Series that are “series” only because the charactes are related don’t do too much for me…especially if the characters only make cameo appearances in each others’ books. I can handle three or four books in a series like this, but that’s it. The reason I love Nora Roberts trilogies, as an example, is because all the characters play significant roles THROUGHOUT the series, and not only in their own books.

Series that are going strong for me are the In Death series, the Outlander series, the Mercy Thompson series.

Often I find I’ll outgrow the series before the author finishes it, if it goes on for more than three books. I like stand alone, but it is nice to get extended fixes on good characters and writing.

Since I read so much, I learned a long time ago to read a trilogy straight through. This way I don’t lose the thread of the story.

I also voted for other as some series are wonderful and I followed, am following them to the end. Other series, I stopped after two to five books. I won’t mention any authors or their series as I don’t want to hurt anyones feelings.

When I was reading fantasy I started reading Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series. I really liked the first few books but then I started to get the impression that there was no planned end to this massive story arc and whole books (with 800+ pages) would go by with nothing really happening, so I gave up.

I love Brockmann and Balogh and Beverley. Beverley’s Malloren series is one of my favourites. I actually read book 4 and 5 first then got the others and read from the beginning all the way to the end. I must say that the full Rothgar experience was only obtained by getting to know him in each of the books – his HEA was so much more satisfying when I had a better appreciation of him. Following his story, I am very happy to read other books where he appears, just to “catch up”.

I also really love the JD Robb books – these are quite different though because the story is actually the crime being solved, against the background of Eve and Roarke’s evolving relationship. I read them for the relationship, my mum and her husband read them for the police procedural aspect. I have “sold” them to quite a few people now with the thing I love best about them – you can see how the characters grow and develop (including the marvelous secondary characters in the series, which, because of the the length of it, you get to know quite well too) and when I pick up the next one, it’s like catching up with old dear friends. I guess I just can’t let go, so series’ suit me! However, if (God Forbid) Nora stopped writing them, the series can end without any loose ends, which is great too (Hate, Hate, Hate, loose ends….)

Having said I like series, I’m also happy to read a well written stand alone novel. I care more about the quality of the story than whether it is part of a series or not.

And I hate, hate, hate reading scenes where characters from ten previous books get together and have tea and basically halt all forward momentum of the story I’m current reading–especially if I haven’t read the previous ten books.

The last series I read was the Samaria trilogy by Sharon Shinn. Overall it was good, but neither of the subsequent books was quite as good as ARCHANGEL, and I was rather distraught at some of the revelations in the subsequent books. I rather loved the mysticism/faith of the first book.

It makes me look upon a story like LORD OF THE RINGS with even more nostalgia and longing. When Tolkien was done, he was done. He didn’t tell the story of every survivor. Didn’t set a book in every corner of Middle Earth. Didn’t give the chronicles of Aragorn and Arwen’s children. And somehow, that made the story more grand, the adventures more real, and left some breathing room for the readers.

At the same time, though, I am very conscious of what the readers want and expect, even in books that aren’t labelled romance. So I try to give the MCs enough “moments” together where the reader can feel reassured that things will work out eventually–and I plan definite endings to my series, as well, in which everyone finds their HEA. I agree some series just go on too damn long, and should have wraped up a long time ago–when the books become essentially the same exact plot over and over again, filled with tons of padding (self-analytical conversations, for example, that go on for chapters)…it’s time to wrap things up, no matter how much of a cash cow the books may have become. Put it out of its misery and start something new, you know?

I put that I’ll stick with them until the end, because it’s the closest to how I feel, even though it doesn’t work all the time in practice. I do think that in series books it’s important to remember that things could still work out, that even if the main couple breaks up that doesn’t mean they won’t get back together, and to have a little faith, so as long as the books are still good I’ll stick around even if the focus or even genre changes. But I also think when the books start to feel phoned in and have become so different from the original ones that they might as well just be a different series entirely…how can I have faith in an author who makes it so clear s/he doesn’t give a crap what I think? That s/he doesn’t even think I’m worth the effort of trying to give me a good story anymore?

I think readers can tell when an author doesn’t care anymore.

Bottom line: if the stories are still interesting, the writing is still good, and the characters still true to themselves, I’m still there, switched genres or not.

If it feels like the author decided anything s/he wrote would be a bestseller, so here’s some crap on a page and the peons will like it or else, forget it.

Charlaine Harris’ Sookie Stackhouse books always has Sookie as the main character, but changes which secondary character will get a lot of time in the different books. Plus, she has more than just a single paranormal, like Blood Ties does. If it wasn’t for Blood Ties different paranormal creatures, I would have tired of it a lot sooner. Same with fantasies/sagas/scifi: I want more than a single element, while switching around between the main characters, with each of those genres.

I want series labeled better. I look at books in the library, or being reviewed online, and want to start at the beginning. But without some kind of order or sequence, it’s *REALLY FRIGGIN HARD to GUESS*. Are they listed in chronological or reverse? I’m an on-and-off-again reader, so I haven’t figured this out completely. I think they do it both ways, which is really frustrating.

Sometimes themed titles are fun, but not if they don’t help determine which order to read the books in. Janet Evanovich’s Stephanie Plum series is my favorite kind of titling for a series.

I also like for series covers to have some kind of brand for that particular series. Even if the art changes, which it will over time, at least keep the spirit of the brand for that series so we can recognize it.

Really good authors, with consistent worlds and compelling characters, can keep going a long time as far as I’m concerned. Ongoing series are easy to drop if I’m not engaged with the characters — Laurie R. King and Anne Perry are two in the mystery genre whose work I am happy to read as long as they continue to write. Both of them have multiple series as well, and King has occasional stand-alones; all are good, and so I read them. A “finite” series, with cliffhangers between books and no real payoff until the end of the last book, is harder to give up — but I have, and will again, if I’m not enjoying it (aka Wheel of Time, although 12 books is a bit of a stretch for “finite”).

I’ve had the frustration of an author not finishing a trilogy for a very long time (and will she ever? I don’t know!). And sometimes with an authors I don’t know, I wait until the trilogy or whatever is finished so that I can read them back-to-back if I decide I like them. But usually I read what looks good, and keep reading if I enjoy it, and I figure the occasional delays or disappointments are the price I pay for reading the work of living authors.