[Azurehero]

I know--a story takes as long as it takes. But how much can you tolerate? When you think about it, how much story do you absolutely have to tell before THE conclusion is drawn?
So my question is, how many books is too many in a series?

How many is too little? Are two book series as apealing as trilogies or bigger, six, seven "Hell if I know when it'll end!" book series?

[Metosblat]

It depends on the author and how far apart the books are released. If the author i'm reading has a really good story i'd want them to keep going for as many as they wanted. Obviously alot of people will say Jordan has gone to far with his series, but I disagree. I think it's just the frustration of having to wait and wait forever to get the next book that really pisses people off rather than the quality or length of the books.

[Bardos]

I don't care about how many books it is as long as it is interesting and the writer does not write crap (as Jordan does).

[FitzChivalry]

Yeah, it totally depends on the author. I could read 15 more books of A song of ice and fire.

I think people are pissed at Jordan because the last 2-3 books were of less quality, if they were as good as the first 5-6 books i would be happy for it to never end.

[Azurehero]

I think Metoblat makes a good point. Jordan takes his freakin' time. I wonder if his are just too long for the publishers and he has to cut 300 pages of every book out ... can you imagine what those three hundred pages would be like...*Shivers*

Okay, so the number of books doesn't matter as long as:

A)Books are interesting and not reaching
B) They come out in a timely order, say no longer than 1 year and 6 months apart.

Right?

Okay, what about authors who have serries that they don't want to, or have to end? Joel Rosenberg's Guardian's of the Flame serries falls under that blanket. We can't expect the author to write that serries forever--some writers don't want to spend all their time in one world. (Raymond E. Feist, I'm looking at you)

[Keyoke]

I agree with everyone else pretty well, depends really on the series and all..

BUT, if I had to choose a number..

Anywhere between 3-5 books I think is good..

Keyoke

[6of9]

There are two unending series that I like: Moorcock's Elric series and Conan. Yes, Conan is of dubious literary value, but I read the first Robert E. Howard novellas when I was about ten and, every now and then, I feel nostalgic.

As for Elric--who was created, incidentally, to be Conan's exact opposite--it often seems like he will have no more adventures and then... another novel comes out.

I loved the Pelucidar series, too. It was sort of never-ending but, since the author is long dead, it seems it has reached an end.

[wolfshead]

I don't think there need be a limit, but many authors do seem to go off the boil
the boil after 4 or 5 books in one series. Either they run out of ideas and just pad out a thin plot, or they 'fall in love' with their own characters (often responding to the characters' popularity among readers) and then become self indulgent with them.

[Rhaegar]

If a series can maintain a high standard of quality (GRRM) I really don't care when it ends. But on the other hand, if a series has become tired and stale (you know who) even 4 or 5 books is enough.

If George R.R. Martin could maintain the quality of his books, I wouldn't be opposed to him going past the planned six. But I think the possibility of writer's burnout (or authors death) would increase dangerously. Six should be about right.

Are you listening, Mr. Jordan?

[lior]

Multiple books can be a problem in fantasy, you go into a bookstore, you see a book by one of your favourite authors, with a really cool cover, and then you see the fine print:"book three of the *!*!* series". that pisses me off sometimes, one shots are pretty rare.