On Writing Trilogies
A recent reviewer expressed frustration that I ended the second book of the Assured Destruction trilogy with a cliff-hanger. And I think different readers have different interpretations of the word, or perhaps different expectations of what makes a trilogy, and why cliff-hangers may be necessary, desireable even--to a degree.
Let me explain.
Trilogies are different from series. In a series the protagonist often doesn’t change. For an extreme case of this look at Jack Reacher from Lee Childs’ series. Jack’s the same guy in book 1 as he is in book 12. He doesn’t even age. If character arc was a requirement to a good story then Mr. Childs would be penniless, which I don’t think is the case! A series generally doesn’t have an overarching question either, a plot b behind plot a. The writer doesn’t know when the series will end, so it’s tough to know how to create the plot b arc. It’s why many TV writers are forcing stories on the networks that will end, so they can plan for it (like LOST). Otherwise you can only write a simple procedural or a sitcom in which some conflict is solved every episode like CSI (although most procedural type series will have season arcs if not show arcs).
Trilogies are tough, particularly book 2. In book 1 you get to introduce the reader to your world. In Assured Destruction, Janus has a network of computers she calls Shadownet, profiles lifted from the hard drives of discarded computers she should have destroyed. By learning about them, you learn a lot about Jan herself and the many sides of her. By book 2, readers know all about this, so I can’t use that as a crutch to keep them interested. I need to up the stakes without giving answers to the overarching story questions.
In Assured Destruction, the overarching mystery is: What happened to her father? Secondary to that is: What’s going on with the relationship with Peter, her mother’s boyfriend?
That’s the series arc, but each book has its own arc as do the characters.
On the topic of characters, the challenge with many trilogies is that some authors dole out all the character changes in book 1 without saving much for books 2 and 3. How much did Katniss change in Book 1 vs Book 2 and 3 combined? Sure she grows as a person but book 1 was transformative. What about Divergent? You have the all important training phase, right? Where the character goes from zero to hero? Readers love that! But you can’t keep doing it. Same is true of most fantasies in which the stable hand realizes he’s actually a wizard. How do you trump that? The answer is usually an escalation of conflict and obstacles that force the character to look deeper within themselves and grow in power.
In Assured Destruction, the challenges move from sleuthing out a harassing criminal in book 1, to helping a friend and stopping a murder, to defeating a gang and deciding what type of person she wants to be. This last is really Jan’s arc and she needs to do it while faced with the reality of who all the people in her life have become.
So, to satisfy the reader, you need a plot in each book that has a satisfying ending but leaves open questions. And you need your characters to have grown, but not so much you can’t transform them yet more. Conflict should escalate. Often the conflict goes from personal, to friends and family, to more macro. Take the Hunger Games again. It’s about surviving at first. Then it’s about starting a revolution.
What I find fascinating is that most readers prefer the small story, the surviving story, to that of the revolution. Keep that in mind when writing your second and third novels. Be sure to keep the story personal to your protagonist. I found Katniss to be dragged into the conflict rather than being active in creating it. Active protagonists are better.
A trilogy needs a beginning a middle and an end, just like a book does. I guess what I’m trying to say is, don’t be too hard on the author who leaves some questions you really, really want the answer to at the end of book 2. That’s their job! To keep you wanting to read on.
What’s your favorite trilogy? What made it work for you?
Let me explain.
Trilogies are different from series. In a series the protagonist often doesn’t change. For an extreme case of this look at Jack Reacher from Lee Childs’ series. Jack’s the same guy in book 1 as he is in book 12. He doesn’t even age. If character arc was a requirement to a good story then Mr. Childs would be penniless, which I don’t think is the case! A series generally doesn’t have an overarching question either, a plot b behind plot a. The writer doesn’t know when the series will end, so it’s tough to know how to create the plot b arc. It’s why many TV writers are forcing stories on the networks that will end, so they can plan for it (like LOST). Otherwise you can only write a simple procedural or a sitcom in which some conflict is solved every episode like CSI (although most procedural type series will have season arcs if not show arcs).
Trilogies are tough, particularly book 2. In book 1 you get to introduce the reader to your world. In Assured Destruction, Janus has a network of computers she calls Shadownet, profiles lifted from the hard drives of discarded computers she should have destroyed. By learning about them, you learn a lot about Jan herself and the many sides of her. By book 2, readers know all about this, so I can’t use that as a crutch to keep them interested. I need to up the stakes without giving answers to the overarching story questions.
In Assured Destruction, the overarching mystery is: What happened to her father? Secondary to that is: What’s going on with the relationship with Peter, her mother’s boyfriend?
That’s the series arc, but each book has its own arc as do the characters.
On the topic of characters, the challenge with many trilogies is that some authors dole out all the character changes in book 1 without saving much for books 2 and 3. How much did Katniss change in Book 1 vs Book 2 and 3 combined? Sure she grows as a person but book 1 was transformative. What about Divergent? You have the all important training phase, right? Where the character goes from zero to hero? Readers love that! But you can’t keep doing it. Same is true of most fantasies in which the stable hand realizes he’s actually a wizard. How do you trump that? The answer is usually an escalation of conflict and obstacles that force the character to look deeper within themselves and grow in power.
In Assured Destruction, the challenges move from sleuthing out a harassing criminal in book 1, to helping a friend and stopping a murder, to defeating a gang and deciding what type of person she wants to be. This last is really Jan’s arc and she needs to do it while faced with the reality of who all the people in her life have become.
So, to satisfy the reader, you need a plot in each book that has a satisfying ending but leaves open questions. And you need your characters to have grown, but not so much you can’t transform them yet more. Conflict should escalate. Often the conflict goes from personal, to friends and family, to more macro. Take the Hunger Games again. It’s about surviving at first. Then it’s about starting a revolution.
What I find fascinating is that most readers prefer the small story, the surviving story, to that of the revolution. Keep that in mind when writing your second and third novels. Be sure to keep the story personal to your protagonist. I found Katniss to be dragged into the conflict rather than being active in creating it. Active protagonists are better.
A trilogy needs a beginning a middle and an end, just like a book does. I guess what I’m trying to say is, don’t be too hard on the author who leaves some questions you really, really want the answer to at the end of book 2. That’s their job! To keep you wanting to read on.
What’s your favorite trilogy? What made it work for you?
No comments have been added yet.
