I think one day the authors of the world sat down and said “It should be a trilogy!” And they made a pact, and now, they all make their series into trilogies. Stand-alones are rare, hardly any books become long series, and two books? What are you, insane?
But was this a good pact to make? Or was it just a waste of the author’s, and more importantly our time?
First we have the Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins. This, to me, is a perfect example of someone who should have just stopped. The first one, with the actual games, was great. I loved it. Then the first half of the second one was good, and a few scenes in the end. The third one… It just felt like it didn’t need to be there. There was so many deaths that shouldn’t have happened. The loose ends were tied up, but most of it could have been cut, and the second and third books could have easily been put into one.
For me, Divergent by Veronica Roth wasn’t that good a series. And not because it was a trilogy, just because it didn’t live up to all the hype. The first one was good, and the idea was good, but the writing wasn’t amazing. So again, it didn’t need to be a trilogy. Really, it only needed to be one.
This is the best example I could find of a series that should have stopped at two. In the first book the Selection, America was my hero. I loved her so much. As a general rule, I hate main characters, so this was a great surprise for me. But then Kiera Cass decided that she must have a plot outside of the Selection. And really, it was all downhill from there. Honestly, Cass tried too hard. It could have been two separate series; one with Maxon, one with the castes etc. The first one was by far the best, and the second one was great, but the third let me down.
But am I missing any? Or should these ones not be on my list? Let me know your thoughts! 🙂