: Re: Series: Is there a disadvantage to the number of books? I'm an aspiring author. Though I am fairly certain of the answer to the question below, I figured I would make sure, or at least collect
The number of books in the series is irrelevant. What matters is whether you still have story to tell.
JK Rowling planned the Potter series to have seven books; Harry's arc is finished. GRRMartin originally planned for four, but he's got so much to say that he's expanded to at least seven (and eight wouldn't surprise me if he lives that long). David Eddings's Belgariad was written as three books, but the publisher broke it somewhat arbitrarily into five. CE Murphy's Walker Papers needed 10 books and a novella to complete Joanne's story.
Conversely, I thought Carol Berg's Transformation was a perfect standalone, and I disliked the second and third in the rai-kirah trilogy. I thought the concepts introduced were boring and obscure, and didn't add anything.
So it doesn't matter how many books are in the series. It matters whether the characters still have interesting things to do, and whether we care about them doing those things. That can take one book or twenty.
More posts by @Carla500
: If you're concerned about too many accidents, then try to find a way to add some purpose to some of them. 1) It's doubtful that you can find a way for a comet to land in someone's garden
: Many of the original Grimm and Andersen fairytales had tragic elements in their endings. The Little Mermaid got legs, but every step felt like walking on broken glass, and she doesn't win
Terms of Use Privacy policy Contact About Cancellation policy © selfpublishingguru.com2024 All Rights reserved.