I have been experimenting lately with reading the middle books in a trilogy before the first and the third and I have been impressed with how much better the experience turns out. I haven't been able to figure out why this works better but I have a few guesses.
Usually people say that middle books are the most boring parts of a trilogy but I have found that this experiment has completely changed my perspective.
The first book in the series usually has the world building and the buildup of the story so the beginning is usually boring or not as riveting as one would like it to be.
Once you get to the middle book all the stuff has happened so you are in a space where the characters have grown with the events and are more mature. It turns out our brains are incredibly elastic and fill out some backstory for the characters and their motivation. The figuring out is a lot of fun and every reveal is fantastic.
Also usually during the first books a writer is finding his voice, the shape of the story, the structure of the tale and so on so forth but by the time you get to the middle book they have nailed the voice and the story they are going to narrate.
It turns out that you can't read the third directly though because the story has progressed too far ahead and you know nothing about the world in which everything is set it.
I have read the last few trilogies I managed to finish this way and I have enjoyed them immensely.
I finished reading the Broken Empire trilogy this way by reading King of Thorns first followed by Emperor of Thorns and Prince of Thorns. As I was reading the King my mind was bobbing with questions, who is Jorg. How did he become this way? Who is Chella? Why is there conflict between them. What is this wonderous fantasy world set in our future with technology that looks like magic. With this context Emperor was a fantastic read and when I finally got to the first book in the tale it felt as if all the dots had finally connected. Prince of Thorns was well written but nowhere near as good as the last two books but I was able to appreciate it a lot more. I was able to see how the events in the first book influenced the character as they moved.
Reading the magician's trilogy was also quite interesting this way. I had read the first book The Magicians a long while back. I thought it was fine but nothing as earth shattering as I expected it to be. Then I read the Magician King on a hunch and although I remembered only fragments of The Magicians it turned out be one of the great reading experiences of my life. I finished the Magician's Land after that which was the finale and thought it was stunning. Reading the first book was like taking a look at a masterpiece in the making. The writing was clearly raw but it was a great setup. The Brakebills I always wondered about was present in all its glory but there were clearly spots in which the book slowed down and lost its pacing a bit. Fillory, Mark Chatwin, mere fragments in my mind came to life. I would not have enjoyed the world building half as much if I did not know what they would lead to. Lev Grossman was a much better writer in the last two books but reading the first seemed like getting an early look at a draft.
The long price quartet by Daniel Abrahams was a similar experience. I picked up the Autumn war at first and upon reading I was struck with questions and the mind being a wonderful thing allowed me to enjoy the story which was moving at a break neck pace. When I read the previous books the tale was fresh. I could see what the events were leading to. It was fun to see what the characters were before they became what they became.
I think this applies mostly to stories that are envisioned as trilogies. For example it wouldn't work with the Matrix because the sequels didn't stand up to the first.
However one has to admit that the first part of the lord of the rings is just a giant walk to Rivendell and things really start getting interesting only in the two towers.
Usually people say that middle books are the most boring parts of a trilogy but I have found that this experiment has completely changed my perspective.
The first book in the series usually has the world building and the buildup of the story so the beginning is usually boring or not as riveting as one would like it to be.
Once you get to the middle book all the stuff has happened so you are in a space where the characters have grown with the events and are more mature. It turns out our brains are incredibly elastic and fill out some backstory for the characters and their motivation. The figuring out is a lot of fun and every reveal is fantastic.
Also usually during the first books a writer is finding his voice, the shape of the story, the structure of the tale and so on so forth but by the time you get to the middle book they have nailed the voice and the story they are going to narrate.
It turns out that you can't read the third directly though because the story has progressed too far ahead and you know nothing about the world in which everything is set it.
I have read the last few trilogies I managed to finish this way and I have enjoyed them immensely.
I finished reading the Broken Empire trilogy this way by reading King of Thorns first followed by Emperor of Thorns and Prince of Thorns. As I was reading the King my mind was bobbing with questions, who is Jorg. How did he become this way? Who is Chella? Why is there conflict between them. What is this wonderous fantasy world set in our future with technology that looks like magic. With this context Emperor was a fantastic read and when I finally got to the first book in the tale it felt as if all the dots had finally connected. Prince of Thorns was well written but nowhere near as good as the last two books but I was able to appreciate it a lot more. I was able to see how the events in the first book influenced the character as they moved.
Reading the magician's trilogy was also quite interesting this way. I had read the first book The Magicians a long while back. I thought it was fine but nothing as earth shattering as I expected it to be. Then I read the Magician King on a hunch and although I remembered only fragments of The Magicians it turned out be one of the great reading experiences of my life. I finished the Magician's Land after that which was the finale and thought it was stunning. Reading the first book was like taking a look at a masterpiece in the making. The writing was clearly raw but it was a great setup. The Brakebills I always wondered about was present in all its glory but there were clearly spots in which the book slowed down and lost its pacing a bit. Fillory, Mark Chatwin, mere fragments in my mind came to life. I would not have enjoyed the world building half as much if I did not know what they would lead to. Lev Grossman was a much better writer in the last two books but reading the first seemed like getting an early look at a draft.
The long price quartet by Daniel Abrahams was a similar experience. I picked up the Autumn war at first and upon reading I was struck with questions and the mind being a wonderful thing allowed me to enjoy the story which was moving at a break neck pace. When I read the previous books the tale was fresh. I could see what the events were leading to. It was fun to see what the characters were before they became what they became.
I think this applies mostly to stories that are envisioned as trilogies. For example it wouldn't work with the Matrix because the sequels didn't stand up to the first.
However one has to admit that the first part of the lord of the rings is just a giant walk to Rivendell and things really start getting interesting only in the two towers.
Comments