- This topic has 16 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Howdy folks,
As you may have heard, I got this weird idea into my head to write a fantasy novel. Now, as it turns out, I’m actually getting super excited about it and expect it will end up longer than my other books. Well, lucky me, I ended up hearing someone say that if you have a 150,000 word novel, you should split it up into three 50,000 word novels and I just stared at the screen in awe and then suddenly smacked my forehead. The thing is, of course, you can’t just split one book into three. The three books should stand on their own. So that raises the question: how does one plot a trilogy?
Now, I know a bit about this. The whole trilogy should have an overarching plot. Book 2 contains the midpoint. Each book should contain its own plot. I imagine that the overarching plot of the whole trilogy isn’t quite as strict as a one story plot, but I’m not sure. That’s about my level of knowledge.
So, has anyone out there wrote a trilogy before? Or are you writing a trilogy? Or have you thought a lot about trilogies (or series in general, I suppose) and do you have any advice?
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
- Rank: Eccentric Mentor
- Total Posts: 1486
@Daeus I’m writing a trilogy! Or trying to. I just finished reading K.M. Weiland’s explanation on outlining a series and it’s really helpful, if you haven’t already read it.
I’m guessing as I go along, but in my mind a trilogy goes something like this; A trilogy isn’t necessarily a strict plot broken into three books; rather, a general, overarching goal is pursued by the MC through the multiple plots of your three books. Depending on the scope of your conflict, the goal is generally to stop a bad guy from destroying, oppressing, corrupting, or controlling the world (i.e. the Inheritance series, the Wingfeather saga, the Darkwater saga). Throughout the books more and more of the evil bad guy’s plan is revealed. His plans are countered as they are discovered in the first and second books, until his ultimate goal is in sight and your protagonist is in the right spot to defeat him once and for all in the third, just before (or after) the bad guy reaches his goal.I’m writing a trilogy, but I’m breaking all the “rules,” I guess. The books change point of view and main characters, though the same people are in each book. I got this random idea to make a trilogy where it doesn’t matter where you start, and it still makes sense. So yeah. But there is one bad guy, and the protagonists try to defeat him in every book, so that’s the same.
I agree with @winter-rose, she summed up what I would say better than I could. 😛
The big thing with trilogies is the middle book. I’ve read a lot (a LOT) of trilogies that have a middle that just connects the first and last book together. I rarely go back and reread middle trilogy books. So that’s one thing I would look out for. Make the second book interesting.
Weeeell it depends on your definition of it, right? I mean there’s like LOTR where it kind of seems like one long book, right? I mean the transitions between book to book almost seem like chapter endings. And didn’t JRRT mean for it to be six books? So in that case a trilogy can just be one long book.
And then there’re more modern books like Hunger Games. That’s literally three books. They all have their one separate storylines. They could almost be standalones except for the fact that the author relies on knowledge of the previous book (to avoid long explanations). But the trilogy reads like one long story.
And then there are trilogies (or series of books) that have nothing in common except for the main character (think any legal thriller), villain (Terminator movies), or story world (uuhh. I can’t think of any off the top of my head. But I know they exist :)).
So I’d like to think of a series as just a bunch of books with common elements. I know this isn’t what you’re looking for, but that’s just me. I support @winter-rose ‘s answer though. And @jess. You’re not breaking the rules with your series. Seriously. You’re not.
I blog on story and spiritual things at mkami.weebly.com
Thanks @mark-kamibaya @jess @winter-rose I have read Katie’s article, by the way. That’s what made me decide to study this further.
So, I guess I should provide some further information. This trilogy will be pretty LOTResque. I mean, it’s epic fantasy with a lot of travel and a basically comparable story goal. Actually, I know LOTR was originally published as one book and then later split up, so maybe I can simply write one long book with three parts. However, I’m not yet familiar enough with my book to know whether it might do better with three stand alone books — well, standalone in that they have a complete plot, though it wouldn’t make any sense for somebody to start in book 2 or 3.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
@daeus Oooh, this is exciting! I love the idea of trilogies. I’ve never written one, but I think it would be a fun idea!
I’ve read a couple of trilogies, though. The first example that comes to mind is, obviously, The Lord of the Rings. This trilogy has an ultimate goal that the main MCS are consistently working towards in every book. Namely, Frodo and Sam to destroy the One Ring. But there are lot of other little plots going on as well, that, ultimately, affect each other. Gandalf and the Balrog; Pippin and Merry getting captured by Uruk-hai and meeting Treebeard; Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli going after them and coming to Rohan. There’s a lot going on in the world around them, and its not solely focused on the one MC and the one goal.
Another trilogy I have read is a historical fiction series called The Eagle of the Ninth, set in Roman Britannia. Each book is actually set centuries apart, but it’s about the same family, the MCs have similar names, which is an interesting twist (There’s always one person named, or with a variant of the names, Marcus Flavious Aquila) There is a common item in each story as well, a signet ring, which ties it together in a way. They could be read perfectly well as separate, stand-alone books, or read all together – either way works.
As for writing a series in general, there’s lots of ways that could be done; with the same main characters and world, generally, each adventure could be completely separate, and you could read it in any order. Or, there could be one, long, drawn-out (and possibly complex) plot, where time goes by, information from one book could be critical to know in the next one, and different stories continue. Sometimes someone could read one book in a series like this and it would still make sense, but sometimes a series is very complex, and only if you had read book 1 could you understand what’s going on in book 5.
I haven’t had a lot of experience writing a series – I’d love to, I’m trying to 😉 I have read a lot of them, though, and different kinds. I’d be interested to know where you end up going with this idea! 😀
Currently reading Les Miserables
@Daeus I’d love to help with this one, I really would, BUT I’m actually in the same boat. I’ve got this thing I’m planning on writing once I finish my current book, but it’s so long that I’m not sure what to do with it. So this thread ought to be pretty beneficial. And I agree with what @Jess said about middle books. They’re usually really boring, probably because a lot of them fail to have a satisfying climax. Everything that happens is just filler. So…yeah. Food for thought. 🙂
INTJ ➸Your friendly neighborhood mastermind. ➸https://thesarcasticelf.wordpress.com/
So you have decided to split it up? Personally, I like long books (so I don’t come to the end so quickly 🙂 ) but I guess it makes sense to make a trilogy out of it. That probably makes it easier on marketing as well, because you can either give away the first book or make it cheaper to hook your reader into buying the other 2 books. I think what the others have said is the main thing: finding the balance between a satisfying stand-alone book, yet it fits together well with the rest of the trilogy.
Thanks, y’all. I’m thinking for my story I’m gonna have to write it mainly as one long story arc, but give each book a feeling of semi-completion.
@kate-flournoy @hope You two have thoughts on this, don’t you?🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
@Daeus *tears at hair and wails to the night sky* I’m in the middle of this too and everything is such a mess right now… *draws deep breath* *calms self down*
Ok, firstly, if your book is ‘only’ 150,000 words I see no reason it can’t be one book. Especially if you plan on self-publishing. Authors are able to get away with longer books in fantasy even in the traditionally published market. Don’t ask me why, but they can.
But… yes, a trilogy. I didn’t realize how complicated the arcs would be when I decided to write a trilogy. Actually, I didn’t know much about arcs at all. Structurally, a trilogy isn’t too hard. Have you read Structuring Your Novel by K. M. Weiland? I just finished it…very helpful. Anyhow, every book has its own structure and goals and plot points. But there is one over-arcing structure as well. Generally, the plot points will match up with book plot points. The first plot point of the trilogy will probably happen at/during/be the same event as the third plot point of the first book. The second plot point/midpoint will probably be the midpoint of the second book, etc.
It is the character arcs which can get really complicated. Well, at least mine are. You can have one arc which progresses through the whole book and if you do, it will probably match up with the plot points of your overall arc and be nice and easy. *scowls* Or, in a series, sometimes there is a positive arc in the first book and flat arcs after that. Depending on how connected the books are, this may or may not be a good idea. And, if you have an overarching theme, you can also have minor arcs in each book which compliment and build up to the main arc… So, yes. *sighs* Let me know what you figure out.
INTJ - Inhumane. No-feelings. Terrible. Judgment and doom on everyone.
if you have a 150,000 word novel, you should split it up into three 50,000 word novels
*stares at quote*
*turns bright green*
*screams*
Yah, we’re just gonna pretend we didn’t see that. 😛I actually don’t know all that much about trilogies, not having dealt with one myself, but the one piece of advice that’s coming to mind is make the middle book a book in its own right, not just buildup for the third. Each book should have its own conclusion/point/goal, even if they are open-ended, otherwise we feel like nothing’s happening and get bored.
I’ll let you know if I think of anything else…
@hope Anything helps. God bless.
But actually, that point that individual book plot points may sometimes line up with the overall plot points is very helpful.
@kate-flournoy 😀 You haven’t gone green in a while. And it’s funny because I can’t think of anything you might have read that would have caused it. It feels like I did, but now I don’t remember anymore. Actually though, that would be a bad move in your case, even if you could just snap your fingers and have it done. Eleven books is enough for a series. If you had fifty, it would deter people.🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
@daeus Wait, @kate-flournoy is already green. She’s a dragon, isn’t she? 😛
Okay, I actually like the idea of splitting one hugeongeous book into three mainly because then I feel like I’ve finished something when there’s still more to do. I would have finished something (reading your book) three times. I’ve read a book before, except I didn’t, that was too long. Was about two chapters in and put it down (it also had way too many info-dumps. I was bored to tears.) 😉☀ ☀ ☀ ENFP ☀ ☀ ☀
@dragon-snapper …You’re right… I’ll start calling her LGK from now on.
Yeah, short books are nice. I’m mainly doing it for marketing reasons though. And, hey! It’s very Tolkienesque.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
