Tri Logy

Trilogy: A phenomenon sadly common in fiction and derided since (at least) the nineteenth century, wherein in order to boost sales and/or cater for a low boredom threshold, one long novel is split into three short ones. Lady Bracknell was heard to decry the "recent trend towards three-volume novels", as (presumably more recently) have been certain OUSFGi, including Brian Aldiss and Juliet E Mc Kenna? (<http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/juliet.e.mckenna/articletrilogies.html>), although she sees good reasons for them in some cases.

Certain OUSFGi will also note that, while single volumes over 200 pages are bad and trilogies are bad, trilogies in which each volume consists of 600 pages are absolutely intolerable (I'm including Das Kap here), and no possible defence can be made of The Wheel Of Time?, except for the fact that it's actually rather good. The one exception being the fine Nights Dawn Trilogy from Peter F Hamilton.

Douglas Adams, or possibly his publishers, memorably lampooned the concept with the H2G2 trilogy of five, although to be fair, although the trilogy and the quintet are perhaps the most well known forms, the serialisation of novels in general is the issue. Some books do, of course, work better in this format. The Lord Of The Rings is in perpetual danger of undergoing gravitational collapse (or at least tearing its own spine in paperback) when published in single novel form, and there's occasionally a lot to be said for cliffhangers. Still, the fundamental difference remains between 'Three (four, five) books telling a linked story' and 'One book sliced three ways for better sales/franchising'.

On film trilogies, eg LOTR and The Matrix: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3231009.stm>