Discussion posts are some of my favourite posts to read. New ideas get shared that way, or old ideas are revisited and given a new spin. And of course, I get to be my opinionated self as I hoist my views upon others, while pretending to be objective. Or maybe not. I do welcome alternate views and I’d love to hear from you in the comments!
Recently my sister has taken to whining about how annoying she finds love triangles and how they are in almost every book she’s come across lately. Not only that but they practically always involve a girl and two guys. Probably because the girl tends to be the main character. Her rants didn’t stop there. She lamented that all these female main characters alway present themselves as tough and strong, yet underneath they have all these weaknesses that they refuse to show. Her main gripe in it all were those pesky love triangles. When well-written, they don’t bother me as much but she left a whole stack of library books on my desk, proclaiming they’ll all be the same anyway.
Since nothing’s worse for a book worm than have no book to read, I directed her to my bookshelf and told her to pick Divergent. She did. And boy did she get hooked. When she was done, she immediately picked up Insurgent. She also asked me why on earth I hadn’t read Allegiant yet. I told her it only came out end of October, and arrived in November, shortly before my exams. She made me promise to read it this weekend, so that when she’s back home on Monday, she can read it too. If I buy a book, I basically insist that I must be the first one to read it. This means that if I don’t read Allegiant this weekend, she might just end up disregarding my rule.
When I realised that she had immediately continued with the second book of the series, I teased her about it. She just said if you think about it, it’s just one really thick book. In a way, I gotta agree with her. On second thought, I wondered if they’re just a really thick book, then what on earth is the point of book trilogies? I tried to answer this for myself from a reader’s perspective. I’m sure there’s a lot more to be said but here are the points that I could come up with.
- Waiting a year for the next book , and then the next again is agonizing.
- I find it next to impossible to remember all the details from the previous book.
- Cliffhangers totally drive me up the wall. I want to know what happens next now.
- Sometimes stories get unnecessarily prolonged that way.
- It’s easy to lose patience waiting, and so just give up on the sequels altogether.
- For those who only read completed trilogies, there is more to read.
- Three medium thick books are a lot less daunting than one ultra fat book.
- I suppose authors have more time to develop the plot and characters, so the books probably turn out better than they otherwise might.
- If you like the first book in a trilogy, picking up your next book to read is pretty much a no-brainer. The second book in the trilogy, duh. And then the third.
- There’s more time to get to know the characters.
- They look pretty together on a bookshelf! Ok, not a good reason on the reading front but still, I see books as part decoration too.
I don’t get why it has to be constrained in a trilogy. Like, wouldn’t it be better to just let the series play out, so that the whole thing is actually developed? I would like to see a nice series that isn’t actually set in a trilogy. A duology is nice, and trilogies aren’t bad. But usually, the thing with trilogies is that the last book is usually a failure. And sometimes, the first book can be so awesome, but the second book isn’t (like Divergent and Insurgent).
Another bad thing about trilogies is that you already know what to expect when there’s a premise of a rebellion. Book 1 introduces the problem, in 2 they go prepare, and they actually rebel in the last book.
I think you just came up with the shortest summary of dystopian trilogies! Haha. And that aptly demonstrates your point. So yes, time to look for series that extend beyond three books.
For the author/publisher to make more money?
Yeah, cynical answer. I know it is the better way to tell some stories, but when almost every big new book is the start of a trilogy, it gets really old. It’s like the authors are thinking, “I want to write a trilogy,” instead of, “I want to tell this story… what’s the best way to do it?” I’d like to see more series of 2 (by that I mean a planned set of two, not a stand-alone book that later gets a sequel) or 4 or 5 books instead of always defaulting to 3.
That was the first thing that came to mind too! Then I considered what’s in it for us readers.
I’ve come across more duologies lately. But yeah, 4 or 5 book-series would mix things up a little. Doesn’t remove the problem of forgetting what happened though…
True, but I think I’d still appreciate the variety.
(And I usually wait until a whole series is out and then read it all at once, just to avoid that problem, plus not wanting to wait to find out what happens.)
I can never decide when it comes to trilogy. I like the concept of characters being able to develop with more time getting to know them and the story furthering. I also like that it isn’t one mammoth sized book that I’m reading. However, I am rather forgetful and I tend to have to reread a the previous book before moving on to the next which can be a pain sometimes. I don’t know… I’m up in the air with this one.
Bits & Bobs
I’m totally with you and divided! I can’t entirely make up my mind but I’ve come to find a comfortable spot in reading trilogies just before or when that are completed, so I can read one book after the other. But that also means that when everyone’s raving about this one new books which also is the first book in a trilogy, I’m usually left in the dust. It’s a conundrum, really.