book 1. I'm kinda believing her that there is a self-defeating flaw in that stance.

Becky wrote: "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..."

At some point I'll read The Expanse. The books are raved about.

My own 2c to this thread.

I don't have a preference as to an upper limit. The only constraint I have is if the series is being milked. That's already been pointed out eloquently by others in this thread.

The series I did read, which weren't directly related to each other, as such, were the Margaret Weiss and Tracy Hickman Dragonlance books (including prequals and sequals), as well as a few spinoffs. They added to the overall stories, but weren't any more than three in their own series. So you could easily forgo reading other books and have a self-contained beginning, middle and end.

I would ask the question more fundamentally:

How many series are too many?

They are now standard. Singletons are more of an exception. I can understand that from a sales perspective. You keep the readers interested (and buying) - and if the idea doesn't carry over into sequels (which the author must have already designed up to episode 5 when the first part is published)? Then it is simply discontinued and the promising young author is dropped.

Perhaps by giving him more time his next single novel would have been a huge success (who knows?). And so we continue to wait for a new conceptual breakthrough (and get more of the same) - the last breakthrough (cyberpunk in the 80s) was quite a while ago.

I think it is time between books that is more of a factor. After about 10 or 12 in a series it often seems the writer is avoiding ending the story and becoming repetitious to keep it going and making more sales. That being said, it a new book in series keeps every few months it still makes it feel like a continuous read.

Let's not forget that some series are about the life/lives of the main character(s), who mature, gain experience and develop their skills along the years. If a book series is concentrated on that kind of life experience, then it should keep the interest of the readers who want to see which way the hero/heroine will go or achieve his goals. For example, a sf novel series could start with a young Space cadet/crewmember and follow his/her adventures through Space as the hero/heroine gains experience and go up in rank/function. An interesting life will take more than one book to describe, if written well. A loose comparison would be with players of Dungeon & Dragons, whose characters start as lowly young warrior/mage/ranger/etc and progressively rise in rank and power with time and experience.

Michel wrote: "Let's not forget that some series are about the life/lives of the main character(s), who mature, gain experience and develop their skills along the years. If a book series is concentrated on that k..."

That should be limited by the unquestioned end, namely the death of the character.

To quote Douglas Adam, - A trilogy in six parts.
Edgar Rice Burroughs had 11 books in the Barsoom series; Harry Harrison had a similar number in his Stainless Steel Rat series. Asimov tied so many stories together that it's usually called a 'universe'
I always read 'by author' so I really enjoy a series, you can't have too much of a good thing!

Mary wrote: "Michel wrote: "Let's not forget that some series are about the life/lives of the main character(s), who mature, gain experience and develop their skills along the years. If a book series is concent..."

Even the death of the main character will not necessarily mean the end of a book series, as a child of that character could take over, using as a base the world-building created originally for the main character.

Michel wrote: "Let's not forget that some series are about the life/lives of the main character(s), who mature, gain experience and develop their skills along the years. If a book series is concentrated on that k..."
Oh, this is great. Now I know why Robert Salvatore writes the Drizzt Do'Urden books. His character is going to live and gain experience and develop new skills for a very, very, very long time.