I finished reading the most recent
Fablehaven book (4
th 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 6
th 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? ;)
