What's a typical trilogy structure?
Is there a typical structure for a fantasy trilogy?
To be more specific, would they usually follow the three-act structure, with an act per book? And would each book need a self-contained story arc with a proper beginning and ending? Or could you get away without a proper resolution until the end of the third book?
I know this could be subjective, but what are the norms when approaching this?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/3721. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
I personally don't like books that force me to buy another 2 books to get the whole story (and maybe wait months or years if the books haven't been published yet).
More and more, whenever I see something like "Part 1 of the Foo Boy trilogy" I just put the book back on the shelf, unless the author is someone I know and enjoy really well(which is very rare).
I think expecting your readers to buy more books to get the whole story is a bit condescending. I prefer something like the "Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy" series, where each book is independent, can be read separately.
So my advice is to carry elements of your first book into the second, like some of the characters, the Universe etc, but keep each book independent, so that readers can read any part and still understand the story.
You can have a common underlying theme or plot that runs through all the books, but each book must contain enough information to be read by itself. Like many people, I read the Harry Potter series out of order (at least the first few ones), but had no trouble understanding the whole plot. That, I think, is one of the reasons the series was so successful- I went back and read the other books because I enjoyed them, and not because the author left the story incomplete.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/3724. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
There are two main ways to structure a series: each book is essentially a stand-alone with a continuing story as part of the plot (Harry Potter), or each book is a critical part of the whole and they are difficult to read out of sequence or without the other books (Lord of the Rings). Either is fine; they just accomplish different things.
Stand-alone books have the benefit of being easy to draw in new readers out of sequence, as Shan observes. They don't have an overall story to tell as much as they are a journey being taken with the same characters. Harry's story does have a "proper resolution" in the long view, but each book resolves its individual crises, particularly the first three.
A series of books is one story being told in many parts. Each book does need some kind of "beginning, middle, and end," but by no means does each book require closure. Fellowship of the Ring ends with the Fellowship broken: one of the Nine Walkers dead and one presumed dead, two kidnapped, and two vanished off to Mordor. But the story has progressed from "One Ring's discovery" to "Frodo accepts the quest" to "Frodo and Sam leave for Mordor." The "proper resolution" doesn't occur until the multiple ends ;) of Return of the King.
I agree with Shan that if I'm in a bookstore and I see "Book 1 of 3" I may not pick it up unless Books 2 and 3 are next to it on the shelf. However, don't let that stop you from telling your story in the way that your story needs to be told. Write the best story you can, structure it however makes it the most appealing, and let the marketing folks at the publisher worry about selling it in pieces.
David Eddings originally planned his Belgariad series as a trilogy, and the publisher broke it into five books. George R.R. Martin planned the Song of Ice and Fire story for four novels, which grew into six and then split into seven. Yep, pain in the butt for us readers now, but when it's all over, they will all be together on one shelf for future generations.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads