Trilogies: Are they over done?

[Katherine]

I have to admit whenever I see a book reviewed that I am interested in and then I find out it is a trilogy I groan a little bit. Are they necessary or just a way to keep us on the hook to buy more? I am a pretty big reader of YA fiction and the trilogy seems to be a bit out of control in that genre.

Anyone else have an opinion?

[Mary-jane]

I agree that they often seem to be a hook to get us to buy more books. This can be an issue with SciFi as well, not just YA. The middle book sometimes seems like filler to get you to the end. Sometimes I wish for a better editor to cut out the unnecessary parts and tighten the story. They do this with movies, too (see The Hobbit). I know that his is not a new idea. I believe that in the 18th or 19th C, fiction didn't sell unless it was at least a trilogy.

[Katherine]

Hi Mary-jane,

That's interesting I hadn't known about that. I am of course not saying that there aren't books that really need to be a trilogy and work really well. I just get the feeling that sometimes it was never the original intent of the story to be a trilogy. I think that also leads to the second book feeling like filler.