Books Made Me Broke discussion

Hi everyone,

As you know, eventually all great book series must come to an end, but what about when the author keeps creating more spinoffs and companion series? Or when they just keep going on and on and on with same series?

For example, there is alot of controversy over how Cassandra Clare (author of The Mortal Instruments Series) plans to write a total of five series set in the same world as TMI.

Many people say she's beating a dead horse and needs to let it go, others say it's fine; they're her books after all.

An example of a series that I think just went on for too long was the Maximum Ride series by James Patterson. The first ones were good, but after awhile it became repetitive and, basically, boring. I still haven't gotten past book six.

I personally think that a book series can only be as good as the ideas behind it, and how good the author is. If it get's too repetitive, then it's too much. But if it stays interesting and there are new ideas and concepts being put into play, I think a series could go on for a long time just fine.

So what do you guys think? When does it become too much? What makes a series stay interesting? Do you wish authors would make less spinoff-series and just end it?

Let us know your opinions!

If you're starting to title your books with double digit numbers, that's gone too far. I think 10 at the outside is a rule of thumb. 5 is better. There are too many authors now who set out from the start to "write a trilogy" or "write a tetralogy" but forget that this approach is like trying to write a college essay that's 30 pages. You can do it, but if you're already at the end of your content/message by page 18 then the rest is going to be pretty boring.

On the topic of Cassandra Claire, I enjoy all of her books, though TMI i feel should have ended at City of glass. The Bane Chronicles is good and I think if she did series' like that, for example, warlock based, vampire based, werewolf, fairy etc. then five series would work better, where as the ones she does are all shadowhunter and ok the plots are different but basically all the same just different eras and places.

I think 5 is like the limit. Some books I would love for the series to reach double digits because I want to find out what happens next. But that would leave no room for imaginations, creating our perfect picture for the characters. I think the series is too much when the second book is focused too much on a love triangle. This has been in so many books and honestly, many people are getting tired of it. It should end when things get repetitive. For example, when the series reaches a point where the next book has to have a huge out-of-the-world crisis that is similar to the one before because the character is a super hero, then the series has gone on far enough.

I don't mind if it's a good series (read: Harry Potter), but if it's a bad series, I'm just... meh. I enjoyed the Vampire Diaries, but after the fifth book... And they changed the author as well. Same with Sookie Stackhouse, went on far too long. House of Night as well.

I read Maximum Ride until the end and honestly I liked the last two books the best but I wish he dropped some of the ones in the middle. A really amazing series that there are 11 books in is Ranger's Apprentice (I know it's middle grade, but I love them). I think John Flanagan pulled it off nicely by having his characters grow from teens to adults. If you are going to write a long series it should be set over years and have the characters age accordingly. Maximum Ride wasn't a good long series in part because James Patterson only allowed the characters to age 1 year over the course of 8 books.

Personally I like longer series that connect throughout as long as the characters age correctly e.g. Percy Jackson, Ranger's Apprentice, Gallagher Girls. If your books are going to be set so that the characters age 2 years or less, I think the limit is probably 5 books.

The cirque du freak saga by Darren Shan is an example of a long series that works. There are 12 books in all and span over a number of years and actually progress in plot and character development.

I think the House of Night novels by PC and Kristin Cast went on for way too long. I really enjoyed the first three, the next two were alright, but then it got out of hand. The plot was really twisted and the characters lost some of their original zest. I think there are about twelve of them now and I have no idea if they're still writing for them, but I lost interest after 7 or 8.

On the other hand, Richelle Mead made a great transition to a spin-off series. She wrote the Vampire Academy series and knew when to stop. She had such great characters though and wanted to stay in that world so she made the Bloodlines series with some new characters... I highly recommend both! (But read Vampire Academy first to better appreciate Bloodlines!)

I, personally love it when series continue that I like as long as The ideas are separate (Ex: TMI is about a girl, Clary, who discovers a secret about her mothers past in the 21st century. TID is about a young girl, Tessa, who discovers that she has an incredible gift to transform into someone else.) Both involve Shadowhunters, yet the story is almost completely different. Cassandra Clare created this beautiful world and I'd hate to see it end. And, to quote Polandbananas20- "How many stories take place in regular old Earth, yet that's never "to much"

Although, I do get bored with series after a while. For example the Warriors Series by Erin Hunter. Don't get me wrong! I loved the series it was fun to read! But, I grew bored with the characters. I loved the new ideas that came along, I loved how The Last Hope ended, but I wished more characters had gotten to shine not just "Rusty" (no spoilers) and now, They made a new series to got along with the others! (I will read it though)
All in all, I think as long as an author keeps it fresh and new while still staying true to what they wrote in the beginning, and, I'll say it again, keeping it fresh and exciting, I don't think there's almost ever a thing as "to much"
*sorry about the grammar and probably spelling errors I'm really tired.*

Seriously though, don't twist my words, I did enjoy reading the Warriors Series(s) it was a lot of fun to read and I am going to read their new series.

Beth wrote: "The cirque du freak saga by Darren Shan is an example of a long series that works. There are 12 books in all and span over a number of years and actually progress in plot and character development."

Cirque Du Freak is AH-MAZING (it's been like six years since I read them, but still). I read it about the same time as I read Twilight, and while the twilight could have dropped New Moon, I was all like NEED MORE DARREN SHAN. NAO. ERHMERGEEERD. Yes, I was fourteen. Sue me.

Chimney wrote: I haven't run into a series yet that I thought was too long...

I think Hunger Games should be longer too! I didn't enjoy the second book quite as much as the other two, but I still loooved it. Maybe she could write a spin-off. That would be AWESOME. Like Scott Westerfeld dis doe the Uglies series, adding a little extras book. It would be awesome to see how Haymitch (dunno how it's written), won the games.

Lina wrote: "Beth wrote: "The cirque du freak saga by Darren Shan is an example of a long series that works. There are 12 books in all and span over a number of years and actually progress in plot and character..."

I started Cirque du freak in my first year of high school after we did the first one in English. I got to book six then stopped for a wee while. After two years I have recently continued with the series. Its good I can just pick up where i left off. Before starting Darren shan I also had previously read twilight 1-3 and if I'm being honest comparing the two, shan writes better vampire books.

Beth wrote: "Lina wrote: "Beth wrote: "The cirque du freak saga by Darren Shan is an example of a long series that works. There are 12 books in all and span over a number of years and actually progress in plot ..."

What I like about Shan is that the books are written for kids like 9-14 or something, and I still want to read those books more than twilight. They are still better than twilight who is written for 13-17 year olds (and older people read them too). As you said, he has such character building and plot twist and I just. GAH. Good vampire books indeed.

Lina wrote: "Beth wrote: "Lina wrote: "Beth wrote: "The cirque du freak saga by Darren Shan is an example of a long series that works. There are 12 books in all and span over a number of years and actually prog..."

Supernatural books aimed at 13+ age range seem to be filled with sex nowadays. I'm not a prude I don't mind a bit of that but in most cases it adds nothing to the story. When I pick up an urban fantasy novel, I'm looking for action scenes with heads getting ripped off rather than clothes

When a series goes past 7 books for me, its time to give it up, of course unless its a very entertaining series.
But when a series goes on for so long that authors are pulling plots out of thin air that doesn't make sense or that become increasingly dumb (far out there), then its time to give it up.

I'm also not one for spinoffs. If a series is finished, its finished. I don't need to read about different characters in the same world. Come up with something new.

Joanne♥~Bookworm Extraordinaire wrote: "When a series goes past 7 books for me, its time to give it up, of course unless its a very entertaining series.
But when a series goes on for so long that authors are pulling plots out of thin ai..."

Yeah I kinda feel the same about spin-offs:/ It's just so hard to forget the old characters!