The problem with trilogies! Endings!

I chose option three for myself. What will be the third book is not quite finished yet, but I got an agent based on everything I'd written so far.

Mind you, this was originally meant to be one book. But the tale grew in the telling, until I realized it was going to have to be sub-divided.

Having written a trilogy recently, this question is right up my alley. Have you read many trilogies? If not, I would suggest that you do that before doing anything drastic. Take a look at how each book ends. You'll likely notice that there is an overarching storyline that spans across the three books that is not resolved until the end of the third book. In books 1 and 2, there will be some type of conflict that will be the main struggle and will be resolved at the end of each of those books, but the overall conflict will remain.

I don't try to make my novels stand alone. It's not expected in my genre.

Option 3 - I can think of several series recently (okay, last 5 years or so) that the first book didn't stand alone.

However, if I were you I'd try to make sure there is at least some sort of resolution to the end of the first book - a major subplot is tied up etc, even if the overall plot isn't finished, or perhaps a 'We've won this battle - some resolution - but there's still a war to go...' sort of thing. The ending should still be satisfying.

I think 'stand alone' is a problematic term. For instance, all the Harry Potter books stand alone, but if you haven't been reading them up to that point, there's a lot of catching up to do. Generally, I don't think trilogies need to stand alone - so I'm going to go with option 3 - because they're trilogies. If they stood alone it would just be three books that have something in common.

Take the Poirot novels, for example. The whole set isn't a 34-logy, it's just 34 books about the same dude. To be a trilogy, the novels have to rely on each other in some way.

srgalactica said:

I think I may go back to the ones I've read and study the endings from a writers perspective, rather than a readers perspective.

Click to expand...

There's definitely a difference. I'll read something as a reader and just skim right through, but then go back and read the same thing with my writer hat on and think "so that's how it's done."

Mr Flibble said:

However, if I were you I'd try to make sure there is at least some sort of resolution to the end of the first book - a major subplot is tied up etc, even if the overall plot isn't finished, or perhaps a 'We've won this battle - some resolution - but there's still a war to go...' sort of thing. The ending should still be satisfying.

Click to expand...

This is true too, even for trilogies. I always make sure I end at a point of partial resolution, with *some* important question answered or one of the plots resolved. Don't just randomly stop.

If you read a lot of trilogies (sometimes I feel like I read nothing but, lol) you should have a feel for their structure, which is extremely different from stand-alone books, including that of series where each book stands alone.

Beachgirl said:

Having written a trilogy recently, this question is right up my alley. Have you read many trilogies? If not, I would suggest that you do that before doing anything drastic. Take a look at how each book ends. You'll likely notice that there is an overarching storyline that spans across the three books that is not resolved until the end of the third book. In books 1 and 2, there will be some type of conflict that will be the main struggle and will be resolved at the end of each of those books, but the overall conflict will remain.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. The term "stand alone" is not quite right. Really all you need in my opinion is have a big plot over all 3 books, have individual plots in the first two. You just have to have a climax in all of the books, the first two don't have to compare to the last one in intensity, in fact I do not think they should.

If you're reading Mistborn at the moment, think about the ending to book one (not going to spoil as you didn't say how far into the trilogy you were yet ) It's a somewhat satisfying conclusion as it finishes off a plot arc, but there is still a lot of story left to tell. Not really a stand alone novel, unless you like leaving a lot of unanswered questions.

You need some sort of resolution to at least one plot point at the end of the book, but in my reading experience fantasy seems to be expected to run to series length.

Like another poster said, Mistborn is a great one to look at. The first book ends with a definite resolution, but there's just a little bit of doubt left over as to what's going to happen now.

Also, if you're midway through book three, you're about to get to the part of the trilogy I liked the most. I couldn't put down the book for the second half. Just finished it yesterday.

srgalactica said:

I guess my book one has a definite ending. The MC's survive, but the antagonist is very obviously *not* beaten.

So, the story question of: 'Will they survive?' Is a yes.
The romantic subplot story question of : 'Will the FMC and MMC be together?' remains to be seen in book two.

The way it ends, the MMC and FMC part ways on pretty bad terms and by the time book 2 starts, they're physically on opposite sides of the continent.

The romantic subplot doesn't get completely resolved until almost the end of the third book.

Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, relationships and characters should be grown over the course of a series. That is part of the appeal of both reading and writing a series.

That doesn't mean I am endorsing dragging out a love plot just for the sake of future story lines as many a TV show has made the mistake of doing. Just like in real life, at some point the teasing just becomes obnoxious and boring. (Not that I'm assuming that is what you are doing, just clarifying. )

I think of it more like "If I happened to buy book 2 without realising it was part of a trilogy, are there enough clues to get me into the overall story or will I feel like I've missed important stuff?"

For example, I read the Elenium/Tamuli by David Eddings completely out of order, grabbing each book as it turned up in the library. I think I ended up something like 2, 3, 5, 1, 6 and then finally had to buy 4 for myself. It was better when I came back to it in order a couple of years later, but as you can see I grabbed book 3 straight away rather than feeling like I needed to be patient and start at the end.

That's how I interpret 'standalone' - the ability to start in the 'wrong' place and still get a decent reading experience.

I'm currently about to start writing the second book in a planned trilogy (with the first already released), so this is a question I had to deal with not too long ago.

I think the key thing is what "stand-alone" means to you. Stand-alone doesn't have to mean completely unrelated, it just has to mean that someone can a.) pick up the first book in your trilogy, never read the sequels and still feel that the ending was satisfying and the major conflict was resolved; or b.) pick up the second or third book without reading the prequels and not feel that they've missed out on something important.

Each book should be able to be enjoyed on its own merits, without being beholden to each other. A good series encourages the reader to continue on and see what happens with an over-arching storyline, but it shouldn't force them to. Those fantasy novels where the end of the first book is a cliffhanger and nothing's resolved? I hate them -- especially when you have to wait a year or two for the next installment, just to see the story resolved.

As an example, look at the first Harry Potter book: it ends with the main conflict (Voldemort stealing the Philosopher's Stone) resolved, but there's still the overarching plotline where he's still planning to come back and will probably try again. Or look at the first Star Wars, where the Death Star is destroyed, and the main objective of the movie (rescue Leia) has been completed, but the war with the Empire is still going on in the background.

I really appreciate it when authors can write a series where each book has its own conflict but is somehow related to an overarching conflict that's resolved in the end. This is much preferable, in my opinion, to series where each book has a conflict that gets resolved and then a new one is immediately introduced that makes the old one seem insignificant and likewise makes reading the first book seem unnecessary.

Gaia Revane said:

Each book should be able to be enjoyed on its own merits, without being beholden to each other. A good series encourages the reader to continue on and see what happens with an over-arching storyline, but it shouldn't force them to.

Click to expand...

This doesn't apply to any of my favorite series. I can only imagine the massive confusion a reader would experience if they picked up the 3rd book of the First Law trilogy (one of my all-time favorites, a bestseller, and the debut for its author) without having read the first two. Even Harry Potter, which makes some effort to have the books 'stand alone', would be pretty confusing if you just went and grabbed book 5 without having read the others. You might be able to follow the plot to some extent, but you'd have no idea who these people were or what their motivations were for their actions.

There is such a thing as a series of stand alone works. Discworld would be a popular example of this. This is a fine thing to write, if it's what you *want* to write, but it's actually less common in fantasy than continuing-story series and trilogies.

While people on this thread can object to books that don't stand alone all they want, the fact books using this structure dominate most fantasy bestseller lists says pretty clearly how the majority of readers feel about the format.

This is easier than you guys think; you guys who are having trouble with making each book in your trilogy a stand alone.


Have your characters deal with a different conflict in each book.


Example: Book I

Natasha gets into a relationship with a man that turns out to be a killer. Despite everything, when he gets caught and goes to jail, she loves him so much she stays by his side in the end of the novel.


Book II

Natasha has to take care of her mother who is dying from cancer, and a car accident prevents her from getting back to her home state. In the end, she returns paralyzed from the waist down and her mother dies. She couldn't attend the funeral.


Book III

Natasha's brothers and sisters, who had never appeared in her and her mother's life, fight her for the inheritance!!


I know this is not exact, but you get the idea, right? At least that's how I do my series. Of course you have to consider whether your agent or publisher thinks writing a sequel is a good idea, a sequel to the first installment. If not, all your hard work in your second and third books will have gone to waste. If you believe this has to be a trilogy, self-publish. That way you don't have to deal with approval or disapproval from the agent.


That's my 2 cents. I could be wrong.

I see this misconception on AW with alarming frequency, but...

Trilogy =/= series

A trilogy SHOULD be read in order, and so the 3 books SHOULD rely on each other to build and eventually resolve the overarching story. No, you should NOT be able to pick up book 2 and not feel like you're missing something. You absolutely should get a few pages in and think 'Wait a minit... wtf did I miss??'

A series can be as many books as you damn well please, related only by common characters or setting or theme, NOT story. You should be able to pick up any book in the series and read it as a self contained story.

A trilogy is not a series consisting of 3 books - it is a single story told in 3 books.

I agree that the FIRST book in a trilogy should be 'stand alone' because agents are wary of committing to 3 books, especially by a new author. Your first book should therefore have some kind of resolution, so that it can be enjoyed in and of itself without necessarily needing to read 2 and 3. But once you've sold scads of book 1 and the publishers are crying out for the second and third (which often sell as a package deal once you've established a readship) you can firmly vouch that this is a trilogy, and in order to appreciate the whole story it must be read to conclusion in book 3.

So, I'd work on that principle if I were you. Make book 1 as self contained as possible, while still leaving the larger story arc unfinished, but book 2 can end on a cliffhanger, because by then you should know there is definitely a book 3.

Chasing the Horizon said:

This doesn't apply to any of my favorite series. I can only imagine the massive confusion a reader would experience if they picked up the 3rd book of the First Law trilogy (one of my all-time favorites, a bestseller, and the debut for its author) without having read the first two. Even Harry Potter, which makes some effort to have the books 'stand alone', would be pretty confusing if you just went and grabbed book 5 without having read the others.

Click to expand...

True. You are actually correct there. In an attempt to kind of expand upon my opinion from earlier: the first book in the series should be stand alone, much like the first HP book was. Not just because the reader should feel that the story was resolved if the sequels never come, but also so that you can pitch it to publishers and agents as one self contained book. I'm really new to this aspect of writing, but I would assume it's pretty rare for an agent or publisher to take on a book by an unknown author that won't be resolved until the next book -- especially if that book isn't yet written.

Look at some popular movie trilogies: Back to The Future is completely stand-alone from its sequels (the "to be continued" was not even in the theatrical cut). Same with The Matrix.

And what about where a book isn't even originally planned to be part of a trilogy? I wrote my book as a one-shot, and didn't plan for a sequel. The ending is nice and tidy and mostly everything is resolved. Now that it's out and doing pretty well, however, I've decided that I want to return to the setting, so I've begun writing a second book and have outlined a backstory that will carry over into a third, as well.

TV Tropes calls this effect the Two Part Trilogy. Look it up if you'd like a laugh.

ChristinaLayton said:

This is easier than you guys think; you guys who are having trouble with making each book in your trilogy a stand alone.


That's my 2 cents. I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, yes, you are wrong. You have told others on this thread that if they carry over any loose threads from book to book they do not know how to write.

So, I assume you think The Harry Potter books are an example of someone who can't write? Or pick any number of popular books that resolve a conflict within each book but leave loose ends regarding an over-arching story.

The Bestseller lists are chock full of multi-book stories that carry a conflict through from book to book, whether that conflict is resolved in three books, five books, or whatever.

To imply that writers who do this must be "having trouble making each book in your trilogy a stand alone" and are doing something wrong is not only wrong, it's insulting to those of us who have successfully trade-published multiple books with over-arching themes and conflicts.

Kallithrix said:

A trilogy is not a series consisting of 3 books - it is a single story told in 3 books.

Click to expand...

Yes. Thank you.

And in some cases, it's a single book divided into three volumes. The first volume does not--in fact, cannot--stand alone. It ends at a turning point, not a resolution.

There are any number of published examples of this, in fantasy, at least.

I think I know what was honestly meant by the person who told you this, from a lucrative market standpoint. It doesn't mean making your stories literal stand alones, it means that someone can, more or less, easily grab your second or third novel & get into them as easily as the first without too much confusion. That allows more fans & more hype, which is important in a business where people are just randomly deciding to buy things based on a vague paragraph on the back & a cool cover without actually knowing anything about an author or series.

Sure, everyone gets a fair chance, but it makes it harder to have that chance if people can't get into your books unless they read them in order.