Book Rememberances...

[EEE]

Remember when trilogies were three connected and/or interrelated books and not just three big chapters separated by "TO BE CONTINUED?"


Remember when you were going somewhere and looked at how many pages were in your book to decide if you should bring more books, and those pages actually had something to do with the current book?

 

[ryan123450]

On both counts, I'm gonna have to say...

 

[EEE]

On both counts, I'm gonna have to say...

Each book of a trilogy used to be able to stand on it's own. Each was interrelated in that they contributed to a larger story, but each could be taken on it's own merits and had a sense of closure. That phenomenon may be before your time? (See Tolkien's Lord of the Rings Trilogy for an example)

As for the other part, I refer to books often ending 20-30 pages before the back cover. And when I go on a short trip (overnight or any day trip involving planes), I look at where I'm at in a book and how many pages appear to be left, and can then decide if I should bring more books. Now I have to check and see if the remaining pages are part of the book I'm reading (I think some publishers call it a "bonus chapter"). For me, those bonus chapters are wasted paper... I never read them, as I can almost certainly guarantee I don't want every book the rest of the chapters are spread through to complete their story. Beyond that, they just screw up my trip planning. *grin*

 

[Daddy Todd]

Each book of a trilogy used to be able to stand on it's own. Each was interrelated in that they contributed to a larger story, but each could be taken on it's own merits and had a sense of closure. That phenomenon may be before your time? (See Tolkien's Lord of the Rings Trilogy for an example)...

LotR is many things, but it is decidedly NOT three interrelated stories that can each stand on it's own merits. Lord of the Rings is a single novel split into three volumes at the behest of the original publisher.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

 

[DonIago]

Well, I dunno, I could see The Two Towers being a lot of fun on its own merits...


My dad expressed an interest in seeing RotK because he heard it got great reviews...and then asked whether he really needed to see the other two movies first.

 

[Christopher]

Each book of a trilogy used to be able to stand on it's own. Each was interrelated in that they contributed to a larger story, but each could be taken on it's own merits and had a sense of closure.

That's never been uniformly the case. And any argument that "things were better in the past" is a nostalgic fallacy. It's just that we remember the things we liked about the past better than the things we didn't like.

(See Tolkien's Lord of the Rings Trilogy for an example)

As stated, that's a perfect counterexample, because it was written as one big narrative and split in three by the publisher. It is anything but three independent stories.

As for the other part, I refer to books often ending 20-30 pages before the back cover. And when I go on a short trip (overnight or any day trip involving planes), I look at where I'm at in a book and how many pages appear to be left, and can then decide if I should bring more books. Now I have to check and see if the remaining pages are part of the book I'm reading (I think some publishers call it a "bonus chapter"). For me, those bonus chapters are wasted paper... I never read them, as I can almost certainly guarantee I don't want every book the rest of the chapters are spread through to complete their story. Beyond that, they just screw up my trip planning. *grin*

I think the idea is to avoid spoiling the reader by revealing that the ending is imminent. Also of course it's for promotional purposes.

 

[EEE]

....

You make some valid points and many potentially valid points. but answering each of them, keeps leading me to the following (which I looked up after realizing just how redundant my original reply to each of your points was. *grin*)

(Wish I would have done this earlier....)

Merriam-Webster Dictionary puts it better than I, but this is exactly what I refer to and expect from an actual "trilogy"...

-------------------------------------------------------

• Main Entry: tril·o·gy
• Pronunciation: \ˈtri-lə-jē\
• Function: noun
• Inflected Form(s): plural tril·o·gies
• Etymology: Greek trilogia, from tri- + -logia -logy
• Date: circa 1661

: a series of three dramas or literary works or sometimes three musical compositions that are closely related and develop a single theme

-------------------------------------------------------

As there are no absolutes, I must agree there had to have been other books sold as "trilogies" which did not meet the definition above. But I honestly can't remember running into any.

Even the Lord of the Rings trilogy gave some closure to me, between books. <--- Or does that answer to your fallacy of memory? Am I remembering that wrong? (it was over 30 years ago) Or did they not accomplish something by the end of each book that gave a sense of closure? (putting aside any evil hints along the lines of Star Wars where Darth Vader spins off into space)

As for the other part, I refer to books often ending 20-30 pages before the back cover

I think the idea is to avoid spoiling the reader by revealing that the ending is imminent. Also of course it's for promotional purposes.

Hiding the ending sounds good on paper, but in practice it usually just screws me up. (read: guess who never learns to expect the marketing ploy at the end of the book and often gets caught on a trip with nothing to read?)

As an aside: my father used to read the last few pages of books first. The purpose of reading for him became figuring out how they got from the beginning to the revelation or the denouement, versus how did they solve whatever obstacle or who will survive, etc. If he had lived to read modern Trek, he'd have been looking like Einstein until finishing the end of the real book and finding out about the "bonus chapter" deal!

 

[TGTheodore]

Remember when little deals were just that -- little deals?

--Ted

 

[DimesDan]

Remember when little deals were just that -- little deals?

--Ted

Or when the world was a far nicer and safer place to live.............

 

[Geoff]

Even the Lord of the Rings trilogy gave some closure to me, between books. <--- Or does that answer to your fallacy of memory? Am I remembering that wrong? (it was over 30 years ago) Or did they not accomplish something by the end of each book that gave a sense of closure?

I think your memory fails you. The Fellowship of the Ring ends right in the middle of the battle with the Uruk-Hai, before Boromir is killed. The Two Towers ends in the middle of Sam's search for Frodo after he is captured at Cirith Ungol.

In fact, Peter Jackson deliberately changed the breaking points between the films because the individual volumes, as published, didn't offer much closure in their endings.

 

[EmperorKalan]

Remember when trilogies were three connected and/or interrelated books and not just three big chapters separated by "TO BE CONTINUED?"

Like way, way back to last year and the Terok Nor books?

 

[JD]

As for the other part, I refer to books often ending 20-30 pages before the back cover. And when I go on a short trip (overnight or any day trip involving planes), I look at where I'm at in a book and how many pages appear to be left, and can then decide if I should bring more books. Now I have to check and see if the remaining pages are part of the book I'm reading (I think some publishers call it a "bonus chapter"). For me, those bonus chapters are wasted paper... I never read them, as I can almost certainly guarantee I don't want every book the rest of the chapters are spread through to complete their story. Beyond that, they just screw up my trip planning. *grin*

You do realize that alot books in have some sort of an exerpt or something from the next book in the series at the end, it's not just a Trek thing. Hell, in one of the James Rollins books I have, the excerpt is from a totally unrelated novel by a different author.

 

[Christopher]

^Just think of the excerpts like movie trailers, except after the feature presentation instead of before. (Of course, movie trailers originally did come after the feature, which is why they're called trailers instead of leaders.)

 

[Thrawn]

Remember when trilogies were three connected and/or interrelated books and not just three big chapters separated by "TO BE CONTINUED?"

Like way, way back to last year and the Terok Nor books?

Or String Theory or Crucible...

Even the Destiny trilogy has a pretty clearly defined end to each book, in my opinion.

But REGARDLESS, why is it a problem for Treklit to publish 1200-page-long stories, and then divide them up? I like big stories, and it's unrealistic to expect them in single novels sometimes, so why are we even complaining about this in the first place?

 

[JB2005]

^ I'll agree with Destiny, I read them out of order, and lost nothing

 

[JD]

I love the fact that they have the excerpts at the end, although by the time I get to them I usually have the book already so I don't bother reading them.

 

[EEE]

I think your memory fails you.
[/QUOTE]
I'll buy that. I've read a couple books since them, so they all tend to muddle in the long run. Except for my impression that I didn't like the last two books as much as the first & the Hobbit.

You do realize that alot books in have some sort of an exerpt or something from the next book in the series at the end, it's not just a Trek thing. Hell, in one of the James Rollins books I have, the excerpt is from a totally unrelated novel by a different author.

I believe you (just haven't run into it as my non-trek reading is exclusively older books). Just as I'm sure you realized (or will realize) "everyone does it" isn't a real mature defense, the first time your kids used it. (as if a defense was really needed in the case of obvious marketing ploys. They are what they are.).

But REGARDLESS, why is it a problem for Treklit to publish 1200-page-long stories, and then divide them up? I like big stories, and it's unrealistic to expect them in single novels sometimes, so why are we even complaining about this in the first place?

Truth in advertising*. Depends on if they advertise a split single book as a "Trilogy" or as a three-part book (aka: serial).

* (Much harsher than intended in this thread's context, but--->) A lie of omission is still a lie, in my book. (while I meant that figuratively, I realized it could be literal, in context! *grin*)

Not also that I would not appreciate any of these blatant marketing ploys outside of Trek (yes, I read non-trek as well).

Contextual Note: Also that I never for a moment thought this thread would change anything. It was venting, at best. Ranting at face value, I mean worst. *grin?* It just seemed to be an appropros place to vent as honestly, modern Treklit is where I run into the vast, vast majority of these two obvious marketing ploys.

 

[JD]

You do realize that alot books in have some sort of an exerpt or something from the next book in the series at the end, it's not just a Trek thing. Hell, in one of the James Rollins books I have, the excerpt is from a totally unrelated novel by a different author.

I believe you (just haven't run into it as my non-trek reading is exclusively older books). Just as I'm sure you realized (or will realize) "everyone does it" isn't a real mature defense, the first time your kids used it. (as if a defense was really needed in the case of obvious marketing ploys. They are what they are.).

It wasn't meant as a "everyone else does it" defense. I was simply pointing out that it isn't exclusively a Trek thing, which was what I thought you were saying.

 

[Christopher]

I don't think it's a lie so much as a looser definition of "trilogy." Words tend to get their meanings blurred over time. To some people, "trilogy" just means "a series of three books" without regard to the structure of those books. It's not lying if the user sincerely believes it's valid to use the word that way.

 

[JD]

That's how I've always understood it. Before this thread, I didn't realize it was any more complicated than that.