Trilogies are Essential (and Not Just For Profit)

by Gianna Vanore

Image via Tobias Rademacher on Unsplash

“Peeta, how come I never know when you’re having a nightmare?” I say.

“I don’t know. I don’t think I cry or thrash around or anything. I just come to, paralyzed with terror,” he says.

“You should wake me,” I say, thinking about how I can interrupt his sleep two or three times on a bad night. About how long it can take to calm me down.

“It’s not necessary. My nightmares are usually about losing you,” he says. “I’m okay once I realize you’re here.”
​
— Suzanne Collins, Catching Fire

This moment—one adored by millions of readers—in The Hunger Games trilogy is crucial, not only for the plot, but also for us to fall for Katniss and Peeta, to truly want them together. This moment is when we realized the extent of Peeta’s love for Katniss. This moment, a staple of this series, occurs in Catching Fire, the second book of The Hunger Games trilogy.

In Jordan Avery’s Op-Ed, “Trilogies Are Traps: Why Trilogies Are Bad For Storytelling,” she explains how trilogies have taken the literary market by storm, though she doesn’t see this as a good thing. Instead, she argues that the middle book (the “bridge” book, as she coins it) is unnecessary and stretches an otherwise good story too thin. She also claims that authors, instead of staying true to their craft, turn to the profit that comes from writing trilogies, even if it’s at the expense of their story.

​Upon reading this, I felt a moral obligation to be the Trilogy Defender, as there are numerous trilogies other than just the mainstream ones that successfully tell their story and require a trilogy to do it well.

​It’s easy to get into this mindset of thinking of the bridge book as pointless or better-off-without. However, to normalize this idea that trilogies as a whole fall into this “trap” instead of accepting them as special cases devalues the essential components often found in these middle books: the plot and character development, the world building, the preparation for the last book, and so much more. It also undermines the parts of the story that the authors themselves deemed necessary to set up the finale.

These bridge books aren’t fruitless. They are fundamental pieces to connect the story not only to each plot point, but to the audience as well. They aren’t always just something to push through to make it to the final book, nor are the characters usually falling flat while waiting for the end. Instead, they are important pieces of development so that things don’t feel rushed—the reader is going along with the story and the characters instead of being dragged along. Without a bridge, you sink. You drown. They are needed, even if you can’t see it at first.

Image via Ajay Suresh on Wikimedia Commons

Avery acknowledges that The Hunger Games trilogy by Suzanne Collins is one that did it well, but there are multiple other trilogies that accomplish a successful story arc within three books and that couldn’t have done so in fewer pages. More popularly, there’s Divergent by Veronica Roth, The Maze Runner by James Dashner, and To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before by Jenny Han, which were all turned into successful movies and are loved by fans all over the world. However, there are more trilogies, such as The Folk of the Air by Holly Black, Matched by Allie Condie, Legend by Marie Lu, and Delirium by Lauren Oliver—all of which I have personally read and can/will vouch for—that haven't been turned into another form of media, but are still complete trilogies with effective middle books.

There are even a multitude of trilogies where the second book is actually the most popular—which, in my opinion, proves that trilogies are an essential part of the literary industry. Examples include The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, A Court of Thorns and Roses by Sarah J. Mass, The Folk of the Air by Holly Black, The Dark Artifices by Cassandra Clare, The Farseer Trilogy by Robin Hobb, and the Red Rising Trilogy by Pierce Brown.

Not to mention that more-often-than-not, trilogies are written in the science fiction/fantasy genre, which requires a lot of world-building and background so that the reader can feel grounded in the story instead of just thrown into it. The Hunger Games wouldn’t have been as engaging if we didn’t know anything about Panem or the districts. Same for Divergent and the factions. Readers need time to dive into the world, to truly connect with the characters, to experience the story instead of being drawn out.

Plot is never just A to Z—boom, bam, done. The letters between are essential to carry the story, to make us care about the characters, their relationships, the in-between steps they take to get back to the main plot. The bridge book contains the middle letters.

Image via Zoltan Tasi on Unsplash

Sure, there will always be people who say, “Hm, this could’ve been cut out,” or feel like something wasn’t essential to the main plot. But, that is something that is said about even the most well-recognized books in literature today, most of which are not trilogies. For example, the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling is heavily criticized for its overabundance of unnecessary details, and people often say that, in the last two books especially, each one could have lost about 200 pages or been condensed to one book. Same for The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova—people say it could have been a few hundred pages less and better for it. Same for The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde, despite it being a literary classic. The point is, there will always be an opportunity to find something in a book, no matter the length, and claim that it’s not necessary. But, oftentimes, the author leaves it in on purpose, feeling it’s needed for connection to the plot or the characters, or so we can understand a later detail that has not yet been disclosed.

Tell me, with full honesty, would you have cared that much about Peeta from The Hunger Games if you didn’t have Catching Fire to truly connect with his character, to reveal who he truly is at his core? Would Mockingjay have been as impactful if there was no middle to set up the end? Would you have rooted for Thomas, or truly understood his struggle, if the story jumped from The Maze Runner to The Death Cure? These examples represent the vast majority of trilogies and the need for the bridge book.

Image via JP Valery on Unsplash

​​Another point Avery mentions is how authors will turn to trilogies because of the profit, not necessarily because it’s what’s right for their story. I can acknowledge that, like in most professional fields, there will be those who turn to money instead of doing what they think is best for their work—as well as publishers who may push trilogies for financial gain. However, publishers, at their core, will be looking for stories with heart, grit, and a successful story arc. While trilogies often bring in money, it’s no longer a smart financial move to push stories to fit in three books and ruin the integrity of it, as readers will see right through that. V. E. Schwab, who has written both stand-alone novels (like The Invisible Life of Addie LaRue and Bury Our Bones in the Midnight Soil) and a trilogy (Shades of Magic), proves that there are authors who will write what they believe their story needs to be successful, not just what they think will fill their pockets, as well as publishers who will showcase all kinds of stories, not just the “money-makers.”

---

We can read the most interesting plot in the world, but all is for naught if we don’t care about the characters we’re reading. Some stories are one book. Some are two. Many are three. No matter the length, authors will always write parts that some readers find pointless and other readers find crucial. Literature is such a subjective field, so it feels damaging to say that trilogies are traps that often don’t need that middle book, especially when the opposite is proven to be the more common occurrence.

Trilogies fill the shelves for good reason. There are always exceptions and outliers, so this is not to say that there aren’t some that definitely could have been condensed to lesser pages or maybe even expanded to more. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that most trilogies are not forced, but simply the result of the genre, of the story’s needs, of the natural progression of the plot. As the literary industry moves forward, I hope to see more authors embracing The Trilogy, falling into this “trap” with open arms.