What's the "made-up word limit"?

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I tend to agree with you, but
Conan has 50 books and many short stories.

But they weren't really a contiguous series, were they? I gather that you could pick up any of those and be just fine. If you start reading A Dance with Dragons you'll be completely lost as to all the characters' motivations (since they're based on the things that happened in the previous books).

 

[Zero Angel]

But they weren't really a contiguous series, were they? I gather that you could pick up any of those and be just fine. If you start reading A Dance with Dragons you'll be completely lost as to all the characters' motivations (since they're based on the things that happened in the previous books).

What about things like the "main storyline" of Dragonlance novels? There's an entire saga there composed of 3-5 series. Does this count as one (too) long series in your estimation?

Similar with the Drizzt saga?

 

[Mindfire]

I think what he means is 15 books to tell one story is too long. Imagine if LOTR had been 15 books. The plot would have moved like a glacier.

 

[Graylorne]

I think what he means is 15 books to tell one story is too long. Imagine if LOTR had been 15 books. The plot would have moved like a glacier.

Imagine the 45 films that would've made...

But yes, I think series like Jordan's and Goodkind's are too long. Not only for the reader, but certainly also for the author.

 

[BWFoster78]

I think what he means is 15 books to tell one story is too long. Imagine if LOTR had been 15 books. The plot would have moved like a glacier.

If you want a tightly focused plot, probably. If you can make an audience care about your characters and want to keep reading about them, more power to you to keep that money flowing in as long as possible.

 

[Mindfire]

If you want a tightly focused plot, probably. If you can make an audience care about your characters and want to keep reading about them, more power to you to keep that money flowing in as long as possible.

Yeah, because fantasy writers should be encouraged to take even longer to finish their books than they already do.

 

[BWFoster78]

Yeah, because fantasy writers should be encouraged to take even longer to finish their books than they already do.

I meant by extending the series to more and more books, not longer as in length of book or length of time to publish.

 

[SeverinR]

A well written book will leave the reader saddened that the story is over, and the characters will not return.
But better to leave them wanting more then to have them feel the characters are over used. Much like a house guest leaving before they overstayed their welcome.

 

[BWFoster78]

A well written book will leave the reader saddened that the story is over, and the characters will not return.
But better to leave them wanting more then to have them feel the characters are over used. Much like a house guest leaving before they overstayed their welcome.

Better in what sense?

From an economic standpoint, the author has a built in audience for those characters, an audience that may be less likely to buy a new book/series.

 

[Zero Angel]

Ehh, I agree you always want to leave them wanting more, but my current plans for WotA (which is my main series) will consist of 3-5 quadrilogies. Even with that many books, I believe at the end fans will be left wanting more.

I've written the last 100 pages or so of the entire thing, and that is the goal I am working towards. Should be done in 30 years or so...less if I can ever manage to make writing a full-time gig.

 

[Mindfire]

Better in what sense?

From an economic standpoint, the author has a built in audience for those characters, an audience that may be less likely to buy a new book/series.

That's not necessarily true. You're forgetting the "brand name effect". If people like something by an author, they're more likely to buy that author's other works regardless of whether the characters are the same. Plus, there's also a Third Option here: the Sequel Series, as popularized by kids cartoons. Surely the audience for your series will also be interested in another series set in the same world even if it doesn't focus on the same characters, or includes the old characters only in a background role. Examples of this would be Avatar: the Legend of Korra, and Rick Riordan's Heroes of Olympus, the sequel series to Percy Jackson.

 

[BWFoster78]

That's not necessarily true. You're forgetting the "brand effect". If people like something by an author, they're more likely to buy that author's other works regardless of whether the characters are the same. Plus, there's also a Third Option here: the Sequel Series, as popularized by kids cartoons. Surely the audience for your series will also be interested in another series set in the same world even if it doesn't focus on the same characters, or includes the old characters only in a background role. Examples of this would Avatar: the Legend of Korra, and Rick Riordan's Heroes of Olympus, the sequel series to Percy Jackson.

I haven't done any market research on this; I can only go by my own behavior.

I think it goes by tiers. If I like an author a lot, I'll buy anything he writes. If I like him okay, I'll buy whatever sounds interesting. If the writing is a bit off but I got drawn into the series, I'm going to finish the series unless he totally screws the pooch, but I doubt I'll consider much else that he wrote.

It seems logical to me that it's economically advantageous to draw out a series that is doing well. A) You have a built in audience that's already invested in the characters. B) You are not necessarily going to attract a reader who read another one of your books. Unless that reader loved you, he'll make his decision based on whether or not the current book sounds interesting. C) Whenever someone buys the first book in the series, the possibility is high that they'll now buy all the books in the series.

I think that tie in series and sequel series are easier to market than a new world, but it still seems to me that the original series is the easiest until it goes completely to pot (see Goodkind, Terry). Speaking of whom, I bought 13 books even though I stopped enjoying it that much after about 7 or 8 just because I liked the characters and wanted to know what happened. To me, that seems like a pretty strong testament for the power of the series.

 

[Mindfire]

I haven't done any market research on this; I can only go by my own behavior.

I think it goes by tiers. If I like an author a lot, I'll buy anything he writes. If I like him okay, I'll buy whatever sounds interesting. If the writing is a bit off but I got drawn into the series, I'm going to finish the series unless he totally screws the pooch, but I doubt I'll consider much else that he wrote.

It seems logical to me that it's economically advantageous to draw out a series that is doing well. A) You have a built in audience that's already invested in the characters. B) You are not necessarily going to attract a reader who read another one of your books. Unless that reader loved you, he'll make his decision based on whether or not the current book sounds interesting. C) Whenever someone buys the first book in the series, the possibility is high that they'll now buy all the books in the series.

I think that tie in series and sequel series are easier to market than a new world, but it still seems to me that the original series is the easiest until it goes completely to pot (see Goodkind, Terry). Speaking of whom, I bought 13 books even though I stopped enjoying it that much after about 7 or 8 just because I liked the characters and wanted to know what happened. To me, that seems like a pretty strong testament for the power of the series.

I see your point. But it seems to me that the longer you draw out the series, the more you run the risk of:
A. Jumping the Shark
B. Your audience feeling that the idea has gotten stale

Every new entry to an extended series is a gamble in that respect. It might be better to quit while you're ahead. Of course, it also depends on what your series is like. If your series is itself a kind of story arc, like Lord of the Rings (3 books, 1 story), Avatar (3 seasons, one story), or Narnia (7 books one overall story... sort of), then tacking on more books to the end of that arc is more likely to feel tacky. Especially if the arc had a satisfying conclusion of its own. If your stories are more episodic and have little to do with each other however, then extending the series may feel more natural.

 

[Zero Angel]

It seems logical to me that it's economically advantageous to draw out a series that is doing well. A) You have a built in audience that's already invested in the characters. B) You are not necessarily going to attract a reader who read another one of your books. Unless that reader loved you, he'll make his decision based on whether or not the current book sounds interesting. C) Whenever someone buys the first book in the series, the possibility is high that they'll now buy all the books in the series.

And if your series is movie-likely, then you're not just talking about getting more sales, but millions of dollars of rights for each book.

I object only to the use of the words "draw out". I think series should be as long as they need to be. If they need to be 987245789235 books long and you're able to do that then that is spectacular. If they need to be a single book long then that is how long they should be. Personally, drawn out things are anathema, but I have no aversion to lengthy works/series.

 

[BWFoster78]

A. Jumping the Shark
B. Your audience feeling that the idea has gotten stale

Seems like it would come down to an calculation of risk vs. reward. What is the chance of going too far, what would that cost you in future dollars, how would it impact sales of future projects, etc.

I object only to the use of the words "draw out".

It's widely considered that Robert Jordan "drew out" WoT. Did it pay off for him? I don't know.

 

[Mindfire]

It's widely considered that Robert Jordan "drew out" WoT. Did it pay off for him? I don't know.

Considering that his books live in infamy for their length and he died before the series could be completed, I'd say no.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I'd like to think that I'd tell a story that needs telling and not milk popular characters just because I could. I'm not in that enviable position, alas, so I can only speculate.

 

[BWFoster78]

I'd like to think that I'd tell a story that needs telling and not milk popular characters just because I could. I'm not in that enviable position, alas, so I can only speculate.

I'm not saying that it's a good think to milk your series.

I do think that, at some point though, economic considerations have to start becoming a priority if one wants to move from being a hobbyist to being a professional. Right now, I make a good living at my day job, so I can write what I want. If I were dependent on writing for my livelihood, however, I'd necessarily need to make decisions on what to write based on expected profit.

 

[Zero Angel]

It's widely considered that Robert Jordan "drew out" WoT. Did it pay off for him? I don't know.

Did he do that on purpose though? I assumed (especially since he knew he was dying) that he was doing his damnedest to finish the last decade or so of his writing. I think he drew it out only because he got in a rut and let his skill wither. I have nothing to base that on other than personal opinion of course.

 

[BWFoster78]

Did he do that on purpose though? I assumed (especially since he knew he was dying) that he was doing his damnedest to finish the last decade or so of his writing. I think he drew it out only because he got in a rut and let his skill wither. I have nothing to base that on other than personal opinion of course.

No idea. Did he do it deliberately or did the success of the series go to his head?