This week I've kind of been obsessed with Leigh Bardugo's books, Shadow and Bone and Siege and Storm. I practically devoured the two books. They were amazing to read, so after finishing Siege and Storm (ohmygodtheending!) I eagerly went to Goodreads to find out all about the next book.
And then I realized The Grisha is a trilogy.
I'm in some serious pain right now. I will take this out on trilogies.
First, trilogies seem to follow a certain pattern. The first book is always heavy on the set up because it's setting up a series, and by the end there's usually some sort of twist or cliffhanger.
The second book is definitely an in-between book. A lot of stuff happens but often there isn't a specific story or plot that ends. It's very much an installment which will lead to the third book.
The third book slays me.
The finale is always so amazing and full of everything I love, but it's the ending! Just as it gets to epic, it ends!
I guess my real complaint is that when I love something, I want more. Trilogies whet the appetite but very rarely do I feel completely satisfied by the end (Melina Marchetta is the exception, and that's because she's a goddamn genius).
I always prefer longer books to shorter ones, I always like series instead of standalones because I like the commitment. I want to get the details and get very close to characters. I want to know everything! It's so rare these days for me to get hooked to a book and so when it happens, I always want more.
You can imagine the tears when I realized The Coldest Girl in Coldtown didn't have a sequel.
Hahaha. No, actually, we think 2-3 books is plenty. We've seen too many series drag out, to the detriment of the writing and the character development. We find that authors do a better job when they have an end in sight.
ReplyDeleteWe also like to read standalones, but we don't prefer them over series (or vice versa). We just like the mix. :)
It's definitely different for different people. I guess if I end up finishing a series, that means I love it enough to want it to continue, and will remain loyal to the characters forever.
DeleteThanks for sharing your opinion though!
-P.E.
I always prefer series, because it means that after a book ends, and I loved it, and I want more, I get more. Some series take it too far and have like 15 parts and just looks weird and it's too much, but I love what Mead does, writing 6 books. That's awesome, you have so much time with the characters, but not too much.
ReplyDeleteAnd yeah, it breaks me when I know how close to the end I am. Like with HP. I reread it every year, and I know it's 7 books, and when I starts book one, I'm all freaked because it's going to end soon. :X
So I feel your pain :)
Some series are way too long, I agree. Six books seems fine, but I think it may be too much for the author as well. In my ideal world, the story will continue on forever...
Delete-P.E.
I can't say I have anything against trilogies, though it's true that sometimes I wish some series were longer, I've also seen too many cases of series going on for waaay too long and just losing interest for them along the way.
ReplyDeleteA happy medium is probably the best way to go. I think three is too little, but I'd say eight is too many because the story does start to deteriorate after a while.
Delete-P.E.
I like trilogies. I wish they weren't so spaced though. Waiting for the next book in the series feels like I'm going through withdrawals. I do admit, I'm not a fan of the obvious patterns, but that's what makes the trilogies that doesn't obviously fall into that pattern so much better.
ReplyDeleteHaha, withdrawal is a pretty great way to think about it. I have this simultaneous hunger for the next book and angst because I don't want the series to end. :p
Delete-P.E.