I don't want to sound like a snob, because I read nine of them myself I think, but anyone else think it's crazy there are now *sixteen* Stephanie Plum books? I hope she's still not deciding between(Guy With Short Italian Name) and Ranger, Mystery Man. Maybe she finally got married and has a daughter that alternates between cute and fat, and she's teaching her how to look in her sights without messing up her eye shadow as she snarks over donuts with her own Designated Ethnic Sassy Friend.

Umm I hate to admit to being addicted. Essentially nothing has changed.

Well in all fairness have not read 16 & 17. I have to be in the right mood for Plum.

I read the first ... six? ... of the Stephanie Plum books and enjoyed them. I did kind of burn out on them after that, though. I think the franchise may have run its course.

Which leads me to ask - how does an author keep a series going long-term? how does s/he keep it from getting either stale or having to push it to the point it's ridiculous?

This is part of Lee Child's genius with the Reacher books. They started out ridiculous (ridiculously AWESOME), and he's a drifter, so each book can be in a different place with a different supporting cast.

also - P-C, on your recommendation I (finally) read "Rosemary and Rue". I liked it - I liked it enough that before I'd finished it, I went out and bought the second book (which I'm now reading).

With Discworld, Pratchett has a large enough cast of characters that he can have little series-within-the-series focusing on their stories.

also - P-C, on your recommendation I (finally) read "Rosemary and Rue". I liked it - I liked it enough that before I'd finished it, I went out and bought the second book (which I'm now reading).

Awesome! So glad to hear it. And with that one, the answer is that Seanan has various ongoing plotlines running in the background of the books and triggers set to be pulled in specific books and a definite planned ending so that the series doesn't go on forever and ever.

For most writers, past a certain point you move on and write stuff outside the series. Or you end up like Doyle, and get pushed by public demanding into returning to damn series. Because it turns out that Sherlock Holmes is better than anything else you write no matter how much you protest otherwise!

I don't read the JD Robb books, so I'm not sure how she keeps those characters going for as long as she has, but I like her Nora Roberts trilogies/quartets just because they are restricted to only 3 or 4 books. When she adds on to those due to fan demand, like she did with Chesapeake Blue, her continuation of the Chesapeake Bay series, it's a real disappointment. Her later books in the Macgregor series were equally weak.

And P-C yeah Discworld is another example of a way to do it. Because series can mean "everything take place in the same fictional universe/world" rather than the same characters over and over again.

Come to think of it, a fair number writers use that.

Hmm McDonald managed to keep Travis McGee going pretty well for two million[rhetorical number] titles without getting stale. I wonder if I'd still like it if I read it today?

Another though - Comic books use continuing characters forever. Of course they reboot every once in a while, but even within a single series (From the start to the first reboot, or from the start of a reboot to the last issue before the next reboot) they maintain a good long series.