Trilogies are Traps: Why Trilogies are Bad For Storytelling

by Jordan Avery

Photo by Sincerely Media on Unsplash

They’re everywhere: bookshelves, libraries, Target. Everywhere I look I find three neat novels placed one after the other on the shelf. Trilogies have taken the publishing industry by storm—and not in a good way.  Although trilogies can be appealing to the commercial audience, they usually do more harm than good when it comes to storytelling. Sometimes stretching a story across three books can be the downfall of a great story.

In the development of any novel series there is a delicate balance to ensuring the arcs in each novel are consistent while keeping the full narrative intact.; but Because the individual books in a trilogy are often viewed as a beginning (book one), a middle (book two), and an end (book three), this balance is disrupted. Since trilogies follow this formula, audiences tend to expect the same  over and over again, which can kill a storyline that may have otherwise been unique. Stories don’t always fit neatly into three acts, and forcing them into this structure can strip away the surprises and risks that keep storytelling exciting. Sometimes the focus of a story can begin to shift across the series, especially when a novel needs to stay novel (pun intended).  

Image via Stokato

Money and for-profit capitalism: the main reasons trilogies have become so popular. Publishing companies want a second book.In fact, many agents will push for trilogies and will accept nothing else. Four books is too many, two books may not be enough, but the three book structure is familiar to the audience, therefore they are more likely to purchase it. Publishing companies love trilogies because they are reliable. Like any product, an individual book always has a chance of not selling. The timed  release of each of the three books ensures even and continuous sales for a publishing company. 

The “bridge book” is the name I have given the second book in a trilogy. It may be beautiful, and structurally sound, but that's all it is: something that takes people from one end of the story to the other. Sometimes authors feel as though they need to get to their third book by any means possible even if it means writing 300 pages of filler. This may turn off readers, but because the third and final book is promised, they are likely to stick around just to satisfy the feeling they got from the first book and to learn the outcome. ​

Sometimes when it comes to trilogies, an author may reach a plateau either because of writer's block, or because the story is speaking to them telling them: this is all I have to give. This has occurred in several cases including Octavia Butler's Parable series and Patrick Rothfuss’s Kingkiller series. In both of these cases the authors stopped in the middle of their series due to writer’s block. Neither of them could find their way through their next novel. In Octavia Butler's case, her series did not necessarily need to be finished, but she continued anyway. Rothfuss stopped in the middle of the plot once again because he couldn’t find his way through the writing. Did either of these series need to be trilogies? Or could they (and their authors) have benefited from a different structure?  In the case of a bridge book, plot points are spread so thin it can lead to an unsatisfying conclusion. The need for more drama, higher stakes, or explosive scenes can lead to over-the-top plot twists and inflated power scaling – both of which risk making the story  feel absurd by the end, or worse lose all credibility with the reader.

Character arcs can become an issue as well because as they are stretched across three installments it can weaken their development. In some cases, characters end up stagnant in the second act because their main growth is saved for the finale. Other times, arcs become inconsistent as authors attempt to keep things fresh, even if that means sacrificing established character traits or motivations. One example is from the novel Siege and Storm by Leigh Bardugo. The second book centers around two main characters, Alina and Mal, who are preparing for a war against the antagonist, The Darkling. Although the beginning introduces new characters, and a new threat, the rest of the novel is a continuous circle of small battles and preparations for war. 

Image via Hush Naidoo Jade

The characters seem to freeze in their journey almost as if they are saving their arcs for the third novel. In fact, the side characters' plot lines are much more interesting than the main characters. The book lacks the mystery and intrigue of the first installment, not because Bardugo is a bad author, but because the second novel lands in the middle of an explosive beginning and an explosive ending. Characters are central to a story’s success, and trilogies, like the example above, can dilute the strength of those arcs for the sake of stretching the narrative.

I’m not saying trilogies can’t work, they most definitely can, sometimes very well I might add (Lord of the Rings, Red Rising, and The Hunger Games just to name a few), but they should never be forced just for the benefit of sales. authors should put the integrity of their story first and not the format – think beyond the trilogy and strive to produce consistent, well written content that is engaging  from beginning to end. Sometimes one book is enough and sometimes a story may need more than three books in the series to make it complete. Authors and publishing companies have a choice to make, and I hope they will focus more on storytelling as an artform, not just for profit.