The trouble with trilogies

 When I say "Yeah I'm a reader.", I feel guilt at having told a lie. I am not merely some girl who likes books. I binge, I fill myself up to the brim and feel the seams of my soul pull taut, as if I had overindulged at Christmas lunch. I am consumed by the pungency of short, well written novels and I become dependent on long sagas that span six or seven books. And yet, I seem to find myself having trouble with a trilogy. It seems brilliant in theory, a Beginning, a Middle and an End- right? 

It seems AMAZING! But this wonderful theory has been tainted by YA dystopian novels (amongst others). I mean I inhaled the Hunger Games, I didn't stop to breathe during Divergent and (this is the latest one I read) I flew through The Maze Runner. And in hindsight I should have stopped there! Because Second Book Slump is very real and by the last book, you end up shaking your head. I will add The Ring trilogy to this (is it dystopian? Horror? Random video tape girl haunting turns into cancer epidemic turns into existential crisis regarding the Sims) because it disappointed me. 

( I expressly exclude Lord of the Rings because Tolkien is a literary god and I can say no wrong about him)

Moving forward, the trouble with trilogies is that I feel the same ho-hum afterwards. Here is the common formula I've noticed they follow:

Book One

( Note: I am a sucker for all things dystopian after George Orwell instilled a suspicion of authority in me at age 12[ another story. Another day]. )

Protagonist lives in a post apocalyptic/ barren world after some major world event that isn't given exposition. Protagonist is a wonderful and unique daisy in a field of wheat and stands out. Goes through tribulations of some sort with a ragtag group who doesn't fully trust protagonist but hey, daisy in a wheat field people! The book ends with a victory of some kind with a betrayal of character of the protagonist. It can be resolved naturally. But wait- nothing is as it seems. The figures of authority are revealed to be more than just burocratic/mysterious bodies and instead we are given an epilogue that shocks us into NEEDING more. Book One is usually amazing. George Orwell did the right thing in stopping after one book. I didn't need to read Animal Incorporated Holdings or 1985 and I still don't. 

Book 2:

(Note: I lied. I'd probably read Animal Incorporated Holdings and 1985. That night. Off a pdf from a site that has fake reviews and weird ads about singles in my area. If I needed a single in my area, I would not be in my room with a trilogy that I know will disappoint me).

Protagonist thinks the ragtag group is safe but alas no. They must undergo more tribulations from aforementioned authority and the initial betrayal in Book One, seeps into the psyche of our hero and creates division. New environment. Some plot twists and vague information about the pre-disaster society that existed. This carries on. Yay safe again until (wait for it) another ending/epilogue that reveals a bigger organisation/threat that needs to be examined. 

Now this Second Book slump is like being promised a wonderful dinner of filet mignon and being served eggs prepared in a microwave, on a paper plate. You're angry but hungry for more.

Book Three:

(By this time, Orwell has written the final books in his two fake trilogies. 1986 and Animal Collective Enterprises and Sons are sweeping the nation as teens everywhere wonder what Snowman and NapoleonDynamite will do to avenge their fathers as the Big Sister draws in closer and begins to demolish the barn they have built their lives around. Featuring Charlotte of Charlottes Web as a spy with a heart of gold. In stores this Summer (or winter, Northern Hemisphere). In theaters soon!!!)

The tying up of loose ends- protagonist Daisy in a Wheat Field has met the outside organisation and begins to piece together what really happened. After a week or so of cooperation (ok time is relative to me here. ) they realise that the initial bad guys are just a variation of the new outside good guys. And Daisy in a Wheat Field will rebel. Hard. They go HAM and cray and whatever new food means to act out of the ordinary in an expressive way. Everyone loses someone in some tragic way and I don't cry because George R R Martin has raised me better than that, I cry for no deaths*. Not one. The final epilogue is either the dead protagonist or the protagonist as things are rebuilt and an explanation of what happened. And it's as I hit that last 20 pages that I begin to go "Wait that's it?". 

(* Christmas of 2010- I read The Notebook by Nicholas Sparks. I cried. My mother has pictures of it. That's what made my heart immune to the deaths of Sister of Daisy in a Wheat Field or the death of Daisy her/himself at the hands of scorned lover #1)

It's not that these books are by any means badly written, on the contrary- if I spent all day reading something, it's because of good writing that draws you in. (Note I didn't get through James Franco's Palo Alto, I put it down halfway (a rare act) and noted the time spent reading it was a waste of time I will need at my deathbed. I felt real sadness at the hour or so I had waded through a ghastly excuse for an examination on teenage violence and sexual misconduct. This paragraph is a jab at that collection of triggers, sexual harassment and abuse. There's a better way to grab your reader. See: Roald Dahl) What upsets me about these trilogies is the formula used.

I want to be shown the magic trick, enjoy it and then leave. Not watch the show, then realise the magicians assistant is dead and my long lost sister is actually an evil company that bankrolls aforementioned homicidal magician and then finally that nothing is as it seems- I am an experiment given to science by my parents after some huge disaster caused by the government. Yay. Yawn.

Readers deserve more. YA dystopian/science fiction could be so much more. And this is coming from someone who doesn't read that much young adult stuff, but still wants to enjoy some futuristic or magical world where Jon Snow isn't (maybe/maybe not) dead. I've read some amazing young adult books- 

The Giver by Louis Lowry was haunting. It deals with our morality and how colour and emotion plays such a huge role in it all. 

 I enjoyed Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials series because it played with so many challenging themes. (Why do we believe what we do? People we are meant to trust aren't always good. The film didn't do justice (See: The Golden Compass))

The Half Bad series by Sally Green (although only two books are out) is refreshing! (Racism and witches and a boy being caught between two worlds)

The reason I loved these books is because they challenged the reader with questions about ethnics, race, religion and our own humanity. 

The trouble with trilogies is that they take one really good concept and stretch it until everyone is left with an existential crisis not unlike the one experienced on The Truman Show. If I wanted to read a bad book, I'd reread the Twilight saga and pay money for the new reworking of it with a genderbent angle (see Life and Death) (Try to unsee it) (I blame all vampire related trauma on the girls who sat near me in Grade 8). Also all these trilogies end up being four or five movies.  Which I will watch. 

Corporate America wins in the end (what does this mean?) (how can I be a Manic Pixie Dream Girl if I am ok with capitalism?) (I really want to be one) 

 [Another issue,another day] 

(None of the photos belong to me, they're the property of the publisher and authors etc)