Comments on: What’s the worst thing about writing the middle book of a trilogy?

By: Glenda Larke

Glenda Larke — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:32:00 +0000

Thanks for the comment, Marina. That’s interesting. I think you must be disappointed a lot these days though, because as far as I can see, the trend is definitely not to have a synopsis. They are very hard to write, so that might have something to do with it.

I did think of having a glossary at the back of the book, in which things are explained, e.g. what can be done by magic and what can’t, or who the characters are. That way, the reader could look up something they needed to know. Trouble with that is that they might not know it’s there until they get to the end…

By: Jo

Jo — Tue, 05 May 2009 06:03:00 +0000

I would say that pretty well covers it Marina. Especially when there are months and sometimes even years between publications.

By: Marina

Marina — Tue, 05 May 2009 04:03:00 +0000

I like books that do the separate “our story so far” recap at the beginning. If I don’t remember the previous book(s) it brings me up to speed quickly, and if I do remember I can just skip it and it removes the need for those annoying “as you know, Bob” reminder-type conversations. Either way I also find it interesting to see what the author thinks are the important things I need to know from previous book(s). Things that stick in my mind may not be the things the author considers important to the plot. It’s like getting spoilers almost. “What, you mean that apparently insignificant conversation with the wizard in the middle of book 2 was actually the key to the whole resolution of the series??”

By: Jo

Jo — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 05:35:00 +0000

It must be tough. I recently read book 3 of a trilogy. They did have a bit of a synopses at the beginning but it left me none the wiser. Gradually through the book I was reminded of the previous books (actually it was book 2 I had trouble remembering) but I never did figure out where some characters originated.