Why Always a Trilogy

Status
Not open for further replies.

Don Raden

Banned
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
77
Reaction score
3
So far, I didn't hear any story in 2, 4, 5, 6 books. It's always a trilogy for long novels. Is there a reason behind that I might have missed?
 

Don Raden

Banned
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
77
Reaction score
3
Wow, this is the first time I hear the word "doulogy"... lol, sorry for my ignorance..
 

Lycoplax

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
353
Reaction score
32
Location
Yokosuka, Japan
I don't think there's a 'reason', per se. But the classic story form is in three parts, so it stands to reason that a lot of multi-volume stories would be told the same way. Not because they all went 'three volumes is the way to go', but because one book establishes, one book exacerbates, and one book concludes it. It's pretty tidy in terms of pacing.

But I agree with fireluxlou, there are lots of series that aren't necessarily trilogies.
 

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
So far, I didn't hear any story in 2, 4, 5, 6 books. It's always a trilogy for long novels. Is there a reason behind that I might have missed?

There are plenty of series in 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 or even 20 books. It's true that trilogies are pretty common and always have been - I think there's an aesthetic reason for that (the shape of a story in three parts is a fairly tried and tested one) and also all kinds of commercial ones (successful precedents like LOTR or Star Wars; it's nice for publishers etc to be able to sell three books or movies instead of two, hence the odd decision to stretch The Hobbit out into three movies, for heaven's sake.)
 

fireluxlou

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
2,089
Reaction score
283
There are plenty of series in 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 or even 20 books. It's true that trilogies are pretty common and always have been - I think there's an aesthetic reason for that (the shape of a story in three parts is a fairly tried and tested one) and also all kinds of commercial ones (successful precedents like LOTR or Star Wars; it's nice for publishers etc to be able to sell three books or movies instead of two, hence the odd decision to stretch The Hobbit out into three movies, for heaven's sake.)

Wikipedia article does address LOTR somewhat:
One of the most popular "trilogies" of fantasy books, The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien, is not a trilogy, though it is often referred to as such. Tolkien regarded it as a single work and divided it into a prologue, six books, and five appendices. Because of post-World War II paper shortages, it was originally published in three volumes. It is still most commonly sold as three volumes, but has also been published in one-volume and seven-volume editions (six books and the appendices).
 

Kerosene

Your Pixie Queen
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
5,762
Reaction score
1,045
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
I see more Trilogies in SFF.


But, as long as the story tells for, that is how long the novels should be.

Trilogies are kinda attractive because you can have a opening, a middle and a end.

If we're talking about numbers, what about a 120 book series? All written by the same author too!
Lets see if any of you can guess it.
 

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
Wikipedia article does address LOTR somewhat:

Yes, and the somewhat coincidental division into three books has set a commercial precedent. I think quite a few trilogies are three volumes for commercial reasons rather than three books for artistic reasons.
 

Lidiya

Skimming galaxies
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
379
Reaction score
21
Location
Neptune
Website
www.themacaw.wordpress.com
When I hear of three of anything, I always think: Beginning, middle and end.
The first book introduces you to the problem.
The second one deals with solving the problem.
The last one is where the problem finally gets solved.

Of course, with trilogies there's a main problem running through all 3 books, and one additional different problem that each book deals with.

At least, that's how I see it.
 

Anninyn

Stealing your twiglets.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
374
Location
Rain-swept dystopia.
Website
www.fivesquids.co.uk
I don't know, but it just feels right.

Obviously, there are series that exist in other numbers - my favourite YA fantasy when I was growing up was 'The Song of the Lioness quartet', so obviously, that was four, and Tamora Pierce who wrote it seems to do things in fours.

But the thing is three keeps turning up in other places too. People seem to think in threes. Beginning, middle, end. Birth, Life, Death. Maiden, Mother, Crone. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. There's even a saying that things come in threes. So, perhaps when you have a world to explore and a story to tell, three is the natural, comfortable place to sit?
 

Don Raden

Banned
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
77
Reaction score
3
Thank you for explanation.

Next question:
When you write a book, do you already know how many books it would take? Do you always plan for it's length or, it depends on the flow of the story?

For my WIP, I initially planned to make a trilogy but could also be 2 or 4 books depending on the the plot. New scenes and ideas always comes to mind thus making the story more longer but interesting...
 

Kerosene

Your Pixie Queen
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
5,762
Reaction score
1,045
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Next question:
When you write a book, do you already know how many books it would take? Do you always plan for it's length or, it depends on the flow of the story?

For my WIP, I initially planned to make a trilogy but could also be 2 or 4 books depending on the the plot. New scenes and ideas always comes to mind thus making the story more longer but interesting...

It kinda depends on how you wish to publish. For traditional, there's a chance they won't ask you for a second, or accept it. For self-pub, sky's the limit.


Each book acts as a stand alone. If you picked up the third book, you should be able to make sense of the story (not necessarily the backstory).

So it's not about splitting the story out to books, it's like working in sections of independent stories that add up to the big picture.

Right now, I'm writing a series. I see past a trilogy, but I don't know how far I'm going to go.

I have planned a trilogy before, but then I wrote a prequel. So, it just depends.

You can always plot out three books and write them as you wish.
 

Arthea

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
104
Reaction score
19
Location
New York
Website
www.createliveblog.com
I think trilogies are nice because our brains naturally organize things into that pattern. Beginning, middle, end. And it's not so large that it becomes an overwhelming undertaking (JK Rowling took on a beast, if you ask me).
 

Dylan Hayes

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
129
Reaction score
3
Location
Canada
If the first one is good enough, then people will want more. Like everyone says, things come in threes, so I guess a duology can seem incomplete. Beyond the third one, things can wear thin for both the writers and readers.
 

John Chapman

Registered
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
12
Reaction score
2
For a new author, writing a single book, no matter how wonderful is unlikely to bring much success. It happens, but not often. Writing a second book, based on the same characters, is often easier. You don't have to create a new biography for each character.

The second book can evolve if the author decides the first book is too long. Not many publishers are willing to take a chance on a new author who presents a 170,000 word manuscript. The story gets split into two and later three.

Authors also find readers want more and are happy to buy further books in a series if they like the early books. In my own case our original book got split, split again and then the series took off - currently up to 9 books with no end in sight.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
Trilogies date back at least as far as Dante. But, as mentioned, there are all manner of other series, consisting of many more books. Narnia was nine, as I recall. Ursula LeGuin started Earthsea with a trilogy, which later expanded to at least five novels. And the godfather of Fantasy trilogies, Tolkien, wrote just a single long book that his publisher insisted be broken into three separates.

caw
 

NeuroFizz

The grad students did it
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
9,493
Reaction score
4,283
Location
Coastal North Carolina
I will always prefer trilogies that are stand alone, stand alone, and stand alone.
 

Dreity

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
1,031
Reaction score
180
Location
Upstate NY
I see more Trilogies in SFF.


But, as long as the story tells for, that is how long the novels should be.

Trilogies are kinda attractive because you can have a opening, a middle and a end.

If we're talking about numbers, what about a 120 book series? All written by the same author too!
Lets see if any of you can guess it.

My first thought was Guin Saga, but Wiki says that it's 130 books long.
 

Coco82

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
393
Reaction score
11
Location
Olympia, WA
The Chronicles of Narnia were 7 books also and GRRM's A Song of Ice & Fire while intended originally as a trilogy have stretched to 5 books books so far w/at least 2 more on the way. James Ellroy did his LA Quartet as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.