![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More Wordage and Ruminations on Trilogies
Jun. 20th, 2006 08:34 pmToday, not as much wordage as I'd hoped. I thought I'd get chapter 3 finished, had the last two scene all mapped out . . . and then when I sat down at the computer I was waylaid by another scene entirely and ended up spending the entire day on that, plus packing for the trip tomorrow. I think the new scene is good, and fits into the story here, but it would have been nice to have the chapter done. The good news is that once I get back, I'll know EXACTLY what comes next. I even wrote myself a short note ("Varis meets Borund") to remind myself.
I think the new scene bumped the last scene into the next chapter though. It threw off the structure of the chapter enough that the last scene won't "feel" right anymore. We'll see once I get back.
However, I'm far enough into book 3 that I started thinking about trilogies today. My thoughts boiled down to the following:
In Book 1, the author is attempting to set up a unique world and introduce brand new characters. Thus, the first book of a trilogy generally is much more emotional. You're trying to establish the world and characters so permanently in the reader's mind, make the reader care about them, that as an author you spend much more time focused on the characters, their motivations, their mannerisms, their personalities. You don't spend as much time on the plot. In fact, the plots of first books in a trilogy tend to be simpler, because you WANT the reader to focus on the character. I think Skewed Throne is a very character-driven book, because I focused exclusively on Varis, one of the reasons it was written in first person.
However, in Book 2, the characters are generally already well-established. In fact, if the author has done their job, the reader has bought book 2 because they want to find out what happens to their favorite characters from book 1. What this means is that second books in trilogies tend to be more focused on the plot. They're still very emotional, because you're pushing the characters into new territory, but in the end, you're also setting up the major conflict so that it can be resolved in book 3. These two combine so that the second book is more plot-driven: no need to focus on character because you did that in book 1, however you DO need to get the plot cranking, and so you mess around with that. I wonder if this is why readers sometimes feel that second books are never as good as first books? Is it because they want the character interactions that they had in book 1, but aren't getting in book 2? Something to think about.
By Book 3, the author has set up character and set up plot, so book 3 is all about resolving everything--plot and character both. This is why third books are generally the favorites of readers, because here they're getting everything all mixed up into one, as well as getting complete resolutions to whatever issues have been brought up in both books. Thus, the third book is the one that feels most "complete" to both reader and writer.
All of this is a generalization of a process that of course is different for everyone and every trilogy, but it's what I feel is happening with the Throne trilogy. Skewed Throne felt very character-driven to me, while Cracked Throne seemed plot-driven. Lots of character development in Cracked, but not as involved as the development was in Skewed. And now in Vacant I feel that the two are mixing in equal measures. More character than in Cracked, but also more complicated plot than in Skewed.
Maybe this also explains the length of the books in trilogies as well: character-driven isn't as long as plot-driven; while combining the two makes the book even longer. *shrug* Just some thoughts. Here's the wordage:
Vacant Throne
I think the new scene bumped the last scene into the next chapter though. It threw off the structure of the chapter enough that the last scene won't "feel" right anymore. We'll see once I get back.
However, I'm far enough into book 3 that I started thinking about trilogies today. My thoughts boiled down to the following:
In Book 1, the author is attempting to set up a unique world and introduce brand new characters. Thus, the first book of a trilogy generally is much more emotional. You're trying to establish the world and characters so permanently in the reader's mind, make the reader care about them, that as an author you spend much more time focused on the characters, their motivations, their mannerisms, their personalities. You don't spend as much time on the plot. In fact, the plots of first books in a trilogy tend to be simpler, because you WANT the reader to focus on the character. I think Skewed Throne is a very character-driven book, because I focused exclusively on Varis, one of the reasons it was written in first person.
However, in Book 2, the characters are generally already well-established. In fact, if the author has done their job, the reader has bought book 2 because they want to find out what happens to their favorite characters from book 1. What this means is that second books in trilogies tend to be more focused on the plot. They're still very emotional, because you're pushing the characters into new territory, but in the end, you're also setting up the major conflict so that it can be resolved in book 3. These two combine so that the second book is more plot-driven: no need to focus on character because you did that in book 1, however you DO need to get the plot cranking, and so you mess around with that. I wonder if this is why readers sometimes feel that second books are never as good as first books? Is it because they want the character interactions that they had in book 1, but aren't getting in book 2? Something to think about.
By Book 3, the author has set up character and set up plot, so book 3 is all about resolving everything--plot and character both. This is why third books are generally the favorites of readers, because here they're getting everything all mixed up into one, as well as getting complete resolutions to whatever issues have been brought up in both books. Thus, the third book is the one that feels most "complete" to both reader and writer.
All of this is a generalization of a process that of course is different for everyone and every trilogy, but it's what I feel is happening with the Throne trilogy. Skewed Throne felt very character-driven to me, while Cracked Throne seemed plot-driven. Lots of character development in Cracked, but not as involved as the development was in Skewed. And now in Vacant I feel that the two are mixing in equal measures. More character than in Cracked, but also more complicated plot than in Skewed.
Maybe this also explains the length of the books in trilogies as well: character-driven isn't as long as plot-driven; while combining the two makes the book even longer. *shrug* Just some thoughts. Here's the wordage:
| |
17,775 / 100,000 (17.8%) |
Vacant Throne
