What is it with trilogies?

Doesn't have to be a trilogy.

Should be as many books as needed to tell the stories properly. Whether that's one or ten is up to the story. Problem is, usually it's the publisher that makes the call.

I sold my goblin books to DAW as a two-book deal. I'm trying to write a third now, but I certainly didn't have to, and the books could have stood alone as a perfectly respectable (and silly) duology.

Write what the story needs.

Somebody should have told the Wachowskis.

"Trilogy" seems to be a going frame of mind. When I browse the SF/F section of a bookstore, I sometimes have trouble finding a stand-alone novel, with all the trilogies and series.

I worked on an independent sci-fi film ,and after it wrapped up and we had a follow-up party a year later, the director said he would be working on parts 2 and 32. I mentally rolled my eyes.

Like everything else in fantasy, I think it all goes back to Lord of the Rings and how that book was published in three volumes.

I also think it has something to do with the fact that there were a lot more 3-book deals for new writers 20 years ago, as opposed to 2-book deals that seem to be the norm today.

"If you find yourself dealing with a preponderance of exposition and unexplained backstory, you are no longer dealing with a sequel, my friends. You are in the final chapter of a trilogy."

The quote isn't exact, but the thread made me think of Scream 3. A lot of movie makers get that trilogy syndrome too. And every one of them could be stuck into the SF/F genre. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Scream, Matrix, X-Men, Jurassic Park, Final Destination....

Could it have something to do with the classic "three-act" structure many plots seem to adhere to? Often the three novels in a trilogy seem to follow a similar dynamic to a three-act play.

I could BS further on the topic, but I'm darn near guaranteed to eat my foot if I do. This looks like a good explanation of it, though.

(Not, of course, that every trilogy out there has a good excuse for being a trilogy. But maybe the trend grew out naturally out of the 3-Act thingie, and the bad trilogies grew out of misinterpreting the trend.)

(Ooh! Can I just say I love this new quick-edit feature? Yummy! So quick and easy!)

(OK, last edit. I promise.)

JimmyB27 said:

Why three? Why not two, or four?

I ask because I have some good ideasfor a second part to the book I'm currently writing. This first one will work perfectly well as a standalone, but I'd like to continue the story in a sequel. I don't think there's enough for a third though.

Click to expand...

I could not agree more.