Isn't a Trilogy Just a Series of Three Books?

Good god. I actually worked harder over the holidays than I did in the days LEADING UP to the holidays. I probably need a life like, just about now. Today, it's back to work (officially), and back to the blog I suppose. Missed me?

Didn't think so.

What, not even my incredible wit and awesome book reviews?

Bah.

Okok, enough wallowing in self-pity. It's time to get back to my work/coffeeaddiction/FinalFantasyVII. But before that, a blog post.

Yes, a Blog Post, by jove!

Ahem.

Anyway, I've been following a discussion on Glenda Larke's blog, where she asks "What is a fantasy trilogy?":

Do you prefer trilogies to series? How would you define the difference? And for those who have done tons of reading: What's the best trilogy you've ever read?

And I wrote a nice long comment about it. I'm not gonna reproduce the comment here (go read it yourself lar!), but rather, I'll just answer the above questions one by one ok?

Here we go...


1) Do you prefer trilogies to series? How would you define the difference?

Isn't a trilogy a series in the first place? To me, a 'trilogy' just means the series has three books, and nothing else.

That said, it's hard to say a trilogy is better than a series and vice versa. Some trilogies seem so dead-set to keep it to THREE BOOKS AND ONLY THREE BOOKS that the author rushes things, leaves things unresolved and resorts to cheap cliches just to advance the plot just so they can wrap it up in three books.

It's no fun when books end on a lousy note, ok? If a trilogy still has potential to continue into more books, then let it continue lar. Or at the very least ,do what Hobb and Stephen R. Donaldson did with THEIR 'trilogies' expand them with MORE trilogies, so that people who want to continue reading about the characters and the world can do so, but those who don't can just stop at the first trilogy.

That said, there is a difference between extending the 'trilogy' to four or five books for the sake of doing it justice; and writing more books just to STRETCH the story, adding more and more sub-plots and losing the plot completely. Jordan, take note (You too, Martin, you're beginning to test my patience with Song of Ice and Fire).

That's called blatant EXPLOITATION and MILKING the popularity of your books. Stop making things up as you go along and bloody FINISH your series' already. You think you're writing what, a manga series is it?

That said, Terry Pratchett's Discworld 'series' is fine though, because they are mostly all standalone books, but just set in a same world, and occasionally following the same stoyline or continuity, that's all. You can jump in on the Discworld series from any book you want, and still not be completely lost. Try doing THAT with Wheel of Time.

And no, I don't think of the Lord of the Rings as a trilogy.


2) What's the best trilogy you've ever read?

Ooooooh, very hard to pinpoint which is the best. I've got quite a few, actually, but the two (and then some) that really stand out right now are:



- The Abhorsen trilogy: Sabriel, Lirael, Abhorsen (Garth Nix)
One of THE best children's fantasy written in recent times, I have to say. :-)

- The Farseer trilogy: Assassin's Apprentice, Royal Assassin, Assassin's Quest
- The Liveship Traders trilogy: Ship of Magic, Mad Ship, Ship of Destiny
- The Tawny Man saga: Fool's Errand, Golden Fool, Fool's Fate
All by Robin Hobb, and that's like a whole TRILOGY of trilogies! While the Liveship Traders trilogy isn't about Fitz, it's still directly connected to what happens in Tawny Man Saga, which in turn is a direct sequel to the Farseer trilogy. All three rank as my top ten favorite trilogies EVER.

Will add more when I think of more. Now, I wanna go back to playing Final Fantasy VII... oh wait, WORK first....