I'm a member in a couple of writer forums. Mainly ghostwriters, but there are a few who are there mainly to advertise their books or link us to articles on their blogs (not really annoying, but sometimes it becomes too much). One such writer started a thread about why trilogies should all be stand-alone books with a proper ending and definitely should not have a major cliffhanger that forces you to buy the next one.

As a writer who releases trilogies myself, I am usually in that dilemma, trying to figure out the best way to reach a balance between keeping a story going for three books while making sure each one is, in a way, its own story. However, I do find it quite difficult to swallow.

You see, I've always been raised with the notion that there was a significant difference between a trilogy and a series. When I was eight or nine, I read a lot of Hardy Boys and (I have to admit it) Nancy Drew books, and there was no part of me that went into those believing that the story would not end when I reached the last page. Why? Because it was a series. There were dozens of books out there, each its own adventure, each a standalone story with a happily-ever-after ending.

However, when it came to trilogies, I was never under the impression that I could read one of the books and not expect to go onto the next. That was the point of a trilogy. It was a great, vast story that couldn't be told in only one book, and there was something incredibly exciting about having to wait for the next book to be published, or making sure the person who borrowed Book 2 from the library would return it before you went absolutely crazy.

At the same time, I understand how the current market is feeding off the idea of dividing stories into three books just to make a bigger profit. Sure, there will always be those who abuse the system, but how bad is it, really?

When I look at some trilogies, where buying all three books would amount to something close to 7 or 8 USD, I don't think it's a 'trick' to make more profit. Basically, wouldn't one book of the same length usually be sold at the same price, approximately? Also, I like the idea of paying a small sum for Book 1, realizing whether or not I like the author, and then investing some more.

So, I think we should keep in mind the difference between the two. When Terry Brooks writes a trilogy, then that's exactly what it is, a story divided into three parts where I am expected to loyally tag along for the ride. When I want standalone books of the same character and his/her adventures, then hello Ian Fleming, Agatha Christie, James Patterson and Ron Ripley.