Why So Many Trilogies?

[Mistook]

It seems to me, most of the first time writers out here are reporting the same experience I'm having, which is that the original story idea turns into some kind of epic trilogy or series before the project is finished.

Is this just a symptom of being a green writer, taking on too broad a plot, and getting mired in the details? Or is this some indication of a new trend, (paradigm, zeitgeist if you will). Why is everybody thinking on such a grand scale?

For my part, I'll say when I first conceived my story, it seemed simple enough to capture in one novel, and I actually worried that I might not have enough material to fill out the book. So I didn't go into it hoping to create a universe and story worthy of a trilogy, and I've fought that instinct the whole way, but it's starting to seem inevitable.

As some point I began to realize I was throwing away so much backstory, that I had enough for a prequel with a plot all it's own. At the same time, I began dreaming of futures beyond my planned ending and could easily write a sequel. What's worse is, I've created half a dozen very strong characters who could easily star in spin-offs with plots not dependant on the current WIP.

Am I just a victim of the overblown TV and Movie hype I grew up with?

[Samuel Dark]

This is a great question. And one that needs answering.

I think in Trilogies, most of the time. Why? I know exactly why. I plot the story, from the start, to the end. I plot main events I want to happen in each story, that ultimately leads and points to the ending I have created (I create the beginning first, then the ending, then the main points in the story). After I have done this, I start on the rather fun, but sometimes long, journey to the end. I play 'connect the dots' with the 'main points' of the story. And, all of this starts before I write. I always conenct the dots before I write, and do the actual writing and making sure it makes sense on paper (or computer now). And, by the time I am writing, I will know if its a stand-alone novel, or a trilogy, or a series. How do I determine? I determine it by home many main points I have, and decide how long it will take to get to each one. But, once I get to the ending -- there is no sequel. I will never do what many people do with movies. They make one popular movie, and come up with another story just because it was popular. I wouldn't, because sometimes it doesn't make sense, and you could lose focus on the story. So, having a ending keeps me pointed in the right direction. Anyway....Thats my long answer.

[sunandshadow]

Good question. Might have somthing to do with the 3-act structure - people aim for 3 acts in their novel then realize each is long enough to be a novel in its own right, and even has its own little end-of-act climax. Me, I can see how my story could be split into a trilogy, but I'm not going to do it that way unless it turns out to be so many pages that it physically won't fit in one volume, because the plot does have overall unity which splitting it into pieces would screw up.

[aruna]

What strikes me since I've been visiting this site is that many of the writers here are fantasy and SF writers - more, I feel, than their proprtion among novelists "out there".
I think that is a genre that is by definition going tobe longer, too long to fit into a single book; if you have to create a whole universe and not just the characters, you are naturally going to need more space.

I tend to write long as well, though Idon't write SF or fantasy. My books are family/historical stories, and tend to be epic: they have a natural tendency to expand. I like to show the origin of the story conflict, which is often in childhood; so I start with childhood. Then there are the parent's stories, and the history behind it all - all that tends to lengthen everything. I have several sub-plots threading in and out of the main story. I could easily expand to three novels - my efforts go into holding back information and NOT going too far into those sub-plots, however intersting I may find them.

I come from a large extended family and had the idea of writing a series about just such a family - each book dedicated to one member; they spread all over the world (as my family did) and each novel is set in a different country. Then, in the last book, tying it all up beautifully. Perhaps I will one day.

[jules]

I suspect that a lot of it has to do with the number of epic trilogies that have been popular movies lately, particularly in the fantasy/SF fields: The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, the Star Wars prequels, etc.

We tend to plot our own stories in similar forms to those that we are exposed to and enjoy the most, and these trilogies have been among the most popular entertainment released over the last -- what is it now, 7 years since the first part of the Matrix was released? However long it is, it's long enough that we've taken that inspiration to heart.

I suspect there were a lot of trilogies written in the years following Star Wars, too. And following the release of the novels of Lord of the Rings.

[maestrowork]

I think movies and TV shows definitely have something to with it. I forget who said this, but something like: "Short stories make great movies, but novels make TV miniseries or trilogies..." I guess we come to expect a long, epic story when we write.


Or it could be a symptom of novice writers trying too hard, trying to do too much. They try to explain everything, over write every detail, and explore every subplot and follow every character (and there is a cast of 100). It can become a tumor... just keeps growing and growing and growing until you realize it's not healthy.

I'm struggling with that right now. My first book is a relatively simple story, and it fits snuggly within 75000 words. My current WIP, however, is growing. It feels long to me, and I keep wondering should I make it into at least two books, or should I just chop it and make it one. I can't decide.

But I'm just going to write... and see what happens.

[victoriastrauss]

What strikes me since I've been visiting this site is that many of the writers here are fantasy and SF writers - more, I feel, than their proprtion among novelists "out there".SF/fantasy is only about 6% of the total fiction market.

I write long books, but I'm a standalone writer--I think in terms of single novels, and always have. When I get to the end of one, I can usually come up with an idea for a sequel, or at least a related book in the same universe, but I can only write and conceive one book at a time. This is not so good for a fantasy writer, because the trilogy definitely is king.

Right now I'm trying to figure out how to turn my next book idea into a duology, not just to make it more attractive saleswise but to cut down on length (it's getting more and more risky for midlist writers to turn out 200,000-word tomes, even in a genre where the Big Fat Book is also king). So far I am not having much luck. I can't come up with a way of dividing the story in half that doesn't feel artificial or as if I've cobbled together a bunch of irrelevant adventures in order to beef up the break at the midpoint.

- Victoria

[Ronda]

For me, it was that once I got into the novel, I realized the characters and situations lent themselves to other possibilities. It's not that I took on too big a bite or couldn't imagine editing or anything like that. Also my genre - fantasy - is known for multi-book series. Having already created a world, it seems a shame to let it go fallow. There are other stories to tell and other sticky situations for the main characters to get themselves into.

One thing leads me to think perhaps there is a trend. Publishers want to know that you're not a "one book wonder." They seem to be looking for people who will stick with writing and who will help market.

[Ivonia]

Well, I had originally only wanted to write one book, but then as I brainstormed many ideas and concepts for it, I began to realize that there's no way I could possibly fit all of these ideas into one book. And yes, I have been thinking about it, and I do throw out ideas that don't fit the overall theme of the book. However, what's left still requires a lot of space to write, and as I further refine events that take place in my story, I come up with even more ideas on how to piece them all together (plus, some of these things alone wouldn't stand very well, so that's why I've been combining a lot of ideas I've been coming up with). If I were to write this story as one book, it'd probably take about a thousand pages to write, which I don't really want to do (nor do I think publishers would like it either, at least not from a newbie).

Heck, with the concepts I've been developing for backstory to this current story I'm writing, I could probably write a prequel trilogy just for that. But for now I'm focusing on the current WIP, although I am trying to tie stuff from the past with the current era my story is in (and yes, it will be vital to the plot, otherwise I wouldn't bother, as cool as it may seem) without making it too boring to read. I suppose it's a long shot, but if it succeeds, the payoff will be good as well :)

[icerose]

Both of my series contain 4 books rather than 3. The reason why I chose to do a series is because I discovered I had four unique sections of one story. The story line and length to tell their entire journeys wouldn't fit in one book and when I came up with the idea of my first series I wrote it as one book. It ended up being 300 pages spanning four notebooks. I realized it didn't tell enough of the story that I wanted to portray and there had to be another book at least of two of the character's journey. Thus it became 4 books and the first book I took only 60 pages of the notebook writing to make it. The other one I knew before hand how long it was going to be and how many books because my main character's journey was logically divided into four parts. I don't feel that my writing was influenced by TV or Movies however and the vast majority of my story ideas are stand alones because that is all that in needed to tell the story.

Sara

[brokenfingers]

Hmmm, I’d always thought the publishing houses kinda encouraged trilogies nowadays.

1 story - 1 book = $20 (or $7 paperback), 1 story - 3 books = $60 ($21 paperback)

Plus with a trilogy it gives a first time author more time to attract an audience. Often, I won’t even find out about a good book or author until the second or third books come out. Or sometimes the second trilogy!

It seems de rigeur in SFF to write a trilogy nowadays and the reading public has kind of been conditioned to it. I myself prefer trilogies/series when looking for SFF books.

I don’t know about any other type of genres, but with SFF, the world or milieu is a big part of the attraction. If it’s an intriguing and exciting world, there’s almost no limit to the stories you can have take place there or the scope of stories you write in it.

[brinkett]

I myself prefer trilogies/series when looking for SFF books.

Me too. In fact, I won't buy a standalone book. If I'm to make an investment in a new world, I expect it to be for more than one book.

[reph]

A series of three of anything, ordered in a sequence in time (as opposed to a group of three somethings just sitting there), has an emotional appeal. Look how many jokes are structured that way ("A priest, a minister, and a rabbi..."). Why? Maybe Joseph Campbell had something when he analyzed the quest story as representing a hunting expedition. Its phases are–

1. Being at home.
2. Going out and getting something valuable.
3. Coming back.

The modern equivalent is a trip to the grocery store.

[PattiTheWicked]

For me, I know that one of my WIPs just had to eventually become a trilogy. The story focuses on three families, and the first part is about the first family. While the second and third parts are continuations of the story, each will be able to stand alone as a separate novel. If you read the first one, you don't find any loose ends that have to be tied up later on.

On the other hand, I've also just sketched out ideas for a series of eight books. I'm diligently working on the first book, but I could conceivably carry the story on through seven more books.

Or maybe I'm in completely over my head :)

[Nateskate]

It seems to me, most of the first time writers out here are reporting the same experience I'm having, which is that the original story idea turns into some kind of epic trilogy or series before the project is finished.

Is this just a symptom of being a green writer, taking on too broad a plot, and getting mired in the details? Or is this some indication of a new trend, (paradigm, zeitgeist if you will). Why is everybody thinking on such a grand scale?

For my part, I'll say when I first conceived my story, it seemed simple enough to capture in one novel, and I actually worried that I might not have enough material to fill out the book. So I didn't go into it hoping to create a universe and story worthy of a trilogy, and I've fought that instinct the whole way, but it's starting to seem inevitable.

As some point I began to realize I was throwing away so much backstory, that I had enough for a prequel with a plot all it's own. At the same time, I began dreaming of futures beyond my planned ending and could easily write a sequel. What's worse is, I've created half a dozen very strong characters who could easily star in spin-offs with plots not dependant on the current WIP.

Am I just a victim of the overblown TV and Movie hype I grew up with?

I know from what you've mentioned, you have a creative mind, and several key characters, all with different plot lines. That is a mixed-blessing. In part you wind up with more trails to follow, and tie off.

I don't think shooting for a trilogy should be a goal, it's having a story to tell. In fantasy, you have so much more of this, because in some cases your first book is world building, and laying a foundation. "About Hobbits" is part of world-building, sort of a necessary step in the whole. So, you are already a book in when you start.

I never intended to write a series, just a story. And in my hopefully-someday tell all- I'll explain how some people and characters were written in that were never intended. But once they were added, people who were reading- Pre- Beta readers, were reading it like a serial, and wanted to know what happened to "so, and so". Since I didn't intend to "publish" at this juncture, but amuse an audience, I tried to make them very interesting. Yikes, I had a trilogy in length the moment people said, "You should publish this."

And it was a grand headache and nightmare, because in the re-writes it grew. The bigger the story-and sub-stories, the more work you make for yourself. If I'd imagined it would have been this much work, I'm not sure I would have been able to do it. I was just ignorant enough to plug away until I reached the point of, "I have this much invested, I might as well finish"

[Diana Hignutt]

Why not?

As an author currently working on the third book in my Moonsword Trilogy, I will say that the last book is much tougher to write than the first two. In the first books you have the luxury of leaving a few loose ends open here and there. In the last book everything is more complex and requires so much more thought to be sure that all the story arcs are concluded to satisfaction. You also have so much more backstory to bring in so the last book makes sense to readers who haven't read the first two books.

Diana Hignutt
Author of Empress of Clouds (Behler), a 2004 ForeWord Magazine Book of the Year Award Finalist for Science Fiction, a 2005 IPPY Award Semi-Finalist for Science Fiction/Fantasy, and a 2005 Spectrum Award Nominee.

[jules]

Hmmm, I’d always thought the publishing houses kinda encouraged trilogies nowadays.

Well, I do know of a few authors who have sold books lately on the condition that there are more to come in the same world. But that's not really the same thing as a trilogy, which is a single story spanning 3 volumes.

[Mistook]

Why not?

As an author currently working on the third book in my Moonsword Trilogy, I will say that the last book is much tougher to write than the first two. In the first books you have the luxury of leaving a few loose ends open here and there. In the last book everything is more complex and requires so much more thought to be sure that all the story arcs are concluded to satisfaction. You also have so much more backstory to bring in so the last book makes sense to readers who haven't read the first two books.

Diana Hignutt
Author of Empress of Clouds (Behler), a 2004 ForeWord Magazine Book of the Year Award Finalist for Science Fiction, a 2005 IPPY Award Semi-Finalist for Science Fiction/Fantasy, and a 2005 Spectrum Award Nominee.


If my work were to morph into a trilogy, then the current WIP would be Book II. What would be the prequel, began as the first chapters of the current book, but that story expanded to 40k before it was obvious to me it could be it's own novel.

I feel lucky, because the "prequel" is a great story in it's own right, but completely dwarfed by the current WIP. So, I feel that Book I would be wonderful, but that Book II would blow the readers out of the water.

All I have to worry about it Book III.

I suppose in all good trilogies, the third book manages to outscope the other two. It recaptures the innocence of the first, as interpreted through the filter of the second, but somehow manages to deliver it's own unique story.

It's funny to me that when it comes to a single book, the hardest part is the middle, but when it comes to a trilogy, the middle book is the easiest to write.

[A.REX]

My first "novel" was just under 1 million words. Yeah, long. But it had the makings of a trilogy and Spanned a two generations. I thought- pretty cool.

I sent it out and got the usual 'don't give up' replies from agents and pub houses and then, on a whim I sent an entire manuscript to one - harper collins if I remember correctly and this was the response I got back from the editor, scribbled on page one in the margins and then on the backside (by the way, not saying this is my opinion or even that I share it, I'm just saying what some Ed wrote to me- I'm still undecided) :

"Author shows potential and puts passion into words but this is an obvious first effort. Book WAY too long!!! Try breaking this up, learn how to finish one story- say in 100,000 words. Take writing courses and learn how to cut and FINISH your manuscript. No reader is going to buy a book or library of books when they want something to read right now- 90% of sales. This book could be cut in length down to one of the major stories. Try sending it out again later when you have done so. -Ed"

From what was said, I got the impression that they don't want trilogies? but just books that could stand alone and then maybe if you happen to be a great seller you can work in book #2. ???

[aruna]

That's actually a fanstastic response for a first novel, by a major house. Why not follow up by doing exactly that: try finding a breaking-off point or a major plot line between 100000 and 120000 words, send it in to them again, and see how it fares? Do you have the editor's name? I'd get that one section perfect and then try him or her again, remimding her of this comment, and say that you have followed her advice.

[Dhewco]

I tend to think not just in trilogies, but in continuing series. My characters can take a life of their own, or, at least, last as long as four or five books. In my YA books, I have a five novel arch. (1 written, 1 almost finished, one partially plotted, and the other 2 I know the endings). I have an Alt. History that is a trilogy, but the subsidiary characters could turn into books of their own. (sort of a mirrors of this universe deal)

It's just the way I think. First books always work as stand-alones, of course.


David

[sunandshadow]

From what was said, I got the impression that they don't want trilogies? but just books that could stand alone and then maybe if you happen to be a great seller you can work in book #2. ???

Well books in trilogies still have to have separate plot arcs, each book has to have its own climax. The books of the trilogy are generally published at least a year apart, so you can't have book 1 just cut off in the middle (Example: _The Waterborn_ - no idea how this got published, has no ending at all!) and expect readers to wait happily for book 2, especially since if the sales figures for book one aren't good book 2 will never be printed.

It's great to be able to write a million words, especially if they are actually woven into a unified plot and the world, characters, and action are interesting to justify that many words, but the biggest imaginable paperback could only fit about 250,000 words in it (1000 pages * 250 words/page). So, I suppose you could try e-publishing if you want to publish it as one object, but otherwise the only practical solution is to separate it into chunks which each have their own climax.

[Mike Martyn]

I've just finished my first draft of my first novel. It's about 100,000 words. I've started my second which is a different story all together and not part of a trilogy.

I am not a plotter. although in my first novel, I had a rough story line in mind. I literally didn't know what the ending would be until the last two pages.

Having said that, my take on the trilogy/ series is this. Some of my characters, I hated, some I liked and some I loved. I cared about them in other words. I want to know what will happen to them after I've typed "The End" and the only way I'll ever find out is to write the sequel.

[ave]

I cant comment on other genres but as a fantasy writer I can understand why most write trilogies/multiple stories in the world. When you invest hours developing a world, culture, magic system, 3000 years of history and unique names for every town, magical item and spell you are reluctant to ditch it all after only one book

[Jamesaritchie]

I suspect new writers try trilogies so often because there are so many good, highly successful trilogies out there by published writers. It usually a very bad idea for a new writer try a trilogy before they've sold anything, but it's not an impossible sell.

I think new writers often write long, too. Any idea they get tends to balloon into more than one book can hold.

[maggi90w1]

My first "novel" was just under 1 million words. Yeah, long. But it had the makings of a trilogy and Spanned a two generations. I thought- pretty cool.

I sent it out and got the usual 'don't give up' replies from agents and pub houses and then, on a whim I sent an entire manuscript to one - harper collins if I remember correctly and this was the response I got back from the editor, scribbled on page one in the margins and then on the backside (by the way, not saying this is my opinion or even that I share it, I'm just saying what some Ed wrote to me- I'm still undecided) :

"Author shows potential and puts passion into words but this is an obvious first effort. Book WAY too long!!! Try breaking this up, learn how to finish one story- say in 100,000 words. Take writing courses and learn how to cut and FINISH your manuscript. No reader is going to buy a book or library of books when they want something to read right now- 90% of sales. This book could be cut in length down to one of the major stories. Try sending it out again later when you have done so. -Ed"

From what was said, I got the impression that they don't want trilogies? but just books that could stand alone and then maybe if you happen to be a great seller you can work in book #2. ???

Well, even if you make a trilogy out of 1 million words you still have three books with more then 300 000 words. Maybe that's what he meant by "Book way too long"?

[Phaeal]

Why trilogies, tetralogies, series (a staple of mysteries and thrillers as well as SFF)? Because readers love to return to the same worlds and meet the same characters again. Some love it so much they start creating their own fiction in those worlds and with those characters.

And many stories are just too big to tell in a single 100,000 word book.

I look at it this way. You can write a stand-alone book about part of a character's life, and that's fine. But is it likely the character has only one interesting incident or period in her life? Let's hope not.

The road goes ever on and on, and so do good stories, the ones that matter, as Samwise would say.

[AlwaysJuly]

I wrote my novel as a stand-alone, but realized as I was writing it that there was a lot to explore. I ended up with a book that can stand-alone but makes a lot of sense for a series. And, this one (as compared to my first novel, a behemoth at 127k) comes in around 85k in rough draft, which is about where I'd like to stay post-revisions.

I can tell one part of my MC's story quite tidily in one book, but with all the possibilities for exploration in the world I've built (sort of urban fantasy, I guess?) it makes sense to keep going.

However, I do have a little fear of trilogies as a less-experienced writer because, gha, some of them sure go a bit off the tracks, no matter how talented the author, when it starts coming in towards an end. I won't name names, but I read one trilogy by a very talented debut author this past year that was fantastic until about halfway through book 3. I slogged through the end out of a sense of duty, and it was a shame, since it really was a fantastic trilogy before.

[Valerie J. Long]

Every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Makes three books.

Just kiddin'

I started with a short - less than 8'000 words. It was a complete story and could have been left alone. But it could have a sequel, so it got one. And another, and the three together made up a decent novel.

I wrote on, and it became a tetralogy. Five more sequels followed, and then - only then - I planned to complement the series with a trilogy... 100k each.

Sometimes it simply happens. :cool:

[donroc]

Consider the Milennium Trilogy beginning with The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. Those of us who read it wanted to read more about Salander and Blomquist. And we want more.

[unruley700]

I never intended to write a series, just a story. And in my hopefully-someday tell all- I'll explain how some people and characters were written in that were never intended. But once they were added, people who were reading- Pre- Beta readers, were reading it like a serial, and wanted to know what happened to "so, and so". Since I didn't intend to "publish" at this juncture, but amuse an audience, I tried to make them very interesting. Yikes, I had a trilogy in length the moment people said, "You should publish this."




It's funny the lengths a storyteller will go to, ain't it?

[Alitriona]

I wrote SoA as a stand alone, at the end I was still wondering what if and thinking about what happened afterward to other characters, so outlined another 2 books. Each is stand alone within itself but comes together to form a trilogy. I think if I wanted to I could make it 4,5 or 6 books. The characters adventures don't end in my head when I stop writing because they've reached the end of one adventure, but I think 3 is as far I would go.

[thefreshchuff]

Oof, my fantasy WIP very quickly became a series. My ideas for the first book extended so much I had to split it into two books, then once the plot started rolling a whole slew of new stories and plot ideas came tumbling out. I think the SF/F genre really lends itself well to trilogies/series. It's not just the readers that get connected to characters! Some of us writers don't want to let them go either.

[ex_machina]

The number 3 just has something really well-balanced about it. I think it's a great number in itself. YA has a HUGE number of trilogies, but a lot of the books promised as triologies are technical and creative letdowns. Just goes to show, quantity isn't neccesarily quality.

Some stories are longer and 'larger' than just one book. Not many people ever think about doing Duo-logies. (Is that even a word? XD) I think 'three' somehow rings better with us.

I wrote my current querying WIP as a 'Duology', but it can stand on it's own if need be. I like the idea of a trilogy, and would LOVE to snatch a three-book deal, but I'm perfectly happy with one, and I'd feel better as a writer if I could do two.

[blacbird]

Trilogies (or sequences of more than three novels) are by no means limited to the Fantasy genre, nor did they originate there, as a literary form. Good examples of realistic (now considered "literary) trilogies are the Studs Lonigan trilogy by James T. Farrell and the U.S.A. trilogy by John Dos Passos, both written in the 1930s, and William Faulkner's Snopes trilogy, written over a spread of nearly 20 years in the 1940s-1950s.

[EndlessDestiny]

I came up with a new character to add into the story that I want to do. I did a sort of outline and with the new plots he brought into the story, it makes the most sense for it to be at least a trilogy. I feel that the original plan of one book would lose effect with all of these new developments.

Now I have to somehow write all of this.

[Darzian]

On a related note, I hate it when libraries have books 2,3,4,5,6,7.... but not book 1!

If I really like a story, I would LOVE to read more about the same characters (usually it's the characters and not the world itself that's exciting). I tend to drift towards series for that reason. I read a good book recently, River God, and was thrilled last week when I happened to find out that it had a sequel.

The sequel did not disappoint. :D

[Danger Jane]

It's good to keep in mind that at least some of the big seller trilogies out there were not necessarily intended as trilogies when their authors started shopping them. If a publisher smells sales, that author may well be contracted to write a whole trilogy, and the ending of a book that previously stood alone will be altered to provide just enough loose ends to create a story arc spanning three books.

[ave]

i read somewhere that Robert Jordans "wheel of time" was only meant to be a trilogy. That book is now on 13 x 300,000 word volumes and still going strong... Lol

[bkwriter]

I've always wanted to write short stories around some novels. I think in order to do that you need a vast universe like star wars, star trek, Dragonriders

[JerseyGirl1962]

Well books in trilogies still have to have separate plot arcs, each book has to have its own climax. The books of the trilogy are generally published at least a year apart, so you can't have book 1 just cut off in the middle (Example: _The Waterborn_ - no idea how this got published, has no ending at all!) and expect readers to wait happily for book 2, especially since if the sales figures for book one aren't good book 2 will never be printed.

I thought The Waterborn sounded familiar; it's by Greg Keyes.

And there is a follow up book, Blackgod (http://www.amazon.com/Blackgod-Chosen-Changeling-Gregory-Keyes/dp/0345418808/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294411002&sr=1-2). According to what it says on Amazon, the first book came out in paperback in 1997, the 2nd in 1998, so there was a conclusion.

As to the general discussion, what about Naomi Novik's Temaraire series? She came out with the first 3 books in quick succession (in successive months, I think) probably because the publisher wanted to capitalize on all the buzz.

All I can think of is ::whew: she must've been pretty pooped after having to go thru all that. :tongue

Nancy

[JerseyGirl1962]

i read somewhere that Robert Jordans "wheel of time" was only meant to be a trilogy. That book is now on 13 x 300,000 word volumes and still going strong... Lol

Hard to believe. :tongue

Yeah, even after his passing, with Brandon Sanderson (the Mistborn trilogy) taking over.

And of course now Sanderson has his own 10 book series to work on AFTER finishing up WOT. The first book is the fattest book I've ever purchased. :)

Nancy

[JerseyGirl1962]

It's good to keep in mind that at least some of the big seller trilogies out there were not necessarily intended as trilogies when their authors started shopping them. If a publisher smells sales, that author may well be contracted to write a whole trilogy, and the ending of a book that previously stood alone will be altered to provide just enough loose ends to create a story arc spanning three books.

Wow, seems I can't get enough of this thread, lol. :D

That's true about Lord of the Rings. Tolkien wanted it to be one whoppin' big book, but due to post-war paper shortages and the fact that a whoppin' big book would've cost too much for the general public to buy, the publisher decided it was better to break it into 3 books.

Nancy

[Darkwing]

I've always known that my current WIP would be a trilogy. The scope is just large enough that resolving the overarching conflict in one book wouldn't be satisfying for the reader--it'd feel too easy. There are also three really distinct stages to the story, and their flavor is different enough that I really don't believe they belong in the same books.

That said, I fight constant doubt regarding my choice to make my first book a part of a trilogy. I've heard they're frowned upon, and reading some stuff on the internet has led me to believe that if you're a first-time novelist and you say you're writing a trilogy, people are going to immediately think of you as a wannabe. (I'm beginning to think this is a bit of a myth, but what I know intellectually and what I FEEL are often very different.)

I also struggle with making sure that my books will be structured in a way that will allow them to stand alone. Because I think of the three books in terms of an overarching storyline, this is pretty difficult. :P I'm learning.

I know exactly why I was drawn to writing this story in trilogy format. The three stages of my trilogy closely mirror templates found in Mercedes Lackey's and others' books. It's what I read. So it's sorta what I write.

I have to say that my subsequent ideas for novels haven't involved trilogy-sized plots. Yet. :) So maybe it really is the right thing for this first plotline.

[Stijn Hommes]

All the best things come in threes. The human mind is wired to find a set of three more attractive than a duo or a quadruplet of books and the writers and publishers use that. Sometimes knowingly, sometimes through instinct.

[Eddyz Aquila]

I want to return to the same world if the first book is good, I'm sure it's the same with many other readers. So it's either a stand alone, a trilogy or more than four books.

:)

[Liosse de Velishaf]

On a related note, I hate it when libraries have books 2,3,4,5,6,7.... but not book 1!

If I really like a story, I would LOVE to read more about the same characters (usually it's the characters and not the world itself that's exciting). I tend to drift towards series for that reason. I read a good book recently, River God, and was thrilled last week when I happened to find out that it had a sequel.

The sequel did not disappoint. :D


I went to the bookstore to get David B. Coe's Winds of the Forelands series. They had books 1, 3, 4, and 5. I raged so hard.



Anyway, the first story I ever wrote (an epic fantasy), was a trilogy from the start. I wanted that structure. I needed and did extensive world-building. And then I realized I had tons more stories set in the world. But I also knew I wanted to write other stuff, so I put my foot down and moved on after that first trilogy. I think it was a good thing.

[unruley700]

I went to the bookstore to get David B. Coe's Winds of the Forelands series. They had books 1, 3, 4, and 5. I raged so hard.



Anyway, the first story I ever wrote (an epic fantasy), was a trilogy from the start. I wanted that structure. I needed and did extensive world-building. And then I realized I had tons more stories set in the world. But I also knew I wanted to write other stuff, so I put my foot down and moved on after that first trilogy. I think it was a good thing.

How the hell did you do that? I never want my adventures to end. It makes me a little upset to think that at some point, I'll have to write about something else.

[Nateskate]

Again, I don't see the point of intending three books. When it comes to sci-fi and fantasy, there's a certain complexity that makes one book too short.

First you have to build a world, all while introducing characters and plot points. Who are the Jedi? Who are the resistence? What are they fighting over?

It's not just Luke stopped by Leah's on the way to pick up milk.

Next, you have more characters. There's the reluctant hero and side kick. There's the wise sage. There's the wicked destroyer. There's the female ninja-type.

Even the fuel source has to be explained.

[blacbird]

When it comes to sci-fi and fantasy, there's a certain complexity that makes one book too short.

Things I've read:

Childhood's End, Arthur C. Clarke
The City and the Stars, Arthur C. Clarke
The World of Null-A, A. E. Van Vogt
Slan, A. E. Van Vogt
The Voyage of the Space Beagle, A. E. Van Vogt
City, Clifford Simak
The Stars My Destination, Alfred Bester
The Triffids, John Wyndham
The Midwich Cuckoos, John Wyndham
Fahrenheit-451, Ray Bradbury
The Green Odyssey, Philip José Farmer
The Forever War, Joe Haldeman
Eden, by Stanislaw Lem
Fiasco, by Stanislaw Lem
Solaris, by Stanislaw Lem
More than Human, and numerous others by Theodore Sturgeon
Ten or so novels by H. G. Wells
Thirty-plus SF novels by Philip K. Dick

Many more

[NoGuessing]

And of course now Sanderson has his own 10 book series to work on AFTER finishing up WOT. The first book is the fattest book I've ever purchased. :)

Nancy

Have high hopes for The Stormlight Archive. Sanderson has good pacing and I loved the first book, despite its size. Need my Shallan and Kasnah fix.

[eyeblink]

Things I've read:

Childhood's End, Arthur C. Clarke
The City and the Stars, Arthur C. Clarke
The World of Null-A, A. E. Van Vogt
Slan, A. E. Van Vogt
The Voyage of the Space Beagle, A. E. Van Vogt
City, Clifford Simak
The Stars My Destination, Alfred Bester
The Triffids, John Wyndham
The Midwich Cuckoos, John Wyndham
Fahrenheit-451, Ray Bradbury
The Green Odyssey, Philip José Farmer
The Forever War, Joe Haldeman
Eden, by Stanislaw Lem
Fiasco, by Stanislaw Lem
Solaris, by Stanislaw Lem
More than Human, and numerous others by Theodore Sturgeon
Ten or so novels by H. G. Wells
Thirty-plus SF novels by Philip K. Dick

Many more

Just to nitpick, The Forever War did generate two sequels over twenty years later, but I'm sure it was written as a standalone.

There are plenty of standalone SF novels published now. Admittedly they're usually a lot longer than the classic novels you list above, but that's down to publisher's requirements these days and a subject for other threads.

[Astronomer]

I'm in both camps. I've just completed a SF novel which, at 90,000 words, stands alone just fine. But I have two more story ideas I want to explore, and I can make it a trilogy if requested to do so.

I rather like the idea of a writer embarking on a trilogy, which indicates that, from the start, he intended to have an overall story arc with a beginning, middle, and end. It means he has a story to tell.

Many series today just ramble, going on forever, just because they can. There's no cohesive story arc, and the self-references eventually become stale. The author becomes his own producer of fan-fic in his own universe, as it were.

So, yeah, I really like trilogies (or any series length), if they're planned that way from the start.

However, though I'm officially guilty of planning a trilogy, I'm completely against the notion of not having the first book stand completely on its own merits.

[blacbird]

Another point about "trilogies". Disregarding the unusual, perhaps even unique manner in which Tolkien's massive single story was chopped into three for pure publication reasons, some trilogies are constructed as interrelated tales (LeGuin's initial Earthsea threesome, later grown to more volumes) and some are three stand-alones with only a theme or general setting to link them (Lewis's "Space" trilogy of Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength). Depending on the existence/nonexistence of a fourth unpublished manuscript, it's quite likely that Stieg Larsson's three published Girl novels is going to get referred to as a "trilogy", even though we know his intent was for a much longer continuing series. So about the only thing that unites "trilogies", strictly, is that somehow they comprise three books of a linked nature.

[WriteMinded]

As a reader: I love fantasy novels. I love getting involved in a fantasy world and being immersed in the characters. I do not want it to end in one book.