Writing a trilogy

Each book should be self-contained so that it can stand alone without the others. You can follow the three-act structure in each book, but it's best to have them end separately without too much of a cliffhanger.

spiralus said:

That's kind of what I was thinking but wasn't sure. Does it ever work the other way do you think, or does it put readers off?

Click to expand...

Does it ever work? Ummm, this will sound saracastic but have you ever heard of Tolkien? Lord of the Rings is basically one continuous story told in three volumes. In fact, it was written as one book and then broken up into volumes by his publisher. Readers would have likely been put off had the huge single volume Tolkien wanted published was put to market, but LoTR has always been fairly popular since it was first published. If I remember right it is called a serial, meaning a single story told in more than one book.

Serials are different from a series like say Harry Potter, in which Harry solves an overarching problem as well as the problems unique to each book in the series. Serials deal solely with an overall problem if I'm not remembering wrong. But yes, they can work. And there has been other serialized books since LoTR was first published. They aren't as poplar now though, so I would be careful.

whether LOTR would have gotten a day in the sun today, particularly had Tolkien been a debut author, may be another matter entirely......

quicklime said:

whether LOTR would have gotten a day in the sun today, particularly had Tolkien been a debut author, may be another matter entirely......

Click to expand...

I'm thoroughly convinced it would have been too chunky for today's market. It does include a lot of backstory and isn't as lean as modern readers expect. There's also the length, in total, and this is without the apendixs my 50th aniversary edition is 1031 pages in length. Which translates into 473K word in length. Add to the fact serials aren't as popular as they were in the 19th and first half of the 20th century, it is unlikely it would have seen the light of day.

spiralus said:

Lol! Yes and Tolkien popped straight into my head as soon as I posted lol!

I was wondering really if its a commonly used method by authors but I'm guessing it not in general. Thanks for the input

Click to expand...

Nope, not as popular anymore. Lot's of people prefer a series to be an actual series. Which may be a problem for my own Epic/High Fantasy book. The story is going to be too expansive for just one volume, and if anyone ever takes it on will likely be a serialized book. I'm hand drafting though, so I hope that by the time the actual thing is ready for market serials may have made a come back.

BenPanced said:

Each book should be self-contained so that it can stand alone without the others. You can follow the three-act structure in each book, but it's best to have them end separately without too much of a cliffhanger.

Click to expand...

Not if it's a true trilogy. This means one story, three books.

Can somebody -please- fix the typo in the thread subject? It's doing my blood pressure no good at all.

spiralus said:

Hi All

I'm very new to this writing lark so forgive me if the following is a dumb question.

I'm looking at writing an romantic/erotic story. I am wondering if the scope is too big for one novel and whether it would better fit into a trilogy. If so, when structuring the story into three "Acts" , should each book cover an act or should each book be three acts as per normal story structuring? Hope this makes sense.

Cheers
Spiralus

Click to expand...

And I'm wondering how a romantic/erotic story can be long enough to require three books. In any event, and IMHO, make them stand alones. I, and many others, detest cliff hangers - UNLESS warned ahead of time.

I've come across a lot of advice saying debut authors should make sure their first book stands alone, even if it is part of a trilogy, series, what-have-you. It's probably good advice, but it grates when you want to develop a three-book story arc.

If you look at many of the books in trilogies today, often the first book does stand alone, the second book much less so, and the third book winds up the story rather than having its own story.

But, honestly? Your book probably doesn't need to be a trilogy.

Lillith1991 said:

Does it ever work? Ummm, this will sound saracastic but have you ever heard of Tolkien? Lord of the Rings is basically one continuous story told in three volumes. In fact, it was written as one book and then broken up into volumes by his publisher. Readers would have likely been put off had the huge single volume Tolkien wanted published was put to market, but LoTR has always been fairly popular since it was first published.

Click to expand...

Tolkien's work is an anomaly, in many ways, not least of which is just what you describe: It was a single story, broken at publisher's insistence into three separately-titled volumes. Which happened well over half-a-century ago.

That's not something that happens much, if ever, nowadays. Readers generally do expect some satisfactory level of story resolution as they turn the final page of a volume, even when it is clear there will be further episodes in a trilogy or longer series.

caw

Sometimes I wish Jonathan Strange had been split, too. My poor hands!

spiralus said:

Hi All

I'm very new to this writing lark so forgive me if the following is a dumb question.

I'm looking at writing an romantic/erotic story. I am wondering if the scope is too big for one novel and whether it would better fit into a trilogy. If so, when structuring the story into three "Acts" , should each book cover an act or should each book be three acts as per normal story structuring? Hope this makes sense.

Cheers
Spiralus

Click to expand...

I think whether it works better as a trilogy depends on the story itself. If you have enough story to span three books, it could work. If not, just because you use the three act structure doesn't mean you have to write three books (although it can be easier).

The key I think is to have an overarching structure that spans the three proposed books, and then you can work within that large plot to come up with the individual plots for each of the books. That way, you'll know what plot points you need to reach with each book in order to conclude the trilogy and not end up with an uneven narrative.

blacbird said:

Tolkien's work is an anomaly, in many ways, not least of which is just what you describe: It was a single story, broken at publisher's insistence into three separately-titled volumes. Which happened well over half-a-century ago.

That's not something that happens much, if ever, nowadays. Readers generally do expect some satisfactory level of story resolution as they turn the final page of a volume, even when it is clear there will be further episodes in a trilogy or longer series.

caw

Click to expand...

That's just not true. It happens multiple times each and every year. Tolkien was not an anomaly, he was, and is, the rule.

It sounds like you read, very, very few trilogies.

Buffysquirrel said:

I've come across a lot of advice saying debut authors should make sure their first book stands alone, even if it is part of a trilogy, series, what-have-you. It's probably good advice, but it grates when you want to develop a three-book story arc.

If you look at many of the books in trilogies today, often the first book does stand alone, the second book much less so, and the third book winds up the story rather than having its own story.

But, honestly? Your book probably doesn't need to be a trilogy.

Click to expand...

First book, yes. Second book, no. And even the first book has to be more trilogy than standalone.

Tolkien did not invent trilogies that had one story and three books. He came very, very late to the party. Decades and decades late. Nor are true trilogies at all rare today. They are, in fact, extremely common.

It is true that a new writers first novel should standalone. At least, reasonably so. This is not because publishers don't want true trilogies. They most certainly do. It because if that first book flops, it means they don't have to release two more flops.

Proven writers still write old fashioned, no book stands alone trilogies, and so do a few brand new writers who somehow didn't get the memo about having a first book standalone.

Jamesaritchie said:

Tolkien did not invent trilogies that had one story and three books. He came very, very late to the party. Decades and decades late.

Click to expand...

More like millennia, actually

Publishers definitely want trilogies and series potential these days - it's more the norm than the exception to get multiple book deals in certain genres now. When my agent subbed my WIP to an editor, his first question was 'Does she intend to write more books in this setting?'

But I would think hard about what your book is, and how long it needs to be, before you make a decision like that. Being a very long story is not the same as being a trilogy. It could very well just be a bloated normal length story that needs editing

spiralus said:

If so, when structuring the story into three "Acts" , should each book cover an act or should each book be three acts as per normal story structuring?

Click to expand...

Personally, in my trilogy, I'm trying to go for a fractal structure where each of the books is an act in an overarching three act structure, but the plotline of each individual books also follows a 3 act structure, if that makes any sense.

It's working out quite well for me, at least in outline. But then again, I'm unpubbed so treat whatever I say with a couple handfuls of salt.

spiralus said:

I'm looking at writing an romantic/erotic story.

Click to expand...

At this point in the discussion I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't overthinking this. "Looking at writing" isn't writing. Actual writing generates its own momentum and characteristics that may alter and shape your ideas as you go in ways you can't anticipate. So I hereby recommend you stop looking at writing and pondering about planning and just begin writing your story.

caw

Hello,

I, too, am very new to writing – and also new on AW.

Since I have finished very little work, and what I have completed was pretty meh, you should probably take this with a massive grain of salt, but I think other posters who suggest you look at your material to see whether it really is worthy of a trilogy is good advice.

I produced an outline of a novel that I could see stretching over three books – man that puppy was long – until I realised that a lot of the scenes I had envisioned did not earn their corn and needed to go. One could argue the novel needs to go, too, but I think I’ll plug away if only for the practice.

Blacbird is probably right that you need to get stuck in and see what you come up with.


Tidy

Jamesaritchie said:

That's just not true. It happens multiple times each and every year. Tolkien was not an anomaly, he was, and is, the rule.

It sounds like you read, very, very few trilogies.

Click to expand...

Tolkien is hardly The Standard I use when I measure up a trilogy. For starters, I find his work dull, bloated, and a horrible slog to get through. I tried reading both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and about the best I can say about those is I really enjoyed The Father Christmas Letters.