Okay, so last week I talked about how you need to end your series or trilogies before you get obviously desperate. I finished with saying how I would talk about how to keep your series/trilogy interesting without getting desperate.... Honesty, I was stalling for time because I wasn't/am not sure exactly how to do that... I'll try to tell you though.
(Let me start off saying, I usually write stand-alones because I'm pretty paranoid about making it go on longer than it should...)
These examples are either ones that I like or ones I think they did something wrong.... and I'll explain, don't worry.
The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins
The first book in the Hunger Games trilogy and, in my opinion, probably the best. Collins starts the trilogy out well, the goal is clear (and something we can support-- getting out of the Hunger Games alive), you have sympathy-- being stuck in an arena with twenty-three other kids? On the other hand though, Katniss does seem a little standoff-ish, but... no one is perfect.
BUT in the sequel Catching Fire.... that's another story.
In a nutshell, it was a filler. A filler that could've been better... a lot better.
First off, Katniss doesn't really have a goal. Besides trying to choose from Gale and Peeta and trying to get Peeta out of the Hunger Games.... But wasn't it pretty much done in the first book? If you look at right, Catching Fire (in the writer's world) was useless. (Still fun, and obviously made her a lot of money, but it is my least favorite of her books, and when I think about it, I almost feel cheated...)
The last one was also fun-- but sad because it was the last one.
(In all honesty, I haven't read this one in awhile, so forgive me if I have forgotten something major that you think should have been a big deal.)
It's the wrap up of the trilogy, but also has a story of it's own. Now that Katniss has joined the actually existing District 13, she can do what she already decided she wanted to do-- lead a rebellion.
Some people think that Collins killed off to many people in the Hunger Games, and if that isn't your cup of tea, then yes, she did. But to go along with her plot, people needed to die. As a writer, I no the decision of who/when/ or even if to kill can be difficult, but when you are writing about a war it is necessary. (at least if you want it to be realistic...)
Over all, Collins did a good job in grasping the readers attention and not letting go, and pulling them all the way through the stories.
In Jill Williamson's Blood of Kings or The Safe Lands books she did well to give each story it's own plot-- while carrying on the main story-- with no book just as a filler.
I guess the main point I'm trying to get across is-- If you have a story that can be told as a complete story while also carrying over some of the main plot for the other all trilogy, it will work.
In trilogies/series' you should have them all be connected by some plot points, but also be able to carry the attention span of the reader...
I hope this made sense, haha!
Have a great weekend!