How many books?

[bs_08]

I was just replying to a comment to Swankivy saying something like "and everyone wants trilogies anyway" when I realized maybe that's not exactly true. I personally like trilogies or series (but once it passes 5 books it better be Harry Potter quality! new stuff in each book, not just filler books *I'm looking at you House of Night and The

Comments

[white_wolf03]

I like books that have sequels, but also have the option for you to stop reading. By this I mean books that have the main arc concluded. The Sight was a good example of this. The prophecy is fulfilled and the surviving major antagonist is adopted into the pack. (Because the pack's rejection of the Big Bad is what sealed her fate) However, there are loose ends like one of the protagonists leaving to live as a lone wolf, and another protagonist trying to move past the death of another character. It's one of those books that has a sequel, but you don't have to read it. I would though, if I could find it.

[maxismerlin]

I typically like 3-5 book series, as they give me more than can be put in one book, but don't usually require too much waiting to see the story through.* Although each book had better add to the story. Filler/transition/whatever-the hell-you-want-to-call-them-books-are unacceptable.**

As for my project, I had originally cast it as a trilogy, then a quintet, but now I think I need at least fifteen books to fully capture the deep symbolism and themes.

Just kidding. It was originally a trilogy, then I shrank it down to a duology, and now it's a trilogy again. However, books 2 and 3 of the original triology have now been combined into book 2 of the new one, if that makes any sense.

*Paaaooollliiinnniii...

**Paaaooollliiinnniii...

[white_wolf03]

Almost forgot! Mine's a triology, maybe a duology if the planned third book is as long as I envisioned.

[lady_licht]

Great. I love one night stands. *laughs*
No, honestly, I like standalone books better. I get annoyed after too many sequels following. Especially if they're just for the hype or because the author couldn't come up with another idea and therefore is only stretching the one he once had into something too large.
I even lost most interest in George R. R. Martin's books.
I want a story that is told and ends in the book I just bought. I don't want to have to read a thousand more books to get to know what the author wanted to tell. It's like talking to someone who needs three hours to tell you he went down to the supermarket and bought cigarettes. While this CAN be entertaining it most of the time isn't.
It depends on the books and the author, though.

[princesselwen]

Especially if they're just for the hype or because the author couldn't come up with another idea and therefore is only stretching the one he once had into something too large.
cough *Robert Jordan* cough.

That's what turned me off to Harry Turtledove's "Worldwar"

[lady_licht]

Nothing like wading through 400+ pages only to have it end "To Be Continued..."

[leterren]

I agree with some above comments, I like a series, but also if the books can stand alone. Redwall is a good example, it's all one big-ay series, but you don't need to read any particular book to understand any particular other one.

That's probably why I'm doing something similar in my project. I've finished one book, and it's a standalone story, but there's potential for immediate sequels (what with the discovering of two new continents at the end) and plans for two or three other sequels separated from the first by a good several hundred years--so those are almost by definition stand-alone.