Would you continue to read a series?

[shelly blomker]

I've talked to a few people that have told me that they are tired of reading certain kinds of series because they write 30 or more in a series. Would you stop reading a series if it just kept going on and on?

I've started some series that I'll probably finish as long as their not to long. I have a few on my blog that have way to many books in it. I probably won't continue reding them. Partly because there are way to many books out there to read and not all of them are series.

So, what do you guys think?

[Mary Beth (bibliophyte)]

It depends on the quality of the writing, consistency of the plot and characters, development, etc. I have enjoyed the first several books in the William Monk series by Anne Perry, for example, because it is well written and the historical aspects (the series is set in the Victorian period) are well researched and accurately portrayed. Now, this series is only 17 books long at this point, so it's shorter than your example series, but the same principles still apply as far as I'm concerned. What I usually do, though, is read one or two from a series and then take a break to read a few books from other genres and authors. Then I'll come back and read another one or two and then take another break, etc. Anne Perry is a great author, in my opinion, so I think I'll always be interested in reading her books no matter how many there end up being in a series.

I completely agree with Tabatha regarding the Stephanie Plum series. I started out enjoying them because while they're not what I would consider great literary fiction, they were fun and fast. The series has gotten ridiculously repetitive, though, and the plot is just draaagging, so I stopped reading them a few books ago (and from what my mom has told me I haven't missed anything). The J.D. Robb books about Eve Dallas (the "In Death" series) strike me the same way. They've (out)run their course and weren't all that great to begin with, so I'm completely done with those, too.

I honestly think there aren't many series of great length I'd be able to get all the way through. This is mainly because I don't think there are that many authors capable of developing plots and characters complex enough to lengthen out in that manner while still giving good plots and development to each serial.

[Stan Morris]

The Eve Dallas series has been up and down for me this year.  I'm still hanging on, but I'm starting to buy them used.

[Stan Morris]

I've been following David Weber's Honor Harrington, but that is getting old.  Same for Eric Flint's 1632 series.  I know I'm getting tired of a series when I stop purchasing the books as soon as they are available.  I love Jayne Ann Krentz, but I wish that she would move on from the Arcane series.  But I understand why authors keep working on series, because everybody has to eat and pay the rent/mortgage.  I've been asked several times to write a sequel for one of my books, and I have to admit that it's tempting.

[Arabella Bramble]

I will often try a book that is the first in a series but not necessarily continue.  I did start reading the discworld series by Terry Pratchett a few books in and now never miss a new title and I will keep reading those as long as they keep coming.  As a general rule a book as to have something more than just an ongoing story to keep me reading. 

[uzma]

I love series because that way once you've finshed one book, there is another waiting to be read. I don't agree with your opinion. Quite frankly have you nothing better to do than post this type of silly statement. Have you ever heard of live and let live. Don't ruin the party for others just because your a party pooper!

[Richard Lee Byers]

I keep reading as long as the author is keeping me entertained. I've read every one of Bernard Cornwell's novels about Richard Sharpe, and there are like a kajillion of those. On the other hand, my rule is that if I read two books in a series and they both disappoint me, I'm done with that series.

[Mac McPherson]

Always been a great fan of Lee Child 'Reacher' books but the last two just seemed "tired" to me. Still re-read the earlier books though. Not sure I would buy the next Reacher book ('A Wanted Man') when it comes out, just wait for the local library to stock.

So put me down as a fence-sitter :-)

[E.J. Runyon]

Where possible I own the hardbacks of these authors:

In Mysteries I follow three characters by Lawrence Block - Keller, Bernie Rodehbar (sp), and Matt Scudder.  And three characters of Walter Mosley's also - Easy Rawlins, Socrates Fortlow and Fearless Jones.

In kids books - there's Gary Blackwood 's The Shakespeare Stealer,  Shakespeare's Spy & Shakespeare's Sribe. And the Redwall Series by Brian Jacques

When it comes to Thrillers there's the newsih author Brent Ghelfi and his character Volk.  For Fantasy/Historical I go with Diana Gabaldon , who has the Outlander series and Lord John Grey.

I can honestly say - if any of these writers wanted to continues these franchsies I'd be there ready with my $$ & my interest. I can't write genre myself, but I eat it up with a spoon.

[Patricia Gligor]

Of course I'd stop reading a series if it didn't interest me anymore. I'd stop reading a standalone novel if it bored me. But, as a rule, I love series. I like getting to know the characters who begin to feel like friends.

I just finished reading, "V is for Vengeance" by Sue Grafton and it would take a loaded gun to keep me from reading the last four novels in her mystery series.

[Darryl Erentzen]

Almost everyone else has, so I may as well state the obvious - as long as my interest is engaged I'll keep buying and reading a series.

One exceptio: series whose authors take too long to get the next book out.

No matter how much I enjoyed the previous books, if I have to wait years to get the next one, I'm likely to lose interest. I don't have time to backtrack to refresh my memory.

Some series that I abandoned for this reason: Stephen King's "Gunslinger" series, Steven Erikson's "Malazan Book of the Fallen", George R. R. Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire".

All of the above are fantastic reads as far as I got, but by the time the next book came out (or reached a price point I could justify buying at) I had forgotten so many of the details that there was no point in reading further without starting over at the beginning. There are others, but those are the series that stand out in memory.

In some cases I'd lost, loaned, gifted or sold the earlier books already, and I wasn't about to re-buy them. 

So... if you're writing a series and the books aren't meant to be stand-alone, write fast or you'll lose a chunk of your audience. (Assuming I'm not completely unique in this, and since the older I get the more I realize how derivative or even downright cliche much of my experience and even many of my epiphanies are, and how much environment shapes us in spite of free will if it even exists, I'm not likely to be).

[Grace]

I agree with that.  I generally prefer not to start reading a series before it is complete, or at least nearing an end.  There are some exceptions, of course, like Brandon Sanderson's "The Way of Kings," but it's frustrating to have to wait for the next book.  I wouldn't mind it so much if books in a series/trilogy actually had endings for each volume, but most of the time they just cut off on a cliffhanger, which is incredibly frustrating as a reader.  I like at least some resolution.

_________________________

Books Without Any Pictures

[Darryl Erentzen]

I've taken the "wait until it's finished" approach lately as well. Too many other good books out there to waste time waiting.