[allanon]

Before few years I read an interview with Ursula LeGuin.I remember,that she said:"I don't want to read books,which are "The book one of" or "the book six of".Well,I don't think that she is right,but...
Every time,the first 3 or 4 books of the series are very good,but the book5,7...they are boring,stupid,unreaistic.LookWoT.LookSoT.
I think that if you want to work with the same world,you mustn't write 138 books of one series.You must write two or three series about it,like Raymond Feist or Terry
Brooks.Because PoD is not so good like The Eye of the World,but THe Druids of Shannara are better than the Sword of Shannara f.ex.What do you think?

[Bardos]

I think you, are right, Allanon. Two trilogies are far better than a sixtet (I hope I got that right...). Because we have a change in the plot, and it doesn't become boring. And it *is* boring to repeat the same old stuff...

[wolfshead]

I don't mind long series if the subject remains fesh. sadly that rarely seems to be the case. even Donaldson, who is a very good writer, gave me the occasional impression that he was 'making it up as he went along' in his second lot of three books.

[Cellandros]

It really comes down to whether an author can continue to develop characters and evolve the world in a lenghty series.

The reason why Ray Feist's novels are great is because over the course of the long story, the characters and world evolve and develop, things change. It doesn't really matter that he's breaking the stories into trilogies...after all, you could just as easily have called the two trilogies 'The History of Midkemia' #1-6.

Series like WoT and SoT are examples of long series that aren't letting plots, characters and the world develop enough to sustain good tension and interest. Most likely this is because the scopes of the series are much more narrow, and thus more difficult to keep up after so many novels.

In other words, if a story is going to continue after 3~4 books, it had better be a 'world history' story-arc much like Feist and Brooks do; or focus on completely different characters in a different city/province in the world (like Robin Hobb in her Farseer and Liveship Traders series).

[Rob B]

WOT has had some low points, particularily PoD and aCos. Winter's Heart really picks up though. I thought it was one of the stronger books in the series. I think WOT has GREAT character and world development, it is just the story/plot that is becoming too intricate for its own good.

However, WOT aside, I do think that the authors who keep a more strict book count (per series) can maintain a higher degree of control and better story.

Tad Williams wrote probably one of the best fantasy trilogies and he kept it to 3 books (at least when pub'd in Hardcover it was 3 books): Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn.

Robin Hobb has done great as well. I am reading A Darkness at Sethanon right now, so from what many have said about Feist seems true.

[Lani]

I think to have a limited number of books in the serie is the best, because by book six or something like that author wouldn't be able to write as good and as fresh as it was in aproximately first 3 books...
The only author I know that wrote 10 books in one series and all of them were pretty good is Zelazny's Amber Series. Except that I never met more than a tetralogy with all the books well written and on the same good level.

[FitzChivalry]

Well, when you go for a huge series with many books, characters and sub-plots you take a risk, if you can handle it, it is usually really great, if you lose control, it becomes bad.

So it really depends on the level of the author, really long series can be superior to short ones if done well, but it's harder.

[Rupert Avery]

Alot of times in long series the writer will sometimes change a characters direction and personalaty too much to try and make the old character seem new.When this happens it tends to also start destorying the plot.For a writer killing off a well loved character sometimes is the only thing left to do to make the series progress.Sometimes you just get sick of the same old hero.If only more writers did this.
If you have not finished Raymond E Feist

*******!!!!!SPOILER!!!!!!!*********
*******!!!!!SPOILER!!!!!!!*********
*******!!!!!SPOILER!!!!!!!*********
When James died it was a great way to end the life of one of the best characters in Fantasy.
***********************************


[This message has been edited by Rupert Avery (edited December 30, 2000).]

[Pluvious]

Most non sci-fi/fantasy fiction tends to be only a single novel. It is rare when this is not the case. I suppose the reasons for this are that we are not just exploring a character's world, but also a whole new fictional world. Obviously this means more background, more description about people and places, etc.

Also, many fantasy authors use several point of view characters and write about an "epic" event or point in history. Something like a great war or other point in history. Most other fiction is based on less massive topics. This also means fantsasy authors require more than one book.

Now back to the point of this thread-how much is too much? Many believe Wot and Sot are too much. I tend to agree. Why? I suppose because they stick with the main characters, yet these characters grow very marginally in later books. They still do things, but they don't expand upon their knowledge, abilities, or morality nearly as quickly as they did in the first couple novels. They have become somewhat stagnant, or worse, annoying in their same old routines. And when a character is changed too much we as readers might not even believe it.

So what do Goodkind and Jordan do? They introduce secondary characters to keep out interest and interact with the old ones. This gets tiresome too. What we want is a story to take place...we want the "most important" events in what the writer initially set out to do. Is that happpening in these two series? No, certainly not.

A trilogy does seem to be about right for an epic fantasy story about a certain character. We don't care about their whole life, just about what is pertinent to the story you are telling. Get it? Jordan and Goodkind obviously do not and neither do those of you who are still buying their books.

I also tend to think one is too small, since I enjoy fantasy to see something of significance happen in a world. What's the point of making a whole world just to tell a small story?

[Drewids]

I don't think the WoT series was overly page eating, what I noticed, and few mention, is that he constantly and sometimes overly examines a particular charcters emotions which came into play later. Now, Nynaeve could become very, very old at times, but later on it played into a major turning point in the story.
I tend to enjoy long series because I get to know the characters very well and like to see them interact. Some of the scenes can become tedious, but most all books have that. I just seems more pronounced in a long series.