Quote

I think the danger with using the term 'trilogy' is that it sets up particular expectations in the reader's mind.

The great thing about a trilogy is that it feels like you've got a beginning, a middle, and an end.

Occasionally, I hear grumbles about everything being a series or a trilogy, but apart from the question of them maybe selling more books, I think that there's a real problem in trying to introduce a new world or a new concept while also getting your reader to pay close attention to your characters and themes.

I suppose sequels are inevitable for a writer of a certain age.

This is what I always wanted to do in my entire life, so I am not going to sit here and complain that it is so terrible to be in successful movies, because it becomes a trilogy!

I would normally never set out to write a trilogy.

I did not know at first that it would be a series; I discovered after the first novel that I had more to say about it, so I did another. And another, and then the readers demanded yet more.

My gut feeling about sequels is that they should be premeditated: You should try to write a trilogy first or at least sketch out a trilogy if you have any faith in your film.

A trilogy is a pretty abstract notion. You can apply it to almost any three things.

When you're writing for a sequel and there's a movie that's been deemed sacred ground by the fanbase that's the predecessor, you cannot do anything to tread on that, so it's a bit trickier than just being able to sit down and write something.