Writing Forum

It is me yet again,

I have just finished listening to Robin Hobb's "Dragonkeeper," which has put in my mind the fantasy trope of Trilogy. I think we might be tempted to blame JRR Tokien for the literary fashion of the trilogy, but it was his publishers that cut up his "Lord of the Rings" into more marketable pieces. I am betraying my annoyance at the conclusion of "Dragonkeeper," which seems to make even less concession to endings than Tolkien did by the accident of imposed dissection. It ends without even a real cliffhanger. I'm appalled.

I know, long ago, that my fondest wish was to pen a fantastic trilogy. At the moment I am vexed by what I see as a cheat. If it is so transparantly one story you may divide it as book one, book two, etc. But should it be a seperate book just because it fills the room between two covers? I'm not sure that the complete work exists and here I've begun it. Shouldn't there be some effort to wrap up a few loose ends and at least set the scene with some kind of tension that draws one to the next? Why not insist on some landmark in the landscape of the journey?

Well, I've complained enough. How do you feel about the idea of Trilogy? Does an author (no matter how rich and powerful) owe it to a reader to present a book with some sort of ending, even if it is just one in a series? Perhaps I am not using proper terms, but I am currently thinking of Trilogy and any other number of books as a dismembered lengthy novel sliced into neatly marketable pieces, as opposed to a series that may follow an epic but which affords a reader at least a rudimentary ending in each book.

I've put the next installment of the "Rainwilde" series on hold at my local library but I am doing it under protest...

...or something like that.

LSO