ETA: 13 May: Please note, this comment thread is so amazing and interesting, but because we’re talking about series and when readers stopped reading and why (or why not), it can and does get spoiler-y. Proceed at your own risk, be ye warned, herein be spoilers, yarr.
On Tuesday at the Bosoms booksigning at the Clifton Commons Barnes & Noble, I got into a thought-provoking discussion with Sydney, Marisa, Kiersten, and the other ladies who came (who told me they lurk and never comment – I didn’t want to embarrass them but hi, folks!) about what makes us break up with a series. I realized later that I read and talked about the Bosoms for only a very small percentage of the time. Most of the hour was spent talking about romances we loved and doing that thing where romance fans get together and vacillate between, ‘OMG WIN’ and ‘OMG NO’ when talking about books. Since so many new series books have come out of late, that was a very lively topic, particularly as Jaiku pointed out at DearAuthor when you are flush with the feeling of wanting to quit, and and you just can’t do so.
The discussion spanned across a ton of series, including the latest J.R. Ward book, Lover Avenged, and Kenyon’s latest, Acheron, as well as the Anita Blake series (note: what in the name of epic ass is up with that website? I can barely read the text), Feehan’s Carpathians, the Sookie Stackhouse series, and Stephanie Plum. All of us had different points at which we did – or did not – break up with these different series.
A few people said they’d stopped reading Kenyon awhile before Acheron came out, but had to read Acheron just to find out what happened to him. One woman mentioned she loved the Sookie series unconditionally, and another couldn’t stop reading Ward, even though she wanted to. I said that I think the signal for me to stop reading the Anita Blake books came when Anita stopped being such a terrible dresser and somehow became a sexpot badass with an unending amount of personal lubrication. When she put away the fanny pack with the matching socks and polo shirt, it was time for me to stop reading.
When I asked why they’d break up with a series, the answers weren’t so far from mine. A few mentioned the “sameness” of the books, the feeling that they’d just read one of the earlier books with different character names, or the habit of reading subsequent books just to keep track of ancillary characters who would reappear in each new installment.
As I listened to the folks talking about when they broke up with a much-loved series, I think I figured out what their breakup point had in common: all of the stories we were discussing based their foundation on a lot of world building. Whether it was Trenton or an entire otherworld, the world in which the books took place played as much of a role in the early books as the characters themselves, and certainly that was part of the attraction.
But when the books became more about the characters, and less about the world, or when reader knowledge of the world was presumed by the text and therefore not built at all in later books, most of the women there, including me, started to lose interest. The world has to be as much a character that grows and evolves as the characters do, and when one is sacrificed for the other, or neither the world nor the characters evolve, the series is a lot easier to break up with and leave behind.
For example, I’m still way invested in Kresley Cole’s series because there is a larger plot facing the otherworld that develops in each book, as if that world of the Immortals is its own character. But I have stopped reading the Plum series back when it was still in the single digits because there wasn’t any evolution to the characters that I enjoyed – and what changes there were I didn’t like at all. I haven’t followed the Ward series past The Nomming of Butch By Vishous because, while often crackalicious, I didn’t care so much about the characters any longer, nor did I give a powdery ass about the Lessers, and on the whole felt that the world of the Brotherhood hadn’t changed much. I preferred to read Dark Lover again (and try to figure out WHY they can be so crack-luscious) than read any of the newer installments of the series. A few folks argued that Ward’s series was one they could not leave behind (no pun intended) because they loved the world within it so much, even as they didn’t love all the installments of the series.
Even when the author breaks the rules of that world, and breaks them hard, some of the readers I spoke with were still yearning to revisit it, either by reading older books or continuing to read the new ones. And while there was some agreement that one or two series had totally jumped the shark and kept on flying into the horizon, all of us had different breakup points with different series, especially those that seem as if they have no end in sight.
So what’s your break-up point with a series you love? Is it based on the world or the characters or a disappointment so great you’ll never get over it?
About writing a series – I can understand the paradox, that the reader might want some ‘core’ sameness and also variety in the story situation.
Maybe the thing the author needs to be clear about, in her/his own mind – “Who is my intended audience for this book?” Define your audience.
If the intended reader is someone, who is looking for a positive upbeat romantic story, then (for the most part) do not put a grim wife-beating and rape scene in the book.
And I realize that while some authors and readers do like “dark scenes”, but after awhile, it makes me wonder – “do we really need to explore every deep dark tortured cranny of a very twisted sadistic/masochistic soul?” At that point, it gets too perverted for me – and I do not think the book is entertaining anymore.
And the comment about “lazy” writing – I don’t think there is a 100% consistent view on this. I think you actually have to read the specific book, and accurately evaluate it.
Some writers are just going in a different way, so she/he is not being lazy. There is a method to the madness, so to speak.
And, OTH, some writers do seem (in a specific book) to be lazy in their craft. Recently, there was a book by an author, who usually is very good – but the last book came out seeming to be choppy; characters were abruptly added or quickly removed; some have said the book seemd like it was 1/2 of a story – that the author wrote along up to 300 pages, and then quickly had to end it with a wrap-up 25 page ending – and you know what, that did seem to be true description. It did go along, and then quickly wrap up, in a way, that was not typical for this author. So, it can be possible for a book to be sloppy and choppy and lack pacing. It can happen. And that is lazy, if the author did not go back and polish it up and smooth out this weirdly choppy story.
@AGTigress: I can see where the word “lazy” would get a writers’ hackles up (and if I got that damn apostrophe in the wrong place, I apologize profusely). However, from a reader’s perspective, how else do you explain poor characterization, plot holes, hasty endings, etc, except as a lack of time spent on the MS by the author?
Word!
Certainly it can happen, but again, without knowing why, I am rather worried about confident accusations that these faults are due, specifically, to laziness. Perhaps there were deadline problems beyond the writer’s control (e.g. writer ill during part of the writing period, publisher unwilling/unable to extend deadline), or maybe there was a really difficult, adversarial author/editor relationship. There are so many phases in the production of a book, and things can go pear-shaped in each and every one of them.
It is perfectly reasonable to say that a plot wraps up too fast and suddenly, that there are holes and loose ends, that the writing is unpolished, the research patchy, or the characters not well realised. That is all fair comment. I can think of a book by a very major writer that I would accuse of all those things. But it goes a big step further to say why all this is so. Do we know that the reason for all those things is that the writer was lying on a sofa eating cream puffs and watching TV rather than getting on with her writing? No, we don’t. There may be many reasons other than sheer idleness for these faults. For all we know, she may even have worked harder on this bad book than she did on a book that worked out much better.
To review the book is perfectly fair, and anybody who is unwilling to have their writing picked over should not be publishing at all. But to link faults in the work to the character of the writer seems to me unjustifiable without a lot of additional evidence about the circumstances.
Randi:
Well, one reason might be that the publisher/editor simply demanded unexpected changes at a very late stage that threw the whole plot out of whack. It happens. And I have already mentioned one possible reason other than idleness for a writer spending too little time on a MS: she might have been sick, or a close family member might have been sick, or have died, during the period when the book was in preparation, necessarily reducing the time she could spend on her writing.
Also, some books can take longer to write than even an experienced writer originally expected, and publishers have a way of trying to hustle the writer, to chop time off the deadline. These are all possible reasons for problems that have nothing to do with laziness. Remember that writing is not only time-consuming, but can actually be very difficult. It is not only time that is required, but a great deal of cogitation. Things do not always work out as one planned, and a lot of time may be spent on trying to repair a text that has gone off the rails.
I do not write fiction myself, but I suspect one would have to be quite a big name to ask for a deadline extension and get it, because if the whole publication/marketing process is in train, following a flow-chart that has dates on it, and that intersects at many points with other projects, the publisher will not want to change it.
To say, ‘this is a bad book, with the following faults’ is very different from saying, ‘this writer has written a bad book because she is lazy’. She might be lazy—but that accusation should not be thrown about unless one is in possession of personal facts about the author that justify it. The quality of the book cannot, in itself, act as a demonstration and a proof of laziness. It goes well beyond what can be inferred from the result alone.
Interesting thread; wish I’d found it sooner. One thing I realized after reading this thread is I’m not really a series reader. When it comes to books, I’m not loyal at all. I’m always looking for a fresh experience.
Haven’t read Sookie Stackhouse or Stephanie Plum. I got 50 pages into the first JD Robb and was too bored to finish it. Read the first Dresden Files, but didn’t like it enough to buy book 2. Read one LKH book and dumped it after 50 pages.
There are two series that did work for me. The first is Lois McMaster Bujold’s Vorkosigan series. Somehow she managed to make it fresh every time. The characters were familiar, but some books were mysteries, some were military SF, some were romances. Really, each one was quite different. Furthermore, she would “retire” characters and let younger characters take center stage. Her first two books featured Aral and Cordelia. Then she gave them their HEA and let their son Miles take over. This is a fantastic strategy because we still get to enjoy seeing Aral and Cordelia from time to time, but she hasn’t spoiled their HEA, and she gives us a new perspective from a new character.
The other series I loved was Patrick O’Brians “Master and Commander” series. I read the first 18 books—I heard they began to deteriorate at that point, so I haven’t bought the final three (one of which was finished after the author’s death). But think of it, 18 books featuring the same characters, and it never got boring! I can’t even think of any particular strategy O’Brian used to keep the series fresh and interesting; he’s just got the chops for it.
This is a familiar traditional approach sometimes used, for example, by Georgette Heyer (e.g. These Old Shades, Devil’s Cub, An Infamous Army), and by Jayne Ann Krentz in her connected books. It is very different from either the multi-volume single story-arc with the same lead character(s) every time (the Betsy kind of twaddle), or the classic whodunnit model in which each book, although with the same hero/heroine, is a totally separate story, and the series need not be read in any particular order.
Where the setting is a wholly invented one – some paranormal or science-fiction thing – it is easy to see that, having set it up, the author is going to be tempted to use it more than once. I also think that fiction publishers encourage a series format at the moment because they think that the innate collecting instinct that most of us possess will make us buy every book in a series even if we do not enjoy all of them (this applies to non-fiction leisure reading, too). From the comments in this thread, perhaps it is time that they re-thought that strategy. It may not be working too well any more.
Oh man, what a fantastic thread!
I think accusations of lazy writing are perfectly fair. If a book reads like the writing was lazy, then that’s how it reads.
The open-ended series do seem to be very dangerous—maybe since the series doesn’t have a specific timeline and plot line, the tightness of the series gets lost, and the novels don’t really have to go anywhere.
Series I’ve broken up with: the usual.
—POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD, BUT FOR REALLY OLD BOOKS—
Anita Blake: I got warning rumbles when Anita turned on Richard in one of the earlier books, made her turning on him all his fault when it most certainly wasn’t, and somehow managed to make everything about her. Uh-oh. That was the beginning of the end. I held on until around Book 10 and then couldn’t take it any more. What was awful was that I still felt overwhelming urges to skim the subsequent books, which if I did would only make me really mad. Finally after a few more horrible books I gave up all interest in the series whatsoever and felt no compulsion to skim the books at Barnes & Noble. It feels so wonderful! Free! Free at last!
Stephanie Plum: I still hang on. The jokes aren’t even funny any more, since they’re just the same joke over and over again, but there are still those occasional glints of inspired hilarity. I thought that 14 was way better than 13, so I might just make it to 15.
Betsy: Couldn’t get into the series, tried about three times. Irritating heroine is irritating.
Sookie: Couldn’t get into this series, either. Just as well.
Dresden Files: Meh. Tried a few books, even later books. Too predictable for me.
I think the Stephanie Plum series is a good example of needing to stay fresh, and stay true to the characters at the same time, illustrating that staying true to the characters is different from getting stale. If each book is just the same tired jokes told over and over, that’s not the same as staying true to the characters. What needs to stay the same is maybe the FEEL of the books—but not the actual CONTENT.
Ah yes, Anita Blake. I quit when the books became more about porn than anything else – in the neighborhood of Narcissus in chains, or the one right after that I can’t remember the name of. Bleah. When the whole book consists of “how many people can Anita Blake fuck … AT ONCE” I lose interest. It was depressing, because the series started so well.
And another long-running series. I’ve been reading the Cat Who books by Lillian Jackson Braun since … well, since I was a teenager. The first few were okay – I read them because they were the only books in the house I was staying in – and then I got hooked. Some of them were enjoyable enough to read multiple times, not something I say about a lot of mysteries.
But the last few books in the series have drifted away from the purpose. They’re no longer about solving crimes and more about updating the reader on the social life of Moose County. I like the ancillary characters, but when I have to tease thirty pages of plot out of a hundred pages of social chitchat, it becomes made of meh. I hung on, anyway, because once you’ve read over twenty books in a series you don’t give up easily.
And then Braun did the unforgivable. The relationship between Quill and Polly has gone on for 20 or so books – they’re devoted to each other, though neither wants to marry, and I enjoy seeing the two together. But in the latest novel, Polly just up and takes a job in France. WTF?!?!!?!?!? The way the character is written, she would NEVER take an out-of-country job and let her lover of the past however-many years know about it BY LETTER. She leaves on vacation, all is well, and then WHAM, Quill gets a letter saying he’ll never see her again, find a home for her cats plz.
I might – MIGHT – have stuck around after that. Maybe their relationship needed some shaking up. But in the very same book, within a dozen pages of learning that he’s single again, Quill is macking up to another woman. A woman who’s a lot like Polly, down to having the same occupation. She even moves into Polly’s condo and (IIRC) takes Polly’s two cats! That is so lame it hurts. I can’t even remember Polly v 2.0’s name.
Perhaps your definition of ‘lazy’ is different from mine?
‘Lazy’ is when the author cannot be bothered to keep her character’s names straight. That includes secondary and even throwaway mentions. It’s really weird to have a character be named X in one paragraph and then Y in the next (where was the damn editor?). Or where physical characteristics change from one page to the next or one book to the next.
‘Lazy’ is when things that have been established as canon by the author are suddenly changed to fit the new book (family members sudden alive that were dead in an earlier book, some part of world building that was essential in an earlier book is now thrown out because it doesn’t fit with the new idea).
‘Lazy’ is when the author admits on her blog that she really didn’t want to write another book in that series but that her editor wouldn’t buy anything else and how she loathed having to write that book.
‘Lazy’ is a catchall term that describes how readers feel when they see that an author isn’t really invested in her craft, but is phoning it in. Cheated and pissed.
Certainly not every book in a series that has gone stale falls into that category, but there are certain authors who think they have become famous and important enough that they do not have to give it their all any more and it shows.
I think it’s perfectly legitimate for the readers who have expended time and money to complain when they see they are being short-changed and if they want to call that lack of respect ‘lazy’ they are entitled to.
GrowlyCub, thank you for that clear explanation. It is, indeed, a matter of definitions.
The shocking faults that you list are what I would describe as both unprofessional conduct and incompetence in a writer —and, as you say, they are evidence of disrespect towards the reader. I regard laziness simply as an unwillingness to devote the necessary amount of time and effort to a project, which is something quite different. To write a bad book of the kind you so vividly outline still takes a lot of work, but it is misdirected work.
The faults you describe are evidence of a complete abrogation of responsibility as a writer; they may or may not involve cutting corners to save time, but they certainly indicate a lack of thought, conscientiousness, commitment and sense of duty.
So I’m afraid I still think that ‘lazy’ is quite the wrong word, here. Nobody who is constitutionally lazy becomes a professional writer in the first place. Writing for publication requires a lot of self-discipline and self-motivation, and there are many other careers that are easier and more lucrative.
AGTigress: I might be reading the thread a little differently than you, but I haven’t associated the complaint of “lazy” toward the author as a person, but rather, the author’s writing. That’s why I suggested substituting “lazy” with “subpar”, because “subpar” gets away from the potential personal attack against the author as a person (which is your concern), and keeps it directed towards the writing.
I think you bring up a good point, though, when you say that readers don’t know why a particular book may lack quality. But most people, as they have mentioned, will put up with a subpar book in a series, as long as it doesn’t continue. It’s when it does continue, over and over and over, that readers get pissed and discouraged and, finally, break up with a series. So, based on that premise, that a reader will put up with the occassional subpar story, how do you define it when it goes on, and on, and on, and on? The author can’t be sick for four or eight or ten books ( I mean, they could, but I would find that odd). Nor could the editor ask for a complete revision five times in a row, right before printing. If a series is subpar over and over again, rather than occassionally, then, I see that as subpar writing.
eyes47: creepy…
That suggestion makes very good sense. I think that ‘lazy’ is far too sweeping and simplistic a condemnation anyway: a book can be sub-standard for many different reasons, some of which may be the writer’s fault, and others, as I have suggested, which may arise from combinations of circumstances that are genuinely beyond the author’s control.
To say that a given book is not up to standard — or ‘subpar’, as you suggest — is a judgement of the book, and is fair comment. The accusation of laziness — and really ‘lazy writing’ is still aimed squarely and personally at the author, not the text — is both too vague and, paradoxically, too precise, because it implies that the writer failed to put enough time and effort into the work. The faults in the text may be due to other factors, including, in some cases, editorial input.
I have not read any novels with quite the range of flaws that GrowlyCub listed (and if I started one, I would ditch it rapidly, because I am one of those readers who does NOT soldier through to the bitter end if I am not enjoying myself!), but as I mentioned somewhere in this thread, I have read one well-received book by a very successful author that had a sloppy plot, full of holes and loose ends, poor research on a specialist subject that is central to the plot, outrageously improbable characterisation, and an abrupt ending that gave the impression that the writer had finally got fed up with the whole thing herself. But I know very well that this author is anything but ‘lazy’: this is just one of her bad books, which are far fewer than her good books, and I haven’t a clue why.
You see, I love series. If choosing between them and stand alone books I’d defo pick up series. I don’t give up on them too, I might drift away for awhile or keep reading and spit and rant.. but I don’t say goodbye. Anita is a perfect example – I don’t like her anymore, but I would read until the end in hope of a miracle.Please, cure her from ardeur, add permanent amnesia of last few years of her love life, and also make her frigid! It would be glorious reading 🙂
I got away from G.Martin, because honestly, how many years do I have to wait between books? It was too much torture.. Kim Harrison is still gripping, I do love Rachel. I got tired of Rachel Caine Weather Warden series as someone rightfully noticed it was too much drama, too much everything. Her Morganville series got really irritating with cliffhangers left right and center. Sookie Stackhouse is alright, although her last book went “from dead to worse”, i hope it’s just a glitch. Her other series Shakespeare’s Councellor is less known but god they are good. I love little gems like that. For example, Lynn Viehl Darkyn series are quite underrated, but really good. I find it very attractive that the couple of main characters from the first book has got it’s own plot development through the whole series, and they are not a perfect formula of “life happily after” they’ve got some serious issues in their relationship. I found Marta Acosta Casa Dracula series quite refreshing, they were not what you expected, the language was pure joy. Patricia Briggs’s Mercy, Carrie Vaughn’s Kitty Norville, Ilona Andrews’s Kate, all of Lillith Saintcrow series, Richelle Mead Vampire Academy, Rachel Vincent, Jeniene Frost.. – they are all going strong at the moment, and I enjoy them.
I don’t think I’ll give up on Carpathians, although it’s shit at the moment, but it was my first step into paranormal, and I guess there is sentimental value in them. With historical romances, I guess I’d never be tired of Amanda Quick – she is my comfort cushion. Yep, the characters are very similiar, but there is charm in them.
I’m gonna stop now because I can go on forever. By the way, guys, your book is wicked, I really enjoyed it and it got me to pay attention to a lot of staff I didn’t notice before. 🙂 You go, girls!
AgTigress,
I agree with your definition, but I disagree that it’s something different from what we were discussing. That’s exactly what I’ve seen and what others have described as causing them to stop reading a series.
Quite honestly, I have a hard time separating author from book in this respect since the author created the book with such name/physical description/continuity errors. Delivering such a book for publication indicates ‘an unwillingness to devote the necessary amount of time and effort to the project’. Hence I would call the author lazy according to your definition. In those cases, I don’t think incompetence is the right description since the authors in question have shown competence in earlier books in their series.
I understand that you feel lazy is a loaded term and a personal indictment of the author, but that’s exactly why I used it. I have very strong feelings about authors who show disrespect to their readers either by egregious lack of quality of writing or by saying derogatory things about them in public (my experience is mostly with authors who have reached bestseller status).
I understand that not every book will work for every reader and not every book in a series can be of equal quality and appeal to a reader who liked previous books, but if it’s either a continual decline in quality or the issues start at the beginning of a series, then I can only assume the author didn’t care enough to get it right.
I think this is a debate that could go on endlessly! 🙂
I haven’t even read any of the series that are being discussed here, and perhaps if I had, I should feel justified in charging the authors of some of them with laziness. Till then, it is a judgement that I prefer to avoid.
😉
I agree with what GrowlyCub just wrote (above) about the author’s required effort to write a good book.
….and….although I did understand what the prior post by AgTigress wrote – about how writers have various excuses for why they might not have adequate time to write a good book, but still have a strict deadline, and so they turn in a crappy book to be published….
I, as a reader, do not feel that I have to pay $26 for a HB, that is really just not that good at all. Actually, I don’t think a reader should pay $8 for a PB, that is just not that good, either.
I don’t think the reader should be supporting the author, out of some misplaced loyalty to the author – when it is clear that the author does not have loyalty to the reader.
This is a two-way street. If the author is making a decent effort to be good to the reader; then you might expect the same in return from the reader.
However, if the author could care less about dumping a lousy book on their readership (and expecting $26 or $8 per book), then the author should not expect the readers to pay money for that, as if, this is some kind of charity contribution to the author’s royalties.
Of course it is exasperating for the reader when a book is sub-standard. It’s not great for the author, either. Most of us, whatever our job may be, prefer to produce high-quality work at all times, even when under extreme pressure, or when circumstances conspire against us.
I should like to ask all of you, here, whether you have ever had the experience of turning in sub-standard work in your own professional field, in spite of having worked hard at it? No? Never? Congratulations!
😀
@agtigress, I think perchance you’re getting a bit too heavily invested here.
In my work, which is graphic design, I will NOT submit what I feel to be substandard work. There is work I do which I consider the very top of my ability and work I do which I like, but perhaps not as much. But if it’s sloppy, lazy, and subpar then it doesn’t go out for public consumption. And that’s knowing that few people are actually paying real dollars to look at it (i.e., nobody is slapping $20 on the counter only for the privilege of looking at an ad I designed).
Of course authors are human. But I agree with growlycub. It’s one thing to have a book that isn’t quite as brilliant as previous ones. But when that becomes a series of books which are rote with no care toward character or plot, then yep, I perceive that as lazy.
There are authors who are capable of carrying on a very high level of excellence over a number of books, and authors whose ideas run flat but still write well. And authors who quit giving the craft as much time and attention as it deserves, yet still want us to pay for their work.
Honestly, in the end, the label doesn’t matter. When an author appears to cease to care about their work, so do I.
I think that’s why some of us stick with series so long – looking back, I wish I’d only read the first 3 Plum books. But then the next 3 were OK, and I read three or four more thinking they were individually substandard…by book 10 there was a definite trend.
I really read mysteries for the voice/character/setting, and Evanovich was just spot-on with the first three. I think a big part of what went wrong was that the plot only went forward by two weeks or a few months at most for each book, but the publishing time was a lot longer, and Evanovich lost the details of the way people dressed and talked and the places they were. They just got more and more vague as the setting got farther back in time. I’d actually compare her to Paretsky as much as to another romance series writer – Paretsky has individual books that are not so great, but she does research and her characters and places age and change believably.
I like the stand-alone novels that make a series – Eloisa James & Bujold & Pratchett all have enough freedom that if something is getting stale, they can jump to something else and do that for awhile, instead of having to keep on chronologically (or alphabetically, like the Bridgertons). James has different aspects of the time period she’s clearly interested in, to supplement the characters. Bujold & Pratchett jump around in style & timeline pretty freely (and Bujold took a break to write the Sharing Knife books). Even Paretsky – she clearly gets passionate about an issue and writes her known characters & places into that. It doesn’t always work, all those writers have some mediocre books – but it’s a way to stop a one-book fail from sliding into a phone-it-in series ending.
Definitely a lack of growth and change is my turnoff. I haven’t read any series in awhile, but what comes to mind is when I was younger and read the Princess Diaries books. By book four or five, when she was still in high school and STILL obsessing over whether or not Michael loved her, I knew it was time to go.
On the other hand, a series I never tired of was Tamora Pierce’s Tortall books. Those books were always evolving, probably because it consists of three sets of quartets, each of which is based around a different main character with different strengths and experiences. Pierce’s writing style evolves too, which keeps things fresh.
****Spoiler***
Actually, i felt that the Princess diaries were pretty consistent as far as humour and pacing went. Unfortunately, the break up and reunion of Michael and Mia seemed rather forced, as if Cabot wanted to draw out the series beyond its natural conclusion. But Mia’s voice was always so fresh and funny that i had to read every single last book.
There should be a cast-iron rule that a a series should never develop beyond four or five books. Either the tension wanes or you feel the author can’t come up with any more believable plotlines. At the cut-off point you should still feel a slight longing to know how the characters will fare.
Laziness is a condition of human body , where one does not want to work willingly. There may be different reason for not working.
But “lazy writing” is a pretty commonly used description of works with glaring technical problems – continuity issues (like the name and eye color changes on minor characters several people commented on), plot holes, grammar & spelling errors, phrases reused glaringly.
It’s like “loose writing” (where details aren’t nailed down so the reader can read pretty much anything into the book). it doesn’t mean the author is lazy or loose, it is a comment on the book. For all we know, some editor went in and inserted those errors – but that doesn’t make it a better book.
But, the thing about “lazy”, is that this author also is capable of better.
If someone writes a plot full of holes and sloppy writing, etc. – it could be a new beginner writer, that just is not experienced enough.
BUT…if you have an author, who has in the past, delivered really excellent writing in a series of books – worthy enough to make that author a “best selling author” – then, for that excellent quality author to just start turning out books that are crappy – then that is lazy writing. That author did know the work effort required for an excellently written book, and that author just did not bother.
This is the major difference between an author who is lazy, and one who is incompetent to begin with. The lazy author knows better.
past89 – just because the past 89 books were good, does not mean that book 90 will write itself.
Ok…so I read about half of the comments when this thread first started…and it got me to thinking about series and my reading habits…and i realized that i don’t usually stop reading a series…point in fact i read the first book in a quartet recently and wasn’t terribly impressed but i still picked up book 2 (not finished but i have started it)
and i read everyone’s comments about stephanie plum and how a lot of people had stopped reading her…i had just started reading them so i found it interesting that so many people had a problem with her and thought i’ll probably keep reading her through to the end….and then one of the hit men in “hot six” made a derogatory comment about one of the other hit men based on his culture…and i realized right there that was it for me and that series…i stopped reading that book in the middle of the paragraph…took it…and all the rest of the books from the series i had checked out…and dropped them at the library that very day
so i guess i learned that i’m ok with so-so writing but the point where i stop reading is when the author takes the step and the writing becomes ignorant and offensive…and for me…the bigger factor is i won’t recommend that author…and i will tell people why i stopped reading them