Should a new author try for a trilogy?

[janetbellinger]

I don't think I would ever write a trilogy, because when I finish writing one novel, I want to go onto an entirely different type of story, with different characters and plot and setting. I want to explore new ideas and to research different settings etc.

 

[KiwiChick]

Why are there not more people defending trilogies?! I know that when I find a good author/set of characters/world etc, I want to read as much about them as possible. I want a long story, that takes time in the unfolding. Maybe it's because I'm a fast reader and I eat single volumes in just a couple of sittings (unless it's like Tolkien and tough to struggle through) but I tend to read book BECAUSE they're the beginning of a trilogy and I know there'll be more for me to read.

Spooky! Are you me in disguise?

 

[enchantedfire5]

When I think of Trilogies I always think of cliffhangers at the end of the first two books. That's what excites me, especialy if it's an excellent work. After I finished "The Fellowship of the Ring" I couldn't wait to dive into "The Two Towers" and after that I was so excited to begin "The Return of the King."

I don't really care for trilogies when the first two books are "complete" except for C.S. Lewis' "Space Trilogy." If there is not going to be cliffhangers at the end of the first two books I would rather it just be one book all together. I don't know, I just love cliffhangers.

 

[ted_curtis]

If there is not going to be cliffhangers at the end of the first two books I would rather it just be one book all together. I don't know, I just love cliffhangers.

Except, do you like to wait 3 years to find out what happens, maybe more? Or what if the author dies and you never find out the ending...that really stinks.

 

[frimble3]

I like a trilogy once it's complete, ie a really big book, but I hate the cliff-hanger part. I'd rather see a series of stand-alone books with the same characters/setting. The 'huge story that had to be broken into three books' thing works because they will be released in a timely manner and they all mesh smoothly, but I guess I've read too many trilogies that were padded out to provide length or 'exciting' incidents. Or had to wait two years for the resolution of some event that wasn't worth the wait.

 

[ChaosTitan]

Two quick comments (because I'm not supposed to be online, I'm visiting relatives and stealing the Internet for a few).

Imelda, I don't think it's that no one is defending trilogies, period. It's that we are simply pointing out the inherent difficulties in a no-name, unpublished author landing a deal for a trilogy. Especially one that does not have a standalone first volume. I love trilogies, and I love series, but most of us could probably name on one hand the authors who have debuted with a full trilogy deal.

If someone is desperate to do it their way and go for the full trilogy, then best of luck, but make sure you are working on a standalone novel while you're shopping around the trilogy. Just in case.

Second, I think that the facts that Lord of the Rings is one novel and not a good example of "successful trilogies" should be put in the FAQ. Just so everyone knows that little tidbit.

 

[enchantedfire5]

Except, do you like to wait 3 years to find out what happens, maybe more? Or what if the author dies and you never find out the ending...that really stinks.

No, I would rather have all three of them come out at once, in a box set too

 

[RedMolly]

A trilogious rant:

I am changing my official personal policy on trilogies. They should all be, a la Tolkien, one big fat completed book that's just too long to cram into a single volume. Under no circumstances should Book One be sold (and published) before Books Two and Three are ready to go.

I stayed up 'til 3 last night reading an in-freakin'-credible book. (Yeah, it was a Big Fat Fantasy.) The characters were fresh and inventive, the plot creative (though drawing on plenty of time-honored conventions), the writing absolutely lyrical. I was soooo happy, 'cause in my foresight, I'd checked the second book in the series out of the library already so I wouldn't have to wait to find out what happened next.

The second book read like it had been farmed out to the novel factory from 1984. Mechanical, clunky, lifeless, bleahhhhh. It was painfully obvious that while the first book was a labor of love, polished to perfection like a fine jewel, the second book had been cranked out to meet a deadline. It wasn't horrible--not as horrible as some books I've started and tossed aside--but instead of being a wonderful story, it read like product.

This crushing disappointment has hit me one too many times. I'm tired of it. No more trilogies unless I see proof, in the form of a second and/or third book in hand, that the quality's not going to go downhill like a luge jumping the track.

 

[enchantedfire5]

From what I understand Tolkien wrote TLOTR as one novel and not a trilogy, that was the publisher's idea. But I read it as a trilogy and loved it. It's what inspired me to start writting a trilogy. I like the clifferhangers as long as the other books are already present and ready to read. I prefer that instead of reading a 1000 page book, lol.

 

[enchantedfire5]

A trilogious rant:

I am changing my official personal policy on trilogies. They should all be, a la Tolkien, one big fat completed book that's just too long to cram into a single volume. Under no circumstances should Book One be sold (and published) before Books Two and Three are ready to go.

I stayed up 'til 3 last night reading an in-freakin'-credible book. (Yeah, it was a Big Fat Fantasy.) The characters were fresh and inventive, the plot creative (though drawing on plenty of time-honored conventions), the writing absolutely lyrical. I was soooo happy, 'cause in my foresight, I'd checked the second book in the series out of the library already so I wouldn't have to wait to find out what happened next.

The second book read like it had been farmed out to the novel factory from 1984. Mechanical, clunky, lifeless, bleahhhhh. It was painfully obvious that while the first book was a labor of love, polished to perfection like a fine jewel, the second book had been cranked out to meet a deadline. It wasn't horrible--not as horrible as some books I've started and tossed aside--but instead of being a wonderful story, it read like product.

This crushing disappointment has hit me one too many times. I'm tired of it. No more trilogies unless I see proof, in the form of a second and/or third book in hand, that the quality's not going to go downhill like a luge jumping the track.

I agree and would have been disappointed too.

 

[Momento Mori]

I think that my biggest issue with trilogies (or quartets or quintets as the case may be) is that those that I've read have all 'sagged' at some point during the story arc - usually in the middle section. To give you an example (and without wishing to offend any of this author's fans), I really enjoyed the first in Trudi Canavan's first book in The Black Magician Trilogy, but book 2 felt like filler and book 3 seem (to me) had big pacing problems.

I wonder (and again, apologies if this offends anyone) whether to some extent authors produce trilogies because they are unwilling to substantially edit their stories. It seems to me that there are some authors out there who don't really need to be writing trilogies given the plot arc that they're following. I wonder whether The Lord of the Rings would have been a trilogy had Tolkein made some cuts to the original story.

I'm in the process of working on my first novel and hummed and haaed about going down the trilogy route until I realised that story wise, there wasn't enough to sustain three books. However, the backstory to my novel is complicated and there's therefore potential for a series (should it ever get picked up!), which I can develop on a book-by-book basis in order to draw different strands out. I also feel that the advantage of having a series rather than a trilogy is that you can pick out different characters to follow, which gives you more scope in terms of how you tell the story.

 

[Philip64]

Trilogy strategy

I pitched my first novel as the opener in a trilogy and got a three-book deal on the back of it. In my experience, if a publisher wants your book, he'll want the follow-ups, so long as he doesn't have to pay too much for them. In that sense, it's a very smart move: the publisher regards you as a known quantity quality-wise, but you haven't yet had a chance to flop in the market (as most debuts do).

That said, there is a major downside: if your first book does not take off, you will get little attention and little effort from the publishers with the subsequent books, no matter how good they are. This is generally the case, but more so in trilogies - because who buys the second or third instalment of a trilogy, not having bought the first instalment? Your growth potential is limited. You may have written the second book before this situation becomes apparent; but churning out a third book, knowing that almost nobody will stock it, and that it is doomed before you even start it, is hell.

As a rough guide, I would say a two-book deal / pitch is a good idea. But three is risky.

 

[Momento Mori]

Philip64:
I pitched my first novel as the opener in a trilogy and got a three-book deal on the back of it.

Did you have the whole trilogy written when you pitched, or just the opening novel? The reason I ask is, assuming that you haven't completed all of the books, what happens if you realise along the line that you needed to put something else in book 1 or change the structure slightly or even (taking an extreme case) suddenly realised that it would be better as two books?

In large part, I suppose it depends on how tightly you've plotted and planned it in advance. It's just that sitting on the 'reader' side of the fence, I've read too many trilogies where I've thought: "Why didn't you put that in the first book?" or "isn't this just filler?" and it makes me wonder whether writers really do have it worked out in advance or whether they're pitching on the basis of some half-thought out plot line that they only later realise isn't totally sustainable.

Ew - that all reads more snarkily than I intended it. None of it's aimed at you, I'm just feeling jaded!

 

[ChaosTitan]

I pitched my first novel as the opener in a trilogy and got a three-book deal on the back of it.

Was this your first book deal, or were you previously published?

Just curious...

 

[Philip64]

Trilogies

In answer to the two questions raised: I had only completed the first book; and yes, it was my first book deal.

My particular trilogy was not much worked out at all beyond Book 1. I did not even supply a synopsis of Books 2 and 3. I just let it be known through my agent that I envisaged follow-ups, and I think I gave them titles, which never hurts. The possibility of "more to come" was apparent in that the end of Book 1 hinted (as film endings sometimes do) that not everything was done and dusted. However, the novel was a complete entity, in that - to put it crudely - the good guys came through and disaster was averted (this time, kind of thing.) In that sense it was not a trilogy like The Lord of the Rings, where the big issues are obviously not resolved at all in Books 1 or 2. I would imagine that my kind (i.e. complete stories with a suggestion of more to come) are an easier sell than the LOTR kind. Another key factor, of course, is establishing characters that readers are happy to meet again (at least some of them). I think this was what swung it with my first publisher.

As a PS: in the event, when the first book did not do all that well, and my editor left, and I saw how my titles were becoming very low priority at my publishers (the pissy Book 2 catalogue position was a giveaway), I actually ditched the 3rd part of the trilogy and wrote it as a stand-alone with new characters and an altered story (the publisher, of course, did not mind a bit). This was my salvation, becase I sold that book internationally - most importantly in the US, where it did very well and rescued what would otherwise have been a rather brief career. This would never have happened if I had loyally plodded on and completed the trilogy.

Such radical measures are needed when trilogies go wrong!

 

[Momento Mori]

Philip64:
the pissy Book 2 catalogue position was a giveaway

I have to ask (because I'm nosey!), but was Book 2 a sort of stand alone as well?

when trilogies go wrong!

That would in itself be a great book title ...

 

[MattW]

I don't set out with a size in mind - I write the story that is there. Occasionally, I'll find a nifty subplot or two that add size (but are still interesting). Other times, I get to the end in 60K words.

I am a fan of Big Fat Fantasy, and enjoy the stories that actually manage to sustain interest for more than 2 volumes. Trilogies and series don't feel like my style so far, though I'm sure that might change once I've got something published and have half a leg to stand on.

For now, I write my stories how they need to be written, and each can take place in the same world if need be - drawing small linkages in the worldbuilding .

 

[Philip64]

I have to ask (because I'm nosey!), but was Book 2 a sort of stand alone as well?



That would in itself be a great book title ...

Book 2 had its own complete plot, and took place largely in a new setting; but it picked up a few years down the line where Book 1 left off. Some characters were all but written out, including my main protaganist, some became more important then before, new ones were introduced. I rather enjoyed that aspect of writing in a series (Patricia Cornwell does it in her Kay Scarpetta books); but commercially it was doomed... To date it remains the only one of my books never to have been translated; and is now very hard to find even second hand!

 

[joymark]

I'll put in my vote for trilogies and multi-volume works. My favorites have all been in that vein, some with cliffhangers, others with new characters set in the same world. My top 5 writers: Tolkien, David Eddings, Terry Brooks, Jack Whyte, Frank Herbert.

At least try to finish everything before you die. Some of us have been waiting 20 years for the next installment of Dune from Frank Herbert, and now it's finally here.

I know his son and Kevin J. are not the same as Frank, but at least I can finally get off the edge of the stinkin' cliff!