Trilogization

MattW · Jun 1, 2008

This is about the (mistaken) idea that fantasy novels need to come in sets of three.

I just finished reading the 2nd novel of Joe Abercrombie, and the ending was barely that. I surprised there was even a period at the end of the last page. An enjoyable read all around, except very little resolution, unclear break points, trailing off at the....

Why is this trend so strong, even when there are so many great stories that are stand alone, or 5+ books long? Is the duology too weak to carry a story? Is this coming from the authors or the publishers?

Is Tolkien worship to blame? Or is it Star Wars?

Cathy C · Jun 1, 2008

Mostly publishers, I think. Think "boxed set" when it comes time to re-issue 2-3 years later, and it'll make sense.

Plus, a lot of big worlds really deserve three books to tell the story. It's tough to really paint a world with words in a 100K book and an awful lot of publishers are trying to save money by buying cover stock in bulk. Plus, a 100K mass paperback can be comfortably sold for $6.99 to $7.99. A 180K paperback can't, and readers just aren't WILLING to pay more than $8 for a paperback---no matter how good the book might be.

Occasionally it's the author's choice. But more and more, it comes from the publisher.

tehuti88 · Jun 1, 2008

Maybe a desire to try to create a franchise...? With one book, it's over, it's done. Nothing more. With a series, there's a chance for it to continue and make more money. (That's me just being cynical, but...)

And three is a nice-sounding number for some reason. *shrug*

I tend to write in series myself, but I can't stop at three. I'm currently working on the third of a series and there is going to be a fourth...and probably more. Ugh.

This would fit right in if I were going to get it published, but it's sometimes annoying to try to find a good fantasy read and all you can find is like, Vol.s 4 and 13 of a series that isn't completed yet.

Toothpaste · Jun 1, 2008

Honestly, I think it is Tolkien. Many fantasy authors I think truly believe that unless their work is epic in size as it is in story, it isn't really truly an epic fantasy. I think it's habit now. I also think fantasy authors spend so much time world building that they don't want to "waste" it on only one book. I totally get it. But I agree, would be nice to see a good old fashioned stand alone book once and a while.

chopper · Jun 1, 2008

the last great single-volume stories i read were JV Jones' "The Barbed Coil" and Tad Williams' "War of the Flowers" - everything else really does seem to be mutli-volume. sometimes i do wonder how long a story really has to be. my own WIP is definitely planned out to be a two-parter, but there's a reason: there's a massive cliffhanger. i just can't see a good reason to take it as far as a third volume.

SPMiller · Jun 1, 2008

Uh... what do you mean by mistaken? According to Amazon's sales figures in my genre of choice, almost the only thing that sells in good quantity is series. Not sure how this holds up in comparison to brick-and-mortar sales, but I think that ranking is telling.

Hmm. You might also conclude from that page that I write bad vampire romance/erotica--I don't. I don't feel my work should ever be any longer than a single novel, and the shorter I can make it, the better. I realize I'm taking a tremendous risk with my work, but I believe I can pull it off.

MumblingSage · Jun 2, 2008

I'm getting kind of sick of trilogies. Maybe it's because I have a short attention span, but a story has to be really good to get me to stick around for 1000+ pages. I'm looking for more stand-alones, but it is hard. I only found 2 duologies in my life, and one of them (the Silver Sword or something) was acutally a single longer book split into two. They're sort of awkward, which is probably why they're rare.

Momento Mori · Jun 2, 2008

MattW:
Why is this trend so strong, even when there are so many great stories that are stand alone, or 5+ books long?

I think it's partly because detailed world-building can take more than one book to accomplish, but mainly I suspect it's to do with wanting to build up sales. If you have a story that can span 3+ books, then you're more likely to have a ready 'stream' of buyers wanting to purchase the future books (i.e. you're effectively building in a readership). Of course, conversely if the first book bombs, then the other books won't see the light of day ...

I'm working on a YA fantasy and all the advice I've been given by publishers and agents is to have the novel work as a stand-alone but in the event of a publisher buying it, to be prepared for turning it into a duology or trilogy or series.

Toothpaste:
Honestly, I think it is Tolkien. Many fantasy authors I think truly believe that unless their work is epic in size as it is in story, it isn't really truly an epic fantasy. I think it's habit now. I also think fantasy authors spend so much time world building that they don't want to "waste" it on only one book.

The irony is that Tolken wanted Lord of the Rings to be published in a single volume.

MumblingSage:
I'm getting kind of sick of trilogies. Maybe it's because I have a short attention span, but a story has to be really good to get me to stick around for 1000+ pages.

I agree. The problem I have with trilogies is that so many of them don't actually have enough story to them to justify the format - the first one will usually be worth a read and have a nice set up, the second one will be full of padding and/or protagonist mooching and the third one will rush towards a nicely pat ending with all but one of the loose ends tied up just in case a second trilogy will be commissioned.

In the last 12 months I've read 4 YA trilogies that I felt would have worked better as duologies and one YA trilogy that I really wanted to be a quartet or quintet.

MM

TheDreamer · Jun 2, 2008

I think that it's because in a Science Fiction or Fantasy setting, generally speaking, the author is trying to create a whole new "world". Other genres, taking place in the world we know, can just stand alone. There is nothing else we want to know. But when stories take place in a fictional realm, it's like discovering a whole new world - there is so much more than can be told, because it's somewhere that you've never seen before.

Imagine a story, perhaps an action, romance or the sort, where some of it takes place in London. Most of us know what London is like. Even those of us who haven't been there have a good idea of what the place is like. But when it takes place in an alternate reality, on an alternate planet... We know nothing about it. And so, to describe more of this wonderful new environment we crave, what begins as a single story quickly develops into a trilogy, a series, or a full franchise.

Polenth · Jun 2, 2008

SPMiller said:
I don't feel my work should ever be any longer than a single novel, and the shorter I can make it, the better. I realize I'm taking a tremendous risk with my work, but I believe I can pull it off.

It worked for Neil Gaiman.

I also tend to think in terms of stand-alone stories. Sequels are a possibility, but only if I have a unique story for the sequel.

MattW · Jun 3, 2008

SPMiller said:
Uh... what do you mean by mistaken? According to Amazon's sales figures in my genre of choice, almost the only thing that sells in good quantity is series.

It's the chicken or the egg. Do publishers buy trilogies because they sell, or do trilogies sell because that's most what is published?

Sassee · Jun 3, 2008

As a reader, the more books in a series, the better. I actually don't prefer trilogies though... I like the never-ending series. I mean, I'd like for each book to be a stand alone, but I also like it when the author sets it up so that we can come back and revisit the same character whenever we like. Character loyalty (and subsequently author loyalty) is pretty big for me

That said, trilogies make more money than the single or duology. There was an article from somewhere saying women especially love to go back to the same characters/author. So, I'm trying to set mine up as I described above. Each book a standalone (in case someone comes in right in the middle somewhere) but each also a semi-continuance of the other. In my case it's a personal choice but I have no doubt a publisher would persuade me to write that way even if I didn't start like that.

MattW · Jun 3, 2008

TheDreamer said:
I think that it's because in a Science Fiction or Fantasy setting, generally speaking, the author is trying to create a whole new "world". ... And so, to describe more of this wonderful new environment we crave, what begins as a single story quickly develops into a trilogy, a series, or a full franchise.

Momento Mori said:
I agree. The problem I have with trilogies is that so many of them don't actually have enough story to them to justify the format

Toothpaste said:
I also think fantasy authors spend so much time world building that they don't want to "waste" it on only one book. I totally get it. But I agree, would be nice to see a good old fashioned stand alone book once and a while.

I think these comments get right at where I perceive the issue to be.

The writer focuses on worldbuilding, and uses pages to describe the lavish landscape. The story then suffers - by being crowded out, overshadowed, or dragged into second and third installations. I know that fantasy relies much on the alternate world, but epic stories can be concluded in one novel. I like seeing new and strange places as much as anyone, but I have a low tolerance for masturbatory writing and worldbuilding. To me at least, succinct and elusive is better than sprawling and known.

That's just the creative side - the business side of publishers asking for series hooks is understandable, but I haven't seen any real stand-alones that become series. Brust and Gemmell come to mind, or Scott Lynch more recently.

Normally, the approach is "I have a trilogy, and the first book is conclusive on a minor point, but could stand alone if you ignore all the other elements I've built into the world."

More rarely is "I have a wide open world, and this beginning-middle-end story takes place in a small part of it, but there are many other stories that are only tenuously connected."

oscuridad · Jun 3, 2008

Tolkien set a trend - by accident. The book was published in three parts to reduce costs in case it didn't sell well, or something like that. And thereafter everything seems to be in trilogies

orion_mk3 · Jun 3, 2008

I think that an often-overlooked fact is that a trilogy is a macrocosm of the structure of a single story. To wit:

Part one: Introduction
Part two: Rising action, complications
Part three: Conclusion, falling action

This explains why stories that must be divided may lend themselves to trilogy format more than, say, two or four books. There's a natural stopping point at the end of an introduction, and another as things build toward a climax. Many fantasy and sci-fi stories are written with a very conventional structure, and so would lend themselves to division even more than a ordinary work.

Of course, that's just a generalization and comes with the requisite bushel of provisos, exceptions, and salt grains.

ajkjd01 · Jun 3, 2008

I don't care how many books are in a series, but you better still have a story arc over the entire series, rather than just an open ended series, just churning 'em out to keep the cashy money flowing in.

I wanna see an arc that's planned all the way through, not just a meandering thing that is there cuz people buy books with X character. I'll buy 19 books in a series that flow naturally and work together to tell a larger story. I will not buy 19 books just cuz they have the same character.

In fact, that's a pet peeve of mine. Each should be their own story, but there has got to be a bigger story there, or I'll chuck it across the room without finishing it. And it will stay there until the cat chews on it or until I round it up for the next round of books being sold to the half price store or garage sale coming up.

To respond to the previous question...I think the fact that Tolkien's got chopped into three is a big impact, especially in epic fantasy, so it's very easy to fall into the trap of "I got me a trilogy". That said, it works for a reason. But I think it's also a double edged sword, because not everyone can pull it off. So I wouldn't start out with trilogy, unless the story itself calls for it.

MattW · Jun 3, 2008

orion_mk3 said:
I think that an often-overlooked fact is that a trilogy is a macrocosm of the structure of a single story. To wit:

Part one: Introduction
Part two: Rising action, complications
Part three: Conclusion, falling action

While I agree, the problem arises when I finish book two with no sense of completion of advancement. After plowing through hundreds, if not thousands, of pages, I want some payback for my time, not an arbitrary cliffhanger.

For story arcs, the same should be true of an individual novel in a trilogy - if each has the elements of conflict, rising action and climax, then all is well. If each is contained in separate books, there had better be stellar writing keeping my interest.

MattW · Jun 3, 2008

ajkjd01 said:
I don't care how many books are in a series, but you better still have a story arc over the entire series, rather than just an open ended series, just churning 'em out to keep the cashy money flowing in.

I wanna see an arc that's planned all the way through, not just a meandering thing that is there cuz people buy books with X character. I'll buy 19 books in a series that flow naturally and work together to tell a larger story. I will not buy 19 books just cuz they have the same character.

In fact, that's a pet peeve of mine. Each should be their own story, but there has got to be a bigger story there,

Everything you said and more.

SPMiller · Jun 3, 2008

More rarely is "I have a wide open world, and this beginning-middle-end story takes place in a small part of it, but there are many other stories that are only tenuously connected."

This is precisely what I do in one of my fantasy settings. I write stories in that setting which are, by all appearances, unconnected. Sometimes the only way a reader can tell it's the same world is a casual mention of a person/place/thing they've already seen.

Paichka · Jun 4, 2008

Hmm...

Well, my WIP tells the first part of a trilogy. I get wildly bored with doorstopper novels, so my preference is for books to be broken up into nice meaty chunks.

In Book 1, we get an introduction to my MCs, hints about the larger story arc, and Mission The First -- keep the princess alive so she can fight the Larger Evil Plot. The Big Bad (we think) is killed.

In Book 2, we get Mission The Second, which is to stop an invasion. The MCs manage to do this, only to find out it was a ploy intended to distract them from the Larger Evil Plot. The Big Bad was NOT killed, and he's quite cranky.

In Book 3, we get Mission The Third, the resolution of the thing we've been working towards over three books (the Larger Evil Plot), the defeat of the Big Bad, and the denoument.

Each book is discreet in and of itself -- there's a small plot that fits into the larger arc. Really it's all one story, but if it was in a single book, it'd be 300,000 words. What's that, like 1200 pages? Stephen King could pull that off, but sadly, not me. Not for my first novel, anyway.

I certainly hope that's SOMEONE'S bag of donuts. Otherwise nobody shall ever read it, and I will be sad.

arkady · Jun 4, 2008

SPMiller said:
Uh... what do you mean by mistaken? According to Amazon's sales figures in my genre of choice, almost the only thing that sells in good quantity is series. Not sure how this holds up in comparison to brick-and-mortar sales, but I think that ranking is telling.

Which makes for more than a bit of confusion, as new novelists are so often chided not to try to sell a book as the first of a series.

dmytryp · Jun 5, 2008

Well, I am guilty. I have a trilogy. One novel almost done and the other two are partly written. All three novels are completely stand alone and separated by 15-20 years. Same main characters (at least some of them that make it through the novel in one piece) and, of course in the second and the third novel soewhat less worldbuilding.

sanctuary6284 · Jun 5, 2008

I'm starting to hate trilogies. Book one is great and book three keeps you on the edge of your seat but somewhere in book two it slumps. It's like a valley in between mountains and it's not pretty.

Personally I believe that no one should plan a trilogy. Trilogies should just happen. I think an author should write until they get to the REAL end. Then they should go back and find logical places to split up the story.

When they plan to write three books it's like they know the beginning and the end and have to wing it in the middle. They might as well write a duology and cut out the second book. Nothing important ever seems to happen in book 2. Just a filler fight.

I personally like it when books in a series aren't all vitally connected. I'm a huge Terry Pratchett fan.

Trilogization

Company Man

Ooo! Shiny new cover!

Mackinac Island Fanatic

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

Steven Poore

Prodigiously Hanged

Inarticulate Herb

Tired and Disillusioned

[insert witty comment]

Mushroom

Company Man

Momma Wolf

Company Man

Ne Cede Malis

I just have to be faster.

Company Man

Company Man

Prodigiously Hanged

The BIC-Believer

Mental Supernova