Where Trilogies Go Wrong

Let me begin by admitting that I am biased against trilogies. I don’t trust them. The idea of a trilogy is pretty cool – what could be better than three whole books about characters, worlds, and adventures we love? Sometimes a sequel just isn’t enough.

And yet.

Have you ever read an amazing book, and then rushed out to find it was not stand-alone, but part of a trilogy? Have you then bought book two and found it…disappointing? And book three. Don’t get me started about book three. I can’t count the times I have clung to the hope that somehow, miraculously, the author will pull themselves together long enough to end their trilogy with a bang. Rarely, this happens. Sometimes book three will soar above the faults of book two, and make me a believer in that trilogy forever and ever.

But usually? Usually book three is a flop. It’s a slaughterhouse of the story I had once loved. It spirals down into chaos, leaving me cheated, saddened, and wearily glad that it’s all over. Then there come rumors. Hints of book four. By that point, I have given up, and I refuse to be sucked in again.

Let me list some common foibles of trilogies:

Killing main characters. Especially if the death lacked meaning, a compelling motive, or could have easily been avoided.

Resurrecting characters. Especially antagonist and those annoying sub-characters.

Different main characters from book to book. This works okay with sagas or epics, but many people find it frustrating when falling in love with one character, and then being forced to read about someone new.  

Subsequent books where heroes and villains become undistinguishable. It’s fine to stretch your characters, making the villain struggle to be good, making the hero struggle to not be bad. However, too much flip-flopping can make the story unreliable. Once that happens there’s no reason to keep reading.

Second or third books that have no story of their own. This can come in many forms: when book 2 acts as a transition to book 3, with no concrete storyline or ending, of it’s own; when book 2 follows the basic plot of book 1; when book 2 spends most of it’s wordcount switching out old characters for new ones, etc. Sometimes books 1 and 2 are great, but book 3 simply rehashes the plot of the first two.

Lack of trilogy-arc. Like an individual novel, a trilogy needs it’s own story arc, especially when it comes to the trilogy’s villains. The trilogy should gain purpose as it goes along, and one particular villain should grow more powerful, staying undefeated until the end of book three. This is what keeps a trilogy interesting.

Trilogies that are left unfinished, or trilogies that turn into a quartet. This is always upsetting. It messes with the natural arc of a trilogy, leaving readers unsettled or unsatisfied.

Books that depart from the vibe or style of previous books. People read a trilogy for more of what they know, just better. Changing the tone of a trilogy midway wreaks havoc on the story.

Many things can make a trilogy go south. Usually it’s some combination of craft, publisher demands, and the author themselves. Let’s talk about some of these contributing factors:

 

Sealed Deal Laziness. This is what happens to authors who feel themselves protected by a book deal or contract. They loosen up. Relax. The books are already bought and paid for, so the author doesn’t have to try as hard as they used to. The pressure is off. 

But another kind of pressure is on -

Publisher Pressure. It’s an undeniable fact that publishers are in a hurry to get their books, one-a-year being the optimum turnout per author.  This gives an added incentive for authors to remain lazy about their work. Or maybe they aren’t even lazy at all; maybe they simply don’t have the time. This can really cramp the creative process.

Deadlines have another affect as well –

The Sophomore Slump. This is a term for the newbie author that is used to spending years on a single book, and once published, is suddenly faced with the demand of deadlines. This is a very real struggle. It can result in strained work, storylines and plots that haven’t been fleshed out, flat writing, etc. 

Miscellaneous. There are other factors, such as characters that can’t carry a trilogy arc; or peer pressure from publishers to keep writing more books on a used-up storyline, to capitalize on previous efforts; or an author fumbling in mid-career, who’s books get dropped before the trilogy ends. All this can affect the quality of a trilogy.

 

I will add a caveat. The quality of a book or trilogy is subjective. It depends on the reader’s taste, the amount they can suspend their disbelief, their tolerance for mistakes, and their desire for excellence. Trilogies I found fault with – Phillip Pullman’s His Dark Materials; Corneila Funke’s Inkeart Trilogy – others have enjoyed.

People read sequels, trilogies, and series because the first novel captivated them. They are hungry for more of what made the first book so special. And the sad thing is, so many of those things I mentioned are easily avoidable. A good book is a good book. Any one novel should stand on it’s own merit, regardless of whether it’s part of a trilogy or not.

 

 

-Creative A 

A New Take on Writing for the Market

Writing for the market is a concept I’ve avoided until now, partly because I believe it’s a useless argument. Writing for the audience, or market, is very very hard. You have to spot a trend before it gets popular. Then you have to write a novel. You had to edit it, submit it, get accepted by an agent, and then get bought by a publisher. All before the trendwave crests and begins it’s descent.

Time isn’t your only problem. There’s the soulnessness of trendsurfing (if I can call it that.) You would need to be inspired to write the particular kind of story, right as it starts to get popular. The chances of that are nill. Most trendsurfers don’t have the luxury of inspiration. And if you’re not inspired, the story is bound to drag. This is one unavoidable rule of writing. A story may have all the potential in the world, but if you aren’t passionate about it, no one else will be either.

Trendsurfing has it’s benefits. If you decided to write vampire books a few months before the Stephanie-Meyer/paranormal craze hit, you would have made it huge. You could have written a series of paranormals. You could have launched your career. Hit the right trend, at the right time, and you could be set for years. Trendsurfing is like riding the stock market, I think, except harder, because analyzing the economy is much different than trying to analyze personal taste and mood.

Now lets swing to the other side of the pendulum: writing for self.

Writing for yourself is widely encouraged. If you write what inspires you, the story is infused with passion. Such honesty connects with readers. A story that you love has a drive behind it, a kind of unstoppable force that compels people to read. Editors love this in a novel: honesty, passionate rendering, drive.

But it does have it’s downs. Following your heart may mean writing something no one will read, no matter how passionate it is. Sometimes a story can get too real. Too edgy. The topic may be more than a mainstream audience can handle. No audience, no market. No market, no contract.  

The whole debate is actually similar to the literary vs genre issue. When you start saying that –

writing for the market = commercial = bad, and

writing for self = art = good,

 –  it’s not about craft anymore. It’s about your ego. And this is the point where I usually take a deep breathe, turn around, and walk the other way. These kinds of debates aren’t worth it.

But today I read P&W’s newest interview with the four upcoming literary agents, and I have to say, it threw me off some. One part of the interview goes like this:

ZUCKERBROT: I have an officemate who has this wonderful nonfiction writer who…picked some subject matter that was so obscure. The agent said, "Who is the audience for this?" The writer explained that he or she was really passionate about it. The agent said, "But who's supposed to read this? You may be passionate about it—"


BARER: But you do want people to buy the book.


ZUCKERBROT: Right. It's not that you have to write for your audience. But you have to keep your audience in mind.” (from page 2 of the interview)

That really struck a chord with me. All this time I’ve been slaving under the belief that I should write what I love, just write it, and worry about marketability later. So I have. In particular, this came into play with my latest novel, Shatterbox. It’s been a strange premise from the beginning. In the back of my mind, I worried about who would want to read it. Who was my audience?

But I always knew Shatterbox had potential – maybe even lots of potential – which was enough of an excuse for me to avoid thinking about my audience. I told myself I could worry about it later. Unsympathetic protagonist? Worry about it later. Was I the only person in the world who liked this story? Worry about it later.

I wasn’t just writing my story, anymore. I was ignoring my audience altogether.

This is where we have to be careful. Often, we swing from one side of the pendulum to the other. There’s a middle ground. Write what you love, but keep your audience in mind. Watch the market, but make sure you retain your passion.

My question for you guys is, what if you can't find that middle ground? Should you stick with your story, or move on? 

 

- Creative A

Mentioning Your Age in a Query

It’s hard enough being an aspiring novelist, but when you’re an aspiring teen novelist, there’s a whole extra set of rules and obstacles you have to overcome. Especially in publication. People like to set examples of other teen writer’s who’ve done well, such as Christopher Paolini, but those are just like any other Cinderella story. It can happen. Just don’t expect it to happen to you. 

One thing teen writers struggle with, especially when trying to get published, is their age. Should you mention it? Should you hint at it? What if you’re seventeen or eighteen. Should you still tell? If you plan to tell, when is most appropriate? Is the query too soon? Is the full manuscript too late?

First, realize that agents and editors don’t like to be tricked. You don’t want to hide your age. If an agent did sign you, there could be wrinkles later when they took your picture for the book jacket, or even when you signed the legal papers, and needed to add your parents to the deal. Professionalism and responsibility are highly regarded in this business – blow the agent’s trust, and you may even loose the deal.

This goes for mysteriousness, too. An agent wants to do their job; they don’t need you dropping little hints about yourself, acting all coy, or promising to tell more later on. That’s just foolish. It won’t get you anywhere but rejected.

A comeback argument is that if you talk about your age, it might be a turn-off. This is true. If you start your bio with, “I’m a thirteen year-old student at Kempton High…” that’s going to be a bit of a shock. And the longer into the process you wait, the worse the shock gets.

But despite all the Cinderella stories, there are teens who have gotten published.  No one is going to reject you just because you’re a minor.

So now that we’ve discussed the moral of the question, let’s talk about what you should do.

The 18 or older rule.

There’s a basic standard when it comes to mentioning your age. If you’re 18 or older, pass. If you’re under 18, you should tell. The reason for this cutoff is mostly legal: 18-year-olds aren’t minors anymore. An agent won’t have to worry about getting the parents to sign paperwork, or about consulting them when the big decisions are being made.

So even if you’re turning eighteen in two months, you need to tell. Or wait two months first, your choice. 

The query vs. the cover letter.

So if you’re under eighteen, you still need to know when it’s appropriate to mention your age. Some say, go ahead, mention it in your query. Others say to wait until an agent asks for a partial; then mention it in the accompanying cover letter

Mentioning your age in the query has benefits. It’s upfront and honest, even if the age itself was a drawback. But I personally believe it’s forward – at the querying stage, there are no expectations between you and the agent. There is no relationship. Your query is a business proposal and nothing more; you are not obligated to tell them your age, because it will have no effect on this part of the transaction. Doing so assumes the agent is interested.

However. Once an agent does show interest, you’ve formed the stepping stones of a relationship. At this point it’s your duty to warn the agent about anything that could effect the process. Your age has legal implications: it’s something the agent deserves to know.

So. Mention your age in the cover letter.

Stating it appropriately.  

When mentioning your age, you don’t want to drop a bomb. You don’t want to sound coy either, like this is a secret you’ve just now chosen to reveal. You don’t want to make a big deal out of your age, and you certainly don’t want to sound childish.

What you want is to sound respectful, professional, and mature. State it as a fact and move on. As to where you put it, I would suggest just above your closing, or right next to where you usually mention the SASE and requested materials.

Whatever you do, don’t add it as a P.S.

 

- Creative A

--------------------------------

Similar Posts:

Teen Writers

How to Write a Query Letter 

Introducing SuperAuthor

The publishing industry isn’t what it used to be. To hear people talk, you’d think that to survive two seconds you need to be SuperAuthor – writing a debut bestseller, promoting it voraciously, and continuing to write one or more bestsellers every year. 

It's like you can’t just write novels anymore. You have to produce. Whenever a standalone does well, someone is going to push for a sequel. Whenever a trilogy does well, someone turns it into a saga – often with destructive results. (I’m thinking of the Uglies and Twilight sagas, here.)

In the January issue of The Writer magazine, I read an article about how “authors face pressure to commit to one-book-a-year schedule.” It seems that some authors are resisting the trend. And others, like James Patterson, are embracing it. I think it’s debatable whether Patterson is even writing his own books anymore. According to the Writer article, Patterson “develops the ideas for his novels, then asks his co-writers to fill in the story and turn in a full-length manuscript.” The article goes on to say that Patterson does a detailed review of the manuscript, making any changes needed for it to read like a James Patterson novel.

I’m sorry. What? Ghostwriting isn’t a new concept, and one most writers seem comfortable with up to a point, but I think this is taking it to a whole new level.

What worries me is the effect this is having on the quality of books, and the effect it is having on the writing process itself. And there is an effect. Writers a burning out. The qualities of series are degrading, while the quantity of series goes up. I heard it suggested that Stephanie Meyer’s last book in the Twilight Saga, Breaking Dawn, was a flop because she was simultaneously working on The Host. 

I honestly don’t blame her. This is a hard thing we do. It’s not to be taken lightly, not to be rushed, and not to be made “productive.” Because you can’t force art. If you try, then it stops being art, and it becomes something else to consume.

We’re told to write what we love. Write what we want to read. But when nine-year-olds publish their debuts, celebrities are paid a 2.5 million dollar advance for their ghostwritten memoir, and just about every other non-writer in the universe is getting published - it’s easy to loose hope, or try writing for the market, or shove down your real story because you fear it won’t sell.

In an ideal world, writers would have time to make each book a really good book. Good books would be recognized on merit alone. Publishers would give each author a running chance, space on bookshelves would be equal, and big publishing houses would promote all their titles instead of a choice few.

But of course it’s not perfect. Publishing is a business, and now, even the act of writing has been made into a business. I think it’s important to face the reality of that. I don’t agree with it, and I don’t think I ever will, but it is what it is. Who knows? Once I’m published and struggling to stay that way, maybe I’ll feel different about it all.

Maybe.

 

- Creative A

On a complete side note, I'm revamping my links lists to get rid of the "tags" and replace it with a "most popular posts" list, to make it easier on the eyes. Any particular posts you guys would like me to immortalize? 

------------------------------