YA Trilogy trend

Raven Boys is a quadrilogy? I did not know that! Torn because yeeeessss more to read! But noooooo longer to find out what happens in the end!!!

While some trilogies are great, I can't help but notice that the books sometimes decline in quality as the story goes on. I suppose this is because authors often have a couple of good books in mind, but the publisher wants to stretch them out? Allegiant in the Divergent series was particularly disjointed and disappointing. So if 'duologies' are coming into vogue, it might be good!

Click to expand...

I felt the same way about Allegiant. It just kind of wandered over the page looking for an ending.

I think my current will be a duology. I meant for it to be a standalone, but I apparently haven't gotten the hang of guessing how long a book will take. Still, I don't see how the second half could possibly take two more books to tell. So, duology.


I think that it's probably good to keep publishing in mind, but not to let it rule your writing. I like trilogies, but I don't think they should be forced, either way. If it only needs two, write two. If it needs four, don't try to squeeze the last half into one book. My thoughts.

While publishers prodding their authors into writing trilogies, I would be really surprised if it really happens more often than authors deciding it for themselves. There's a couple of complicating factors here, too--sometimes authors write the first book, then realize there's potential for further books; sometimes authors want to write series, but have to make sure the first book stands alone in order to have a better chance of getting agent interest. And I also know of several books that the authors planned as first in a series, but since the sales weren't good enough, the publisher didn't pick up the sequels.

I don't personally think it's that easy to tell. Sometimes sequels just suck regardless of whether they were originally planned, or vice versa.

I've had a couple of potential trilogies or series in the works. None sold yet, but I'd be really interested in pursuing that some day. It does seem to be harder these days though--people are tired of trilogies and there have been so many failed ones that I think publishers are very careful about committing for that long. It's much safer to wait for sales numbers.

Pretty much every idea I have is a series of some length. I'm not sure I know how to write something that completely stands alone. I can write first books that stand alone well enough, but they are still the first in a series.

ViviEve said:

I'm curious about the percentage of authors that actually plan out their books with a trilogy--or beyond--in mind. More often, it's probably the publishers that end up prodding them into it, but... hmm. Anyone know of any writer in particular that has confirmed being part of the former?

I, on the other hand, specifically wrote my current series with the full intention of turning it into a trilogy. (I'm a plotter, not a panster. ) Is it possible for readers to tell in most cases, or are certain things (like a decline in quality, for example) a dead giveaway of a forced extension?

Click to expand...

With regards to your question Vivi, i really do think some authors do know before hand that they are writing a series. Take Divergent for example, with the way Veronica Roth ended the book, it was obvious that even though it was a completed story, there were still certain elements that she left unexplored that would make for a series potential.
My current WIP right now is a sci-fi/dystopian-esque story, and i'm thinking of writing a trilogy with it. Even though i definitely plan to have a completed storyline by the end of the book, there are still some plots that i know can make for a great story in the second and third book.

I don't think there's anything wrong with trilogies. I think story structure in general lends itself to trilogies. Stories have three acts (usually), as does the hero journey (in most iterations) which a lot of fiction follows.

ViviEve said:

I'm curious about the percentage of authors that actually plan out their books with a trilogy--or beyond--in mind. More often, it's probably the publishers that end up prodding them into it, but... hmm. Anyone know of any writer in particular that has confirmed being part of the former?

Click to expand...

The Moorehawe Trilogy was plotted and planned in advance as a three part story (The break-point between book one and two was my decision. In the original MS I had chosen a different break point between books two and three. The publishers felt this was the wrong place to end book two, though, and we moved the break to a different part of the book. (this is one of the reasons why book three is a touch shorter than book two))

Re the OP. From my experience, publishers aren't too interested in trilogies or series from new writers. It's best to make the first book a strong stand alone ( so, a strong conclusive emotional arc, a satisfying end to a particular plot thread, or some such thing)

I planned mine as a trilogy from the beginning.

I personally love trilogies as long as there is a concluded arc AND a continuing arc in each book. THE HUNGER GAMES is a great example. It was obvious that there were two arcs: Katniss' personal arc in the actual Games and the arc of the imminent rebellion that is out of her control. What was in her control was resolved, while the rebellion happened anyway. That is what I consider to be a satisfying end to a book in a trilogy.

DIVERGENT did not do this for me. Each ending felt discombobulated, and I believe this is because Roth focused so much on Tris' little love affair in the first book and not enough on the macro-level problem that carries the story through more than one book. I feel like each book should have brought conclusion to an inner battle in Tris, and the conspiracy should have bridged to the next book. Instead both arcs were left open and unresolved, which made it an unsatisfying read for me. I think the last book REALLY suffered from Roth's lack of attention to the dystopian conspiracy in the first book. The series felt poorly weighted, like the first book was all smoochy-smoochy love and the last two (especially the third) were playing catch-up, trying to sell us a near-unbelievable premise without having used the first book to slowly build up our ability to suspend disbelief. I mean, seriously, a murder gene? When nothing related to that level of science has been hinted at? People secretly observing a city that is really an experiment? With next to no foreshadowing that the entire world wasn't just like Tris' city? A random ass experiment with the lives of human beings with no setup as to why a government would believably do that? In agent Donald Maass' books on writing, he talks about all the work that goes into selling people on theories like this, and Roth just didn't do it for me while Collins absolutely did.

My WIP is the first in a trilogy, but it has a self-contained story. The two protagonists are very opposite girls on two paths that are set up from the beginning as two trains on a collision course. Both have their own (subtly intertwined) arcs that converge in the third act. In the first book, the girls have a coming of age story as the antagonists make careful plans to set up a civil war and each protagonist is unknowingly manipulated to be involved. (They come of age as they both start out on paths completely unlike them, then realize the reality of the world when they find out they've been duped by people they trusted.). The book ends with the girls' coming of age arcs being resolved, but the war starting anyway. So you have the self-contained arcs of the girls coming to a resolution, but the antagonists still succeed in setting off a war, which is where the next book picks up. Also, the girls' personal arcs are given a tinge of danger in the last two scenes (one is reunited with the love she's been looking for only to find out that the man who date raped her and slut-shamed her is her love's father, and the other is held captive by the boy she thought loved her who turned out to be an antagonist... so she is not in physical danger--as he has plans for her and still cares for her to some extent--but she has been betrayed.)

thejamesramos said:

I don't think there's anything wrong with trilogies. I think story structure in general lends itself to trilogies. Stories have three acts (usually), as does the hero journey (in most iterations) which a lot of fiction follows.

Click to expand...

This. I won't go so far as to say we're conditioned to think in three acts, but it comes naturally. It gives the writer plenty of room to write and develop a story, and new writers can have trouble fitting a convincing story arc into one book.

I planned mine to be a trilogy. There's too much going on for it to be one book. I've even had to take out half of the events from the first book and ditch them because there'd be too much going on otherwise.

Interesting stuff here.

My current WIP is a trilogy, with the potential for a novella and a fourth novel. Right now, I'm branding it as a stand-alone with series potential, but I feel like there's a lot more to the story and the idea than the first book tells alone.

I've never had an issue with trilogies. That said, I still haven't read Allegiant, because I'm living in a state of perpetual denial.

It's interesting to note, though, that this project is my only trilogy in the pipe. I have a duology in mind (different pov characters), a couple stand-alones, and a jukebox musical. But this is the only trio.

rwm4768 said:

Pretty much every idea I have is a series of some length. I'm not sure I know how to write something that completely stands alone. I can write first books that stand alone well enough, but they are still the first in a series.

Click to expand...

This is how I think too, and as I'm plotting my SNI, it's been on my mind a lot. I'm pretty deep into world building for it (for me, not for people who invent fresh languages and the like), and the more I plot, the more I think "Even if I resolve the arc I want to resolve, no one can get from 0 to "save the island" in one book..."

I know no one wants to buy a series out the gate (practically no one, I'm sure one person does) but I'm pretty conflicted on overhauling the whole idea to wrap the world up in just one book. Cinder would be closest comparison to me - the character arc is completed, but she hasn't defeated the villain by the end of book one. I wonder if it was sold from the start as four books...

Jperez6 said:

This. I won't go so far as to say we're conditioned to think in three acts, but it comes naturally. It gives the writer plenty of room to write and develop a story, and new writers can have trouble fitting a convincing story arc into one book.

Click to expand...

I'm reading a great book, Into The Woods by John Yorke, and it breaks down storytelling. Quite a lot are 3 acts but the third act is broken around the midpoint, making it 5 acts. I looked at my latest WIP and I'd written it in 5 acts exactly without even noticing. Really fascinating.

My 'baby' is my trilogy. I tried making it a stand alone book but it just looked like I was trying to cop out of putting in more work. It had to be a series of three, there was too much to cut it down to anything less, but not enough to drag it out to anything more.

Sometimes a book just is and you can't do anything to change that.

On the other hand, I have another book that I planned as a standalone, but on the side I have drawn up short scenarios that could be pulled together to make a running plot across a series. Enough loose ends are tied up by the end of the book that people won't question it as a single piece, but there are a few subtle subplots that may leave some eagle eyed viewers wondering as to their significance that I can pull up later.