Any Thoughts on Trilogies?

[Everly]

I am currently reading The Maze Runner and it is a trilogy. I have noticed that trilogies seem to be all the rage in YA, sci-fi and fantasy right now. What are your thoughts? Do you like a Trilogy or do you feel like a lot of them are stretching the story out just to make it a trilogy?

[Bryn]

Trilogies are a cliche and I was highly suspicious of them. But then... stories seem to have a beginning, a middle and an end. I start to think the trilogy is a natural shape. Although used and abused by books that don't need to be in three.

[Ottilie]

I get why they are around just annoying that everything is a trilogy.

[Crystal]

Elle wrote: "I am currently reading The Maze Runner and it is a trilogy. I have noticed that trilogies seem to be all the rage in YA, sci-fi and fantasy right now. What are your thoughts? Do you ..."
Not at all,i love trilogies. I don't think they are too stretched out,at least not the one's I've read. I think some of the best books are trilogies, it just depends on the author.

[Judy]

If the books come in a set of three, I will wait till all are published, then get them all at once....I tend to forget the first parts if its too long between books. I like to jump right into the next book so I can keep up with the characters.

[sonya]

i'm enjoying the hunger games trilogy which has all three books published. borrowed from ppl

[Nada]

I enjoy trilogies. However, I hate it when the author suddenly decides that he/she wants to write more books in the same series after finishing it.

[Julie]

nada wrote: "I enjoy trilogies. However, I hate it when the author suddenly decides that he/she wants to write more books in the same series after finishing it."

Agreed. Trilogies/series are great if the author truly has enough imagination and content for each book to stand on it's own. I can totally tell the ones stretched to make a buck. Those I can live without. :)


And go Nada! You are right. There's nothing worse than reading a trilogy you love, having the author do it well and wrap it in three, and then decide...
'Wait, I think I can tack more on to this series and keep it going—even though it's really over...' Ha ha.

[Emi]

Elle wrote: "I have noticed that trilogies seem to be all the rage in YA, sci-fi and fantasy right now. What are your thoughts? Do you ..."

I love a good trilogy IF (and this is a BIG IF) the story was MEANT to be a trilogy. Meaning it was too big to fit in one book with all the goodies inside. I can't read epics ... I like smaller books. So 80-100k words.

What I don't like is if a book is started and then books 2 and 3 come later as if they were never connected in the first place but then called a trilogy. A trilogy has to be a continuation of the story that started in book 1. Those I love IF I love the characters in book 1. I will then follow them along like a helpless little puppy dog. :)

-Emi

[Elicia Clegg]

Bryn wrote: "Trilogies are a cliche and I was highly suspicious of them. But then... stories seem to have a beginning, a middle and an end. I start to think the trilogy is a natural shape. Although used and abu..."
I agree with you Bryn, it feels like a cliche. I like a story to give its all, give its heart, give its soul, a trilogy can be good, yet more often then not the magic seems to be lost after the second book...so when all is told, put the first two books together and start a new story, don't drag it out, or the original message or meaning behind a story can be lost.

[Bryn]

And poor Tolkien didn't mean to be a trilogy, famously; he had written ONE book, in six divisions. But there was a paper shortage in the war... Did he start the trilogy lark? It wasn't his fault if he did.

I'm sure authors are told to do them, aren't they? And how then can we have the 'heart and soul' as you say, Elicia?

(disclosure: I did my damnedest not to be a trilogy - didn't want to be seen in that old trilogy rut. I tried like billyo to fit into two.)

[Elicia Clegg]

here is a solution to the old trilogy problem, when creating the first book, make sure there are enough sub-stories which can warrant a full book on there own. In this each sub-story holds true with the heart and soul, the publisher gets the trilogy, while the author gets the chance to create something new out of the old.

[[deleted user]]

I find that a lot of people like to read books in a series. I like to write series because they seem to sell better and I find myself invested in the characters I have created and want to see more stories about them. A series can be a bit different than a trilogy because a in a series you can tell unrelated stories where in a trilogy you have to keep to one story, a beginning a middle and an end. I have written some stand alone stories but people seem to like trilogies. I agree with Elicia make sure you have enough story to warrant a trilogy.

That's my two cents.

[Elicia Clegg]

Charles wrote: "I find that a lot of people like to read books in a series. I like to write series because they seem to sell better and I find myself invested in the characters I have created and want to see more..."
Thank you Charles.... :) Let us hope all author's writing trilogies strive to meet that goal of warranting a series of more than two books.

[Bryn]

I (can) like series, and they don't have the cliche against them. There's a set of six books, that perhaps began as one, but the writer found his outlet to explore every issue that matters to him, and went on and on and on. Not because they were a success - I despise that sort of fiction, which you can tell at a glance. It's just a great shaggy beast that was too big for one book, and the writer got his chance - his publisher let him go for it, after the first wasn't a flop.

Again, it's the spontaneity that tells a genuine book from a product written to specs; but that goes for books whether trilogies or singles or fourteen in a set.