If you make a trilogy, the whole point is to get to that third chapter, and the third chapter is what justifies what's come before.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
The great thing about a trilogy is that it feels like you've got a beginning, a middle, and an end.
I think the danger with using the term 'trilogy' is that it sets up particular expectations in the reader's mind.
One of the traps or the pitfalls of writing a trilogy - or a triptych, or whatever term you want to use - is that the second book can be a long second act to get you from book one to book three, which borrows all of its energy from the first book.
I love the trilogy form. I like the idea that you can establish a character in book one. And then in the second part, you can take the characters down to their darkest point. And then in the third part, you have total freedom either to give them redemption - or just to kill them.
The beginning of a book is always the hardest part for me. I'm a Chapter 3 kind of writer, which means I naturally start at Chapter 3.
Nowadays it seems as though people sit down to write what they know is going to be a trilogy.
Titles are important; I have them before I have books that belong to them. I have last chapters in my mind before I see first chapters, too. I usually begin with endings, with a sense of aftermath, of dust settling, of epilogue.
If I'm writing and a chapter isn't coming, I just move ahead.
I hate the idea of sequels. I think you should be able to do it in one book.
A trilogy is a pretty abstract notion. You can apply it to almost any three things.