MichaelB
January 13th, 2010, 12:48 PM
On The Folly of Trilogies
In this two-part series, I will examine the place of the trilogy in fantasy fiction, the problems that one faces when writing a trilogy, and what, in my opinion, is the best way to go about doing so.
No matter how long you’ve been a part of the genre, as a reader, writer or general hanger-on, you’ve probably come across the legend of the Fantasy Trilogy. It’s a mainstay of the mythology of the genre (that’s for all of you who like academia and university-level answer-padding and argument-obfuscation). In shorter words, it’s a very common trope that has been a part of fantasy for a long time. Now, I’m not arguing against trilogies in general. Trilogies have a long and proud tradition in fantasy, and not only in written, printed fantasy. Most people will recognise the Star Wars trilogy (numbers 1, 2 and 3 don’t count in my book) as a ‘space fantasy’, and let’s not overlook Lord of the Rings, which, although not an intentional trilogy, still became one of the defining trilogies of the genre (and indeed, one of the initial trend-setters). These trilogies are a credit to the genre, and will most likely survive for and be cherished by uncounted future generations. However, many of us will also know about the Inheritance Trilogy Cycle, and Twilight, among others. These and other lesser-known trilogies and series most emphatically do not do credit to the form. They are poorly-conceived, lacking in focus and therefore unenjoyable. Just where do these trilogies go wrong? And what, then, is the folly of the trilogy?
3. The Middle Slump
The middle book, book 2 of 3, the book which is neither the beginning nor the end, is a particularly challenging one to write. Here, you must continue to follow the threads of the story without letting things sag or stagnate, as well as maintaining consistent characterisation and an interesting storyline. Certainly, this is a problem faced by The Middle of any story, no matter how short or long. It is a problem as old as storytelling, I would be willing to bet. What happens between the beginning and the end? The problem with trilogy middles is one of perception: the author sets out to Write A Trilogy, but they might not have enough of a story to fill three books. What do they do, instead? Random encounters! Seemingly endless, unconnected side quests! These are of course temporary solutions at best, and at worst serve only to bog the story down further, possibly even making the reader lose interest.
Not every trilogy or series feels the Slump, however. Nobody ever said that The Empire Strikes Back was a disappointment, as far as I’m aware. So what’s the secret to avoiding the Eldest Problem? In order to avoid Middle-Book Slump like we see in Eldest (Book 2 of the Inheritance Trilogy Cycle), the answer is quite simple: Don’t set out to Write A Trilogy. Set out to write a story, and if that story happens to be long enough for three books, so be it. Setting your sights on the big picture may cause you to forget about the details, and those details are what flesh out a story’s middle. And please, don’t give your hero Seven Promises that they must fulfil in turn. While this may well be acceptable in the realm of computer games, in a novel it’s just not cricket. Above all, remember that quality (how good it is) is the most important thing, while quantity (how much there is of it) is unimportant. The finest Belgian chocolate truffles are tiny little things, and yet they are incomparably better to ten gallons of tasteless, watery mystery-meat soup with yellow wobbly bits and not enough salt. Quality over quantity, people.
2. Trilogy Creep
I’ll spare you the link to TVTropes, and summarise the fact that ‘trilogy creep’ is what happens when an author writes Book 4. Many famous series that started as trilogies have suffered from trilogy creep, including the Wheel of Time trilogy, which exploded into 11 books including a 12th written by a different author; and The Belgariad, which was planned as a trilogy but became 14 books in two collections. Most recently, Inheritance has expanded from three books to four.
That being said, not all Trilogy Creep is inherently bad: The Earthsea Trilogy became five books when the author went back years later to expand on the characters’ lives. This is the best kind of Creep, where the story genuinely can and should go on, being driven by characters who don’t stop living just because the books are finished. More importantly, it was demonstrated that the story could and has stood on its own within the original three books. The kind of Trilogy Creep to which I refer in the negative is most often the result of poor planning, unwieldy prose, endless descriptions of pointless minutiae, or substantial padding and ‘filler’ material of the sort present in abundance in Eldest and Brisingr.
In my opinion, Trilogy Creep happens because of reason number 1, below: the first books are published before the story is finished, and the author changes his or her mind halfway through, taking the story in a new direction. Or they didn’t plan it out properly, and ended up with far more story than 3 books could hold. Trilogy Creep that happens because of poor planning, excessive filler, or because the publisher wants more to sell is really inexcusable, as I see it: if you set out to write a trilogy, write a trilogy. Don’t name something “book 1 of 3” if there’s even the slightest chance of a fourth book.
1. Publishing One Before the Second is Finished
Absolutely the number one reason trilogies and other series may be ruined, is if the author published book 1 before finishing (or worse, starting) book 2. Although often not a problem, publishing the first before finishing the others often leads to issues of cintuinuity, worldbuilding, forgotten sideplots and even characterisation changes.
The simple fact of the matter is that worlds change, ideas change and writing styles change. In my experience as a worldbuilder, one thing that I have noticed is that no imaginary world is fixed. They grow and evolve as you add new things, discover and attempt to close up holes or gaps, and as you re-evaluate old ideas or learn new ways of thinking (and, for the truly crazy, as characters break out of their assigned roles and take over your story).
Therefore, publishing your first book before the second is finished is definitely one of the worst things you can do for continuity, unless you are really strict about the details and circumstances of your world and the psychology of your characters. A good example of bad continuity (or a bad example of good continuity) is the Inheritance Cycle: Magic is tied to the language. No wait, it’s the thought that counts. No, sorry, a tiny grammatical error will change the spell’s effects. No wait, you don’t need the language at all. In only three books, Paolini’s stance on magic, and therefore his internal continuity, fishtails from one extreme to the other, and then off the road altogether (and, predictably, crashing into a ditch on the side of the road). If Paolini had waited for all of his books to be finished before publishing the first, he would have been able to edit out such inconsistencies.
Secondly, especially for younger writers like Paolini, writing style and narrative voice is something that develops over time and experience, and it take a long time and a lot of practice to ‘find’ the voice you are most comfortable with. If you write the first book in a series and publish it before the others are finished, you may well find that books 2 and 3 use an almost entirely different narrative voice, and that over the course of your series your style may change and shift all the time. If you wait until the series is finished before publishing, you will of course be able to develop a consistent narrative voice that doesn’t change too drastically between books, and edit out instances where it does. An example of this is, once again, the Inheritance cycle: in Book 1, Paolini starts with a particularly fresh-faced eagerness in his narrative voice; a writer discovering the joy of telling a story for the first time. However, his narrative voice changes dramatically in Book 2, and again in Book 3. Paolini has yet to find his voice, and that is quite disconcerting to readers.
Lastly, especially in the economy of the market, where profits matter more than quality of material (again, quality over quantity!), there is always the risk that if the second or third is published too late after the first, the audience and readership will have moved on to something else, and the second book will not be nearly as successful. This, of course, potentially leads to termination of the contract, which would mean your half-finished trilogy may never be completed. And that’s the worst fate for any trilogy-maker. Remember Obernewtyn? Seven years on, we’re still waiting for the final book. The series stalled, we readers all moved on, and now we no longer care or remember what happened to the characters. If your trilogy isn’t cancelled because of lack of interest, then you risk the ire of impatient fans (assuming you have any after the three-year wait between books 1 and 2). In the case of Paolini, his fans are getting restless, and more and more are becoming dissatisfied with the existing books. As one commenter quoted, his fans are growing up while he’s left behind. The waning fanbase can only spell trouble for Paolini, not only for this particular series but for all his future works.
As with number 2, there is nothing inherently wrong with publishing before the series is completed, so long as you are strict with your worldbuilding, characters, details and plot threads. These things are important in any case, but when one book has been published already while you work on the second, the likelihood of mistakes, revisions or forgotten plot threads is greater. Characterisation and plot will not inevitably suffer because of early release, but the risk of mistakes in the next book is much higher.
Conclusion
I know it’s considered bad form by High School English teachers, but I’m separating my conclusion with a clearly-labelled subheading anyway. Just to spite them. So, in conclusion, while trilogies and series are not themselves inherently bad, there are many problems that can occur that a singuklar book may be able to avoid. However, problem number 1 is the most important of these: Publishing one before the others is finished has the potential to lead to all sorts of issues and problems. In my opinion, the best trilogies are written as a single seamless story, all at once, and only later divided into books. Using this method, you can keep track of internal consistency, timelines, characters and your writing voice. You can go back at the end and edit out any unfortunate slips in logic or the laws of your world, as well as streamline the [rose, dialogue and characterisation into a consistent form that unites the three books as a single body of word at a linguistic level.
Tune in soon for Part Two, which unfortunately has been cancelled due to lack of interest.
In this two-part series, I will examine the place of the trilogy in fantasy fiction, the problems that one faces when writing a trilogy, and what, in my opinion, is the best way to go about doing so.
No matter how long you’ve been a part of the genre, as a reader, writer or general hanger-on, you’ve probably come across the legend of the Fantasy Trilogy. It’s a mainstay of the mythology of the genre (that’s for all of you who like academia and university-level answer-padding and argument-obfuscation). In shorter words, it’s a very common trope that has been a part of fantasy for a long time. Now, I’m not arguing against trilogies in general. Trilogies have a long and proud tradition in fantasy, and not only in written, printed fantasy. Most people will recognise the Star Wars trilogy (numbers 1, 2 and 3 don’t count in my book) as a ‘space fantasy’, and let’s not overlook Lord of the Rings, which, although not an intentional trilogy, still became one of the defining trilogies of the genre (and indeed, one of the initial trend-setters). These trilogies are a credit to the genre, and will most likely survive for and be cherished by uncounted future generations. However, many of us will also know about the Inheritance Trilogy Cycle, and Twilight, among others. These and other lesser-known trilogies and series most emphatically do not do credit to the form. They are poorly-conceived, lacking in focus and therefore unenjoyable. Just where do these trilogies go wrong? And what, then, is the folly of the trilogy?
3. The Middle Slump
The middle book, book 2 of 3, the book which is neither the beginning nor the end, is a particularly challenging one to write. Here, you must continue to follow the threads of the story without letting things sag or stagnate, as well as maintaining consistent characterisation and an interesting storyline. Certainly, this is a problem faced by The Middle of any story, no matter how short or long. It is a problem as old as storytelling, I would be willing to bet. What happens between the beginning and the end? The problem with trilogy middles is one of perception: the author sets out to Write A Trilogy, but they might not have enough of a story to fill three books. What do they do, instead? Random encounters! Seemingly endless, unconnected side quests! These are of course temporary solutions at best, and at worst serve only to bog the story down further, possibly even making the reader lose interest.
Not every trilogy or series feels the Slump, however. Nobody ever said that The Empire Strikes Back was a disappointment, as far as I’m aware. So what’s the secret to avoiding the Eldest Problem? In order to avoid Middle-Book Slump like we see in Eldest (Book 2 of the Inheritance Trilogy Cycle), the answer is quite simple: Don’t set out to Write A Trilogy. Set out to write a story, and if that story happens to be long enough for three books, so be it. Setting your sights on the big picture may cause you to forget about the details, and those details are what flesh out a story’s middle. And please, don’t give your hero Seven Promises that they must fulfil in turn. While this may well be acceptable in the realm of computer games, in a novel it’s just not cricket. Above all, remember that quality (how good it is) is the most important thing, while quantity (how much there is of it) is unimportant. The finest Belgian chocolate truffles are tiny little things, and yet they are incomparably better to ten gallons of tasteless, watery mystery-meat soup with yellow wobbly bits and not enough salt. Quality over quantity, people.
2. Trilogy Creep
I’ll spare you the link to TVTropes, and summarise the fact that ‘trilogy creep’ is what happens when an author writes Book 4. Many famous series that started as trilogies have suffered from trilogy creep, including the Wheel of Time trilogy, which exploded into 11 books including a 12th written by a different author; and The Belgariad, which was planned as a trilogy but became 14 books in two collections. Most recently, Inheritance has expanded from three books to four.
That being said, not all Trilogy Creep is inherently bad: The Earthsea Trilogy became five books when the author went back years later to expand on the characters’ lives. This is the best kind of Creep, where the story genuinely can and should go on, being driven by characters who don’t stop living just because the books are finished. More importantly, it was demonstrated that the story could and has stood on its own within the original three books. The kind of Trilogy Creep to which I refer in the negative is most often the result of poor planning, unwieldy prose, endless descriptions of pointless minutiae, or substantial padding and ‘filler’ material of the sort present in abundance in Eldest and Brisingr.
In my opinion, Trilogy Creep happens because of reason number 1, below: the first books are published before the story is finished, and the author changes his or her mind halfway through, taking the story in a new direction. Or they didn’t plan it out properly, and ended up with far more story than 3 books could hold. Trilogy Creep that happens because of poor planning, excessive filler, or because the publisher wants more to sell is really inexcusable, as I see it: if you set out to write a trilogy, write a trilogy. Don’t name something “book 1 of 3” if there’s even the slightest chance of a fourth book.
1. Publishing One Before the Second is Finished
Absolutely the number one reason trilogies and other series may be ruined, is if the author published book 1 before finishing (or worse, starting) book 2. Although often not a problem, publishing the first before finishing the others often leads to issues of cintuinuity, worldbuilding, forgotten sideplots and even characterisation changes.
The simple fact of the matter is that worlds change, ideas change and writing styles change. In my experience as a worldbuilder, one thing that I have noticed is that no imaginary world is fixed. They grow and evolve as you add new things, discover and attempt to close up holes or gaps, and as you re-evaluate old ideas or learn new ways of thinking (and, for the truly crazy, as characters break out of their assigned roles and take over your story).
Therefore, publishing your first book before the second is finished is definitely one of the worst things you can do for continuity, unless you are really strict about the details and circumstances of your world and the psychology of your characters. A good example of bad continuity (or a bad example of good continuity) is the Inheritance Cycle: Magic is tied to the language. No wait, it’s the thought that counts. No, sorry, a tiny grammatical error will change the spell’s effects. No wait, you don’t need the language at all. In only three books, Paolini’s stance on magic, and therefore his internal continuity, fishtails from one extreme to the other, and then off the road altogether (and, predictably, crashing into a ditch on the side of the road). If Paolini had waited for all of his books to be finished before publishing the first, he would have been able to edit out such inconsistencies.
Secondly, especially for younger writers like Paolini, writing style and narrative voice is something that develops over time and experience, and it take a long time and a lot of practice to ‘find’ the voice you are most comfortable with. If you write the first book in a series and publish it before the others are finished, you may well find that books 2 and 3 use an almost entirely different narrative voice, and that over the course of your series your style may change and shift all the time. If you wait until the series is finished before publishing, you will of course be able to develop a consistent narrative voice that doesn’t change too drastically between books, and edit out instances where it does. An example of this is, once again, the Inheritance cycle: in Book 1, Paolini starts with a particularly fresh-faced eagerness in his narrative voice; a writer discovering the joy of telling a story for the first time. However, his narrative voice changes dramatically in Book 2, and again in Book 3. Paolini has yet to find his voice, and that is quite disconcerting to readers.
Lastly, especially in the economy of the market, where profits matter more than quality of material (again, quality over quantity!), there is always the risk that if the second or third is published too late after the first, the audience and readership will have moved on to something else, and the second book will not be nearly as successful. This, of course, potentially leads to termination of the contract, which would mean your half-finished trilogy may never be completed. And that’s the worst fate for any trilogy-maker. Remember Obernewtyn? Seven years on, we’re still waiting for the final book. The series stalled, we readers all moved on, and now we no longer care or remember what happened to the characters. If your trilogy isn’t cancelled because of lack of interest, then you risk the ire of impatient fans (assuming you have any after the three-year wait between books 1 and 2). In the case of Paolini, his fans are getting restless, and more and more are becoming dissatisfied with the existing books. As one commenter quoted, his fans are growing up while he’s left behind. The waning fanbase can only spell trouble for Paolini, not only for this particular series but for all his future works.
As with number 2, there is nothing inherently wrong with publishing before the series is completed, so long as you are strict with your worldbuilding, characters, details and plot threads. These things are important in any case, but when one book has been published already while you work on the second, the likelihood of mistakes, revisions or forgotten plot threads is greater. Characterisation and plot will not inevitably suffer because of early release, but the risk of mistakes in the next book is much higher.
Conclusion
I know it’s considered bad form by High School English teachers, but I’m separating my conclusion with a clearly-labelled subheading anyway. Just to spite them. So, in conclusion, while trilogies and series are not themselves inherently bad, there are many problems that can occur that a singuklar book may be able to avoid. However, problem number 1 is the most important of these: Publishing one before the others is finished has the potential to lead to all sorts of issues and problems. In my opinion, the best trilogies are written as a single seamless story, all at once, and only later divided into books. Using this method, you can keep track of internal consistency, timelines, characters and your writing voice. You can go back at the end and edit out any unfortunate slips in logic or the laws of your world, as well as streamline the [rose, dialogue and characterisation into a consistent form that unites the three books as a single body of word at a linguistic level.
Tune in soon for Part Two, which unfortunately has been cancelled due to lack of interest.