As promised, my next topic will be trilogies. As everyone knows, YA in particular has been bursting at the seams with trilogy after trilogy. There are pros and cons to this tactic. For the authors that can do this well, this can mean the big bucks and a fan following for their novels. In addition, they don't have to leave characters they have grown to love and develop.
I am currently reading the Across the Universe trilogy by Beth Revis, which inspired this post. She has done a terrific job at not falling in any of the following pitfalls. See my review of the second book, A Million Suns at:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3JJHMA3KYZNI5/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
At the same time, there are a lot of pitfalls that authors can easily fall into.
1. Not making each book essentially a stand alone book. The Hawk and His Boy, by Christopher Bunn is one book that comes to mind. The beginning of the book is very strong and then we are introduced to more characters and plot lines than we can count. And get this, none of the plot lines intersect AT ALL during the span of this book. Bunn writes in his author note that these books are not supposed to be read individually but as a three book set. My question then is, then why have three separate books?
2. Using the first book as development of the world without its own story arc. This relates to the first point. But if the first book is just description, most readers won't tune in to the next two if there is nothing there that grabs their interests.
3. The trilogy wasn't planned, but the first book was a success so they tacked on more books. This tactic becomes pretty obvious. We see this more in blockbuster movies (Transformers anyone??) but sometimes books fall into the same traps.
4. The first book is so complete and satisfying as a stand alone, there is no interest in picking up the next one. Even though it needs to be its own book, there have to be strands that are left open and interesting enough for the reader to be driven to pick up the next two.
5. The second book is just filler to get to the third book. Funny story. I was reading Kelley Armstrong's Darkest Power trilogy a while ago. I really enjoyed reading the first book and was excited to get my hands on the next two. I accidentally got the third one first and was blown away-- I thought this is really where it starts! Then I realized I had missed the whole second book without realizing it (I didn't miss it at all and my sister told me it wasn't worth reading), and the third book was the final one and left many plot lines open.
What experiences have you all had with trilogies?
I love a good trilogy! I don't mind if the storyline continues across all three as long as each book kind of has a purpose. I know a couple of my favourite trilogies (Wolves of Mercy Falls and The Hollow) both had massive cliffhangers on the second book, but both had a lot going on there too.
ReplyDeleteI have many of the same problems you do with trilogies--as a slow reader with a huge pile of books to get through, I really appreciate it when an author can tell a satisfying, complete story in one book. I also hate it when I've completely forgotten the first book by the time I get around to reading the second or third! On the other hand, there are some trilogies I've really loved, like Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials.
ReplyDeleteGreat discussion post! I have to agree that I hate it when authors 'tack on' a few books after the initial standalone (or add on a few extra titles to 'successful' trilogies). I think it's best when authors plan out a trilogy, think about what's going to happen in each book, and stick to their original ideas when it comes to extra titles or do a spinoff series (although that can come across as cheap if not done well, I guess).
ReplyDeleteNicole @ Teenage Fiction
When I think of YA trilogies, my first impression is more negative than positive. For example, Hunger Games, and Wolves of Mercy Falls series were a bit of a letdown; the first books were amazing, and the next books were not, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog...your 5 pitfalls are very true to trilogy series!
Thanks so much, Kim! I totally agree with you! And now I'm worried about the rest of the Wolves of Mercy Falls series because I've only just read Shiver. I was worried though, because I think it actually would have worked great as a stand alone!
ReplyDeleteI'm usually wary when it comes to trilogies. If I absolutely loved the first book then I go ahead and read the rest of the books.
ReplyDeleteI'm more likely to read a book if it's part of a series. I agree that some trilogies fail in their sequels, but for me they have more positives than negatives
ReplyDeleteI enjoy trilogies, but hate when an author "rushes" to finish a triolgy and puts a ton of filler words in just so that they can end it.
ReplyDeleteI like trilogies but only really if they're planned that way to begin with. I hate saying good-bye to characters I love. However, there are some trilogies that feel like the author rushed to complete. As much as I love The Hunger Games, I feel like Mockingjay was rushed, mostly the ending. I didn't like it as much as I liked the first two books, but it still had a lot of action and suspense in it.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Matched trilogy, I was disappointed with the second book. I felt like it went nowhere. I hope the third book makes up for the second one, lol.
I've had mostly good experiences with trilogies. At least, I can't think of any experiences where I've read a trilogy and felt the author was either rushing to finish in time or dragging things out to get three books out of it :)
ReplyDeleteThank you for a really interesting post. Many trilogies have been good, but sadly some that have started amazing have lost their momentum and origonality by book 3. I recently read a book that was increadible hence you can imagine my excitement when i found out that it was the firt book in a trilogy! However, when i read book 2 i did find that the story was becoming a little dull although i persevered. Sadly the final installment was less than exciting, building up to a supposedly intense and magnificent climax that was 'flat' and such a let down. Luckily this is the only trilogy that i have thought should have stayed as one book; where the author used up his ideas mainly in book 1.
ReplyDeleteI love trilogies.I do have a problem when trilogies end and there are still strands that could lead to another book.Of course there are trilogies that end well in third book but has a little room for further plot if the author chooses to do so.For example The Mortal Instruments.City of Glass has a happy ending but does have a few places where it could be extended if the author chose to,which she did by the way.I was happy she made it into a series bc I loved TMI so much,the only down fall was that book 3 had a happy ending and now are poor characters have more and more chaos to walk through.However are characters do grow in book 5 and I hope book 6 doesnt disappoint and ends happy.Also there are a few trilogies that I got stuck in and couldnt finish.I stopped half way through Passion bc it didnt seem to be going anywhere with the story and I lost interest.
ReplyDeleteI hate trilogies.I rather watch it on movies.But if i happen to read a novel of one author and the next time i continue to read the different book written from the same author until i get bored.This is my bad habit.
ReplyDeletei like trilogies in some cases but a lot of the time the last book is (excuse my language) crappy. Because the author has used up all the good ideas and to me it feels like just dragging on the story.
ReplyDeleteI agree about the pitfalls. Much of the time the endings leaves one to feel there are pages missing. Also one of the trilogies often fall short in the quality department.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I prefer trilogies to seemingly endless series. It is like soap operas books later you still can easily pick up on the same stuff.
Something that irks me about trilogies (which also applies to sequels) is when the author introduces a whole lot of new characters AT THE END OF THE FINAL BOOK. It seems pointless and I'm left feeling like I missed out on getting to know all these characters. I can't think of a series that does this off the top of my head, but I've run into it several times. Great post, btw!
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with everything you said. I'm usually a fan of trilogies (especially if they have matching covers that look nice on my shelf), such as The Hunger Games, Legend (Marie Lu) and a lot of others, but sometimes the authors do tend to give the characters a happy, satisfying ending during the first book. I'm not a fan of cliffhangers, but, like you said, authors should leave unanswered questions in our minds to keep us interested.
ReplyDeleteI saw a comment above that mentioned Cassandra Clare's books. I didn't get into reading until maybe 2011, and I thought Clare originally had six books planned, which was great. Then I found out that it was just a trilogy, extended because of the popularity of the original trilogy. And now she's writing all these Bane Chronicles stuff... I love her writing and all, but I would like to read about a different world and not just stay stuck with the Shadowhunters. Okay, I'm getting off-topic.
Anyway, I still like reading series/trilogies more than stand-alones. I love getting as much information about a new kind of world and the more books, the more things we learn.
Love your comments! I guess I've been lucky so far in the trilogies I've read because each book has been good without some of the pitfalls you mention. It might be nice if some of them can be stand alone but I don't mind having to read them in order to get the background and timeline right. I haven't read the Cassandra Clare series so it will be interesting to get to the added books and see the difference! Great rant :)
ReplyDelete