I finished reading the most recent Fablehaven book (4th in the series). It's still a solid series and I'm looking forward to the next, and final, installment.
But, when I finished this one I felt a bit let down. Not that the book itself wasn't a good story but the entire point of the story was to set-up the next book. Now, granted, it was better than when I read the 6th book in the Harry Potter series -- but I won't get into that here.
However, I did reflect on issues of structure that I commonly see in Fantasy trilogies.
Book 1: Set-up the hero, conflict, and villain. Hero defeats the villain and saves the world.
Book 2: Expand the world setting. Show how saving the world left it in peril. Show how the world is on brink of collapsing to darkness. Train hero in special powers revealed in first book. (Optional: Reveal hero's family relation to villain.)
Book 3: Show allies of the hero unable to overcome their various conflicts. Place hero's love-interest in danger. Hero hovers on verge of defeat -- except villain underestimated something and hero exploits that for final defeat. (Optional: Hero's motivation is more aligned with saving love-interest than world.)
That format works fine in a trilogy because even though the second book doesn't typically resolve its own storyline, the focus on expanding the world typically leaves the reader interested in seeing how the new conflicts will be resolved. The author has still provided us with something we hadn't seen before and we're eager for more.
By contrast, in serialized Fantasy the books become more episodic. Book 1 and 2 follow a similar structure as above, the world gets saved (book 1) but then... On No! it's not really safe (book 2) and we see the broader world framework.
The succeeding books just start filling in the blanks. We already know the world is bigger, so fleshing out additional aspects don't carry the same sense of wonder. (And at worst are just expositionary exercises in which the author shows off how much they've thought about the minutiae of their story.) Which necessitates a strong storyline -- but one that is serving two purposes.
First, the story must be interesting on its own. There must be a conflict that is real, with real consequences for failure (even though we know it won't likely happen we suspend our disbelief). And, for most of the books I've read, the intermediate books do a reasonable job with this.
Second, the story must drive the over-arching plot towards its conclusion. Again, the episodic nature of the books tend to do a reasonable job of this with a well-defined overall goal (defeat the villain) being pursued in steps (collect the artifact, defeat the sub-villain, travel to the mentor). But where the second-to-last novel tends to fail is that its storyline is too closely tied to setting up the final conflict that it cannot be adequately resolved without lessening the tension the author wants readers feeling when they begin the final book.
In essence, the entire story must be rising action leading into the final novel. There is typically still an episode-conflict that needs to be resolved but cannot allow for a true denouement because the author can't let the action fall. The climax confirms the final novel will happen but the author cannot move the characters into their next positions, leaving the ending of the book weak.
And, as with any novel, if the storyline has been good throughout but you are given a weak ending, it is frustrating.
P.S. Does a pretentious sounding title make the post more impressive? ;)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Nice way to get back into blogging....my question is where does the Wheel of Time or George R.R. Martin fit into your macrostructure....
"Now, granted, it was better than when I read the 6th book in the Harry Potter series -- but I won't get into that here."
You were just upset that Dumbledore died, don't worry, we all cried, it's okay to feel sad.
Wheel of Time doesn't count because after about the 3rd book he descended into making as little as possible happen during the novels to prolong the series.
It's a whole different beast.
As to Martin, I thought about him when I was writing this. I read his first novel, Game of Thrones, but decided that I wasn't interested in continuing through his series.
It seems that he may have been able to side-step this particular issue by not completely wrapping up his storylines at the end of each novel. At least, that was how I felt during his first novel. You would have to tell me if he was able to keep the narrative feeling like a continuous story rather than a series of episodes.
Post a Comment