Trilogies of trilogies... of trilogies?
Everything's a trilogy. This isn't anything new -- it's been this way for a long time -- but it's become rather expected of authors lately, hasn't it? For indie authors in particular, it's a common piece of advice: write short, write rapidly, and write a series. Now, a series isn't necessarily just a trilogy... but very often that's what they are.
Right now, the first book in my own Eleanor series -- a planned trilogy -- is in the hands of nearly sixty beta readers (sixty! I am stunned by how many readers volunteered -- thank you all), and will shortly thereafter be in the hands of my new editor. (Hiring an editor is one way to make yourself feel like a real writer, I have to say.)
But I can't shake the idea that this story might not be best told in three parts. Well, three parts, sure -- I do have three large arcs of story to tell -- but perhaps not three books . I'm waffling on this subject right now. I'll go to bed certain that three books is the right solution, and wake up convinced that I should publish the story as one epic novel.
(I'm not fond of the word epic , either, I confess. But it applies here.)
I don't know how this is going to turn out, but I can't bring myself to force the story into three books just to take advantage of the trio of beautiful covers. (Is it weird to refer to my own designs as beautiful? I just... I love these.) And right now it seems like that's the only reason this story should be three. Which of course is no good reason at all.
Maybe Eleanor is a single book after all.
I really just need someone else to make up my mind for me.