On Trilogies
Apr. 22nd, 2012 01:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccastareyesI'm reading Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy, specifically the final book. And I got to thinking about the structure of trilogies. It seems like, even if each book in the trilogy has a plot, the trilogy itself has a pattern of the first book ending on an up beat, and the second on a down beat.
I'm going to try to use really common examples, and then note the exceptions.
The original Star Wars trilogy is a wonderful example here. At the end of A New Hope, we have an award ceremony because Luke blew up the Death Star, saving the Rebellion's main base. Sure, the Empire is still out there, Obi Wan was killed by Vader, but they no longer can blow up planets with a single oversized space station and Obi Wan had passed the mantle on to Luke. On the other hand, at the end of The Empire Strikes Back, Luke manages to help his friends escape the Empire at Cloud City... at the cost of Han's freedom, Luke's hand, interruption of Luke's Jedi training and Luke's innocence. There also isn't a major victory against the Empire here, just survival to fight another day.
Avatar: the Last Airbender's three seasons also work here. At the end of the first 'book', Aang and company successfully defend the Northern Water Tribe from invasion. There's a bit of a Pyrrhic-ness in the victory in that Princess Yue, a minor character, has to transform into the moon spirit to save the day, but we get the sense that Aang and his friends and allies can stand against the Fire Nation and not just survive. Besides, Star Wars shows you can get away with a noble sacrifice or two and still have a happy ending.
At the end of the second, the main capital of the Earth Kingdom has fallen to the Fire Nation, tossing the planned invasion into disarray. Aang, like Luke, interrupts his training to come save the day and nearly dies as a result. Zuko, who has spent the entire second book trying to make up his mind about what place he serves in the story, has seemed to have chosen the villains, and Iroh is captured. Aang has learned how to Earthbend and the heroes have a plan to defeat the Fire Nation -- and everyone survived the fall of Bah Sing Sei, despite half the group being captured at one time or another -- but it's hard to see how Our Heroes will recover.
So, I wonder if this is inherent to the construction of a trilogy. I can think of counter-examples: N. K. Jemisen's Inheritance trilogy doesn't quite have a downbeat second book, but I might have to reread it as a trilogy, rather than as a series of stand-alone novels. The Lord of the Rings... well, I have to go back and see where Tolkein cut the story, since the films changed things up. And discussing the differences there might be a post into itself. I can think of plenty of trilogies that do do this -- even darker stories, likeseanan_mcguire's Newsflesh trilogy have a more upbeat first book end than second book end.
I'm going to try to use really common examples, and then note the exceptions.
The original Star Wars trilogy is a wonderful example here. At the end of A New Hope, we have an award ceremony because Luke blew up the Death Star, saving the Rebellion's main base. Sure, the Empire is still out there, Obi Wan was killed by Vader, but they no longer can blow up planets with a single oversized space station and Obi Wan had passed the mantle on to Luke. On the other hand, at the end of The Empire Strikes Back, Luke manages to help his friends escape the Empire at Cloud City... at the cost of Han's freedom, Luke's hand, interruption of Luke's Jedi training and Luke's innocence. There also isn't a major victory against the Empire here, just survival to fight another day.
Avatar: the Last Airbender's three seasons also work here. At the end of the first 'book', Aang and company successfully defend the Northern Water Tribe from invasion. There's a bit of a Pyrrhic-ness in the victory in that Princess Yue, a minor character, has to transform into the moon spirit to save the day, but we get the sense that Aang and his friends and allies can stand against the Fire Nation and not just survive. Besides, Star Wars shows you can get away with a noble sacrifice or two and still have a happy ending.
At the end of the second, the main capital of the Earth Kingdom has fallen to the Fire Nation, tossing the planned invasion into disarray. Aang, like Luke, interrupts his training to come save the day and nearly dies as a result. Zuko, who has spent the entire second book trying to make up his mind about what place he serves in the story, has seemed to have chosen the villains, and Iroh is captured. Aang has learned how to Earthbend and the heroes have a plan to defeat the Fire Nation -- and everyone survived the fall of Bah Sing Sei, despite half the group being captured at one time or another -- but it's hard to see how Our Heroes will recover.
So, I wonder if this is inherent to the construction of a trilogy. I can think of counter-examples: N. K. Jemisen's Inheritance trilogy doesn't quite have a downbeat second book, but I might have to reread it as a trilogy, rather than as a series of stand-alone novels. The Lord of the Rings... well, I have to go back and see where Tolkein cut the story, since the films changed things up. And discussing the differences there might be a post into itself. I can think of plenty of trilogies that do do this -- even darker stories, like
seanan_mcguire's Newsflesh trilogy have a more upbeat first book end than second book end.
