Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/30254
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

The answer to this is very subjective. Some books lend themselves to being made into a series (whether that is three or more) and some don't.

Consider books like 'Mortal Engines' -- everyone, just about, is dead at the end of the first book. The author said that is because after ten years he wanted it finished and so he killed off everyone. However, the series continued because the publisher realised that the 'world' had further stories.

People will read sequels, whether they be trilogies or whatever, if they have an emotional investment in the characters, the setting or the plot. If they want to know what is going to happen in the long term to the characters, they will buy the next book.

If you think you have a trilogy in you, you must make the first book work by itself. People must want to read it as a stand alone text. I know that some films are produced as trilogies and you are expected to put up with a second-rate first or second film so that you can appreciate the third one, but that doesn't work with books. It just takes too long to read a book and getting to the end and finding you need to read the next book is really irritating. Make the first one a page turner and then worry about the rest.

Although you reference sci-fi, you might want to consider detective series where the characters develop, but the plots do not directly link from one novel to another.

Original score: 5