Writing a trilogy

[Graham Irwin]

Hello all,

I have to say, I couldn't be any happier about finally beginning the third book of my trilogy. After all the disaster and loss in Book II, it feels great to be at the point where things are starting to get better for my characters.

Anyone else care to share their experiences with traditional three-act-story structure? Can anyone else attest to how good it feels to be out of the conflict stage and into the resolution?

 

[The Din]

If you are out of the conflict stage and just starting the book I foresee problems. Even writing a trilogy, each book must stand up under its own merit, I can't imagine a novel without some serious conflict.

That being said, I am still editing my first novel in my trilogy/duology, so its only an opinion. I plan on heaping the sh** high on my characters till the last moment (and probably letting them suffocate).

So if things are getting better for your character at the start of the novel, throw some feces at him and give him a shovel.

Congrats on getting to book three and sorry if I took your words out of context.

 

[Graham Irwin]

Oh, there's plenty of conflict yet. It's just, there's now a light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[San Cidolfus]

About three years back I wrote a trilogy. I created a massive amount of groundwork even before starting the first draft, so I'd put in a good year's worth of labor before opening chapter one. Volume One came in at around 240,000 words, and a few months later Volume Two hit about 280,000. I have to say, seeing all the threads come together and prepare to culminate in the final act was exhilarating. Unfortunately, about the time I finished Volume Two I realized I'd need another whole volume in order to tell the story properly. My trilogy swelled, and suddenly I was no longer in the home stretch. The labor carried on, that knuckle-breaking, intoxicating toil of writing. When I finished Volume Four about half a year later, the whole work came in at just under a million words. Sometimes I'm still quietly dumbfounded that I created a work that massive.

The sensation of completing a living, breathing story of that caliber is probably the closest that we menfolk can feel to experiencing the miracle of childbirth.

 

[Chilari]

Woah, Cidolfus, that's a volume of words so remarkable I am struggling to comprehend it without expletives. Finishing something, to my mind, is impressive enough - I did it once, three years ago, but that was just a first draft and the story has changed so much since I really don't know how to continue.

I have considered trilogies, and even quadrilogies, but haven't yet been sufficiently satisfied with any of them to make it even a quarter of the way through book one. My largest ongoing project involves the rewrite of the one novel I completed, though with significant changes, as well as working out the plots, characters, etc, for the other three books which would be part of the same series (prequels, in fact - earlier stories largely unconnected to one another featuring the same immortal character throughout). At the moment, I'm struggling with point of view in all four stories, ending in one, how to make a plot from the events I have decided upon in another, and how to make the first, chronologically speaking, feel coherent and like there's an overarching plot. Of course, I keep getting distracted from these by other stories (about 8 active or semi-active stories at the moment, besides those four), computer games, job hunting and, now, doing my job, unrelated ancient history research which might possibly develop into a PhD proposal, and trying to see enough of my fiance.

 

[The Grey Sage]

I am personally working on a Trilogy and have had problems of another sort: I kill off too many characters. It's not the fact that they aren't developed, or even that I dislike them, most just happen to die... I've kept the core 5 characters alive and they fave increasingly gotten stronger- meaning I must find either more people to fight or more plot to tangle. ugh. Anyway, I recognize the problem of wrapping up, fortunately I've had my plot and ending planned out since square one, it's... just... taken me four years to get... this... far.

 

[San Cidolfus]

Sounds like you're firing yourself at too many targets, Chilari. Is it too hard to pick the most enticing project and focus on it alone?

 

[aderyn]

I've just finished the first chapter of the first volume of my trilogy, so I feel a little unqualified to answer. But I think I know what you mean Graham. I'm impressed that you have got so far. Have you published the first two?

 

[Chilari]

Sounds like you're firing yourself at too many targets, Chilari. Is it too hard to pick the most enticing project and focus on it alone?

Well, I only focus on one project at a time, but if I get stuck and I can't work through it, I move onto another project. But the problem isn't really distraction, exactly. The problem is The General's Secret - book 3, chronologically, in the quadriliogy I'm working on. It's the one that keeps waving at me madly and trying to attract my attention. I've been struggling with it because it's meant to be a tragedy but I'm really having trouble putting my characters through that. But while I try to put it aside to work on something else, it's difficult to forget.

 

[JCFarnham]

Stretching three acts across three books alone would probably ruin the very point of the technique IF of course you're not thinking in terms of three acts within the books as well.

The Three Acts refer to three main sections of a story that most works of fiction can be broken down into (try it out, it's amusing how true this is, not because people aren't original its because it really does tend to work). The first act more or less sets up the conflict, the second is "the middle" with its end point usually being the main characters lowest possible point, the point where they are most down trodden, and the third is up hill from there. That doesn't mean any one act is more devoid of conflict than any other.

That being said I get the feeling you understand this well enough (so sorry for re-stating things haha).

Are you talking about using the Three-act structure to organise a trilogy's story arch? That is probably a good idea in fact. If anyone here hasn't considered studying traditional story telling structures I really think you should. You may well say you don't want to trap yourself, but as I said Three Act structure is seen so often because it works wonders for pacing a satisfying conflict and resolution.

Anyway, as long as you also ensure each individual books has its self-contained conflict-resolution cycle and three-act structure you'll be grand. My original point: Don't forget stand-alone-ness even in a trilogy. Of course you need the three books to work as a cohesive whole but you don't want to go promising the reader conflict in the first book and not resolving it before the end of the same book. That hardly ever works.

I personally don't PLAN to write anything other than "a story" first and foremost. To me planning for a trilogy is thinking of things the wrong way round... but thats just the way my brain works I guess. What ever works for you. I don't even know if I WANT to write a trilogy mind you, because with out even meaning to I'll be thrown in the same pigeon hole with ever other thousands of fantasy trilogies out there. And therefore be subject to every other readers prejudices regarding three book sagas. It's an issue of a unique selling point really. That being said I'm completely over thinking things as usual.

I'm not saying I'll never write a trilogy - I have at least a duology on my hands as it is - because if a story requires three books to tell then I won't deny it that.

You've got to admit though. Duologies. I haven't read many. Just saying.

 

[Graham Irwin]

I come to fantasy through the world of Joseph Campbell and comparative mythology. I also have a degree in theater. I should say I understand the three-act structure very well.

Each of the three books has an arc as well.

My whole idea with my books is to play with tradition, from story structure to archetypes, in new ways and combinations people maybe haven't seen before.

 

[JCFarnham]

I realise I may have gotten the wrong end of the stick, I never meant to infer anything. I was just giving my spin on the subject. My apologies for relying too much on your post as an example.

 

[Graham Irwin]

What else could you have relied on? I wasn't exactly clear as to my writing process.

I liked your spin, I didn't mean my response to sound so blunt. I hadn't had any coffee yet!

 

[JCFarnham]

What else could you have relied on? I wasn't exactly clear as to my writing process.

I liked your spin, I didn't mean my response to sound so blunt. I hadn't had any coffee yet!

Ah the coffee. Yes, I understand

You have me wondering now. What would your degree research have to say about three act structure in regards to my duology. There is of course an over-arching plot throughout (which I will be attempting to tighten up with three act ness, probably... at the very least the Hollywood formula) but do you think it's possible, ignoring each individual book's story arcs, to fit those three overall acts neatly into two books?

At the moment I'm saying yes, and of course I'll be writing it anyway, but I was just wondering what tradition had to say about it.

 

[Graham Irwin]

If you chose to work with two books, you'd have a couple options.

Let's look at this very simplistically

Act 1:
Setup (Background, characters, world introduction)
Premise (What's the story about. Even if it's a mystery to be revealed later, the mystery is introduced)
Inciting Incident (The call to action, an event that "changes" the world of the MC(s))
Major Plot Point One (The first obstacle to the MC in their new quest

Act 2:
Facing many obstacles, the MC(s) grow nearer to the realization of their goal
Major Plot Point Two (When your MC(s) grow tired of the obstacles, begin to focus on the main goal

Act 3:
The clock has run out for your MC(s), they have reached the Point of No Return
A Climax, wherein the major issue of the story is resolved, for good or bad
(This does not mean that a cliffhanger can't remain at the end of your story)

Now, if you break that into two books, your first could either end after "Act I", or "Act II". The first book could involve a lot of exposition, and feel full and rich and complete with the story finding its main thrust at the end. You could use this if you wanted to assemble a fellowship or something that took a lot of exposition in Book I.

Alternately, if you chose to end Book I at the darkest point of the character's journey, "Act II", Book II would be a 'phoenix from the ashes' sort of a story. All major obstacles resolved, just the main conflict left. You could use this example if you wanted all of Book II to be a war or something.

All that being said, the 3-Act structure should be kept in mind of every scene, every paragraph. It's just the cycle of action. How would it play out in a short scene?

Example:

George was sitting at his house, watching television. He was bored as sin. He heard a noise outside, and then his television went blank. Poking his head out the window, he saw a squirrel gnawing on the cable line.

He tried to chase the squirrel away, but the squirrel kept coming back. He tried capturing it with a net, but it didn't work either. George was about to give up when he remembered the Super Bowl was that night. He would have his cable, whatever it took.

His neighbor Deus Machina brought over a Super Squirrel-Catcher 5000. George knew the squirrel didn't stand a chance.

George zapped the little squirrel with 10000 volts of electricity. The poor little thing died quickly, and George re-connected his cable. He never had to get off the couch again.

As you can see, it's just about conflict and resolution. It's not the only way to tell a story, using conflict, but it's an effective and time-honored one.

 

[JCFarnham]

That's very enlightening! I think, in this case, I need to end Book I before, near or around the "major plot point two" point (though I doubt I'll be as obvious as "we're sick of this, lets cut the crap", not my style ).

Considering Book II is precisely the example you used-"war"-you couldn't have said anything more useful if you tried. Thank you Graham.