Which do you prefer with trilogies?

[DarkScribe]

I don't and never have bought a trilogy. If it takes three books to tell one story - I am not interested. I will buy books in a series, that is quite a different thing.

[Freeshadow]

I always preferred one book editions. Pbooks being no exception there. In my pre e- reader time I always grabbed the big one if there was that choice. Like to have it all in place. Since I can read fairly small print this isn't an issue to me and I would easily accept folios being on the reasonable limits of bookbinding lege artes. Personally owned pbook examples: LotR; harrisons Kulozik and dinAlt yeries
Vances Tchai; Star Wars; Neuromancer; Zelaznys Amber; Asimovs Foundation; Sherlock Holmes; chronicles of Pyrdain all omnibus eds.
Wouldn't I own Canavans Guild books in german already I'd certainly have preferably ordered them omnibussed in polish as soon as I found out there was such edition out. I just always hated to have multiple volume flying around in my backpack or pockets. What drove me crazy was that I never came across an SSR omnibus.
With ebooks it isn't that bad, since I effectively carry whole shelves with me, but the preference somehow survived and became even stronger because unlike with paper there is no limitation balancing printsize with sane limits of what is produceable by a bookbinder and still manually to handle while reading, thus I see no reason to put a book out cut into three parts when all are already done besides of (you asked for honest opinions) money-milking the readers.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by elemenoP

I think they should be separate volumes, with the first one free in ebook form. After all, more people will download it if it's free, and when they read it they will love it SO much that they have to buy the next ones, right??? That's putting your money where you mouth is.

eP

I rather like that idea.

But one thing... If they are three separate eBooks, don't do what a lot of other publishers have done and format them totally differently so the code inside is not even close to being the same.

[LiquidGear]

most readers would prefer to have it all in one... but if you want to earn big, separate the books... come to think of it, if the first volume becomes successful, a lot of people will purchase it and will wait for the next volume... and so with the last volume.

[ucfgrad93]

All at once.

[Dopedangel]

Release it as separate book but release them all at once. Sell the first one as cheap as possible to stimulate interest for the other two.
If you do release it as one book don't price it by number of words as then very few people will be willing to buy it.

[dreams]

pbook - separate books for ease of holding

ebook - as this is a large file, I prefer 3 separate ebooks - also if this is a new to me author then I like the option of trying the free (or priced very low) first book to see if I like it.

release timing - all at once or at least less than a week apart.

[piperclassique]

As long as they are all available at the same time I don't mind if it is one or three volumes.

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

I don't and never have bought a trilogy. If it takes three books to tell one story - I am not interested. I will buy books in a series, that is quite a different thing.

When trilogy means one really long book, I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, that isn't what was being asked. Since it sounds like the book has already been written, our opinions probably aren't going to count for much either.

[charlesatan]

I'm an all-at-once person, but from a marketing standpoint, sometimes it's more difficult to sell am omnibus edition without the success of three individual books.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

I don't and never have bought a trilogy. If it takes three books to tell one story - I am not interested. I will buy books in a series, that is quite a different thing.

Three-volume publishing was the norm in the 19th century. The works of almost all the authors of the "classics" - Austen, Hardy, Dickens, Trollope, etc - were published in three volumes.

One of the reasons for this was the spread of libraries. Publishing a book in three volumes meant that three different readers could be reading it at the same time.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

I don't and never have bought a trilogy. If it takes three books to tell one story - I am not interested. I will buy books in a series, that is quite a different thing.

What's the difference between a trilogy and a series?

[caleb72]

OK - showing my weirdness again.

I can sometimes shy away from a trilogy because I get to thinking - not another trilogy. However, if it's a trilogy it's a trilogy and if I'm going to get it at all I'd rather it come in separate volumes.

For example, I purchased the Hunger Games as an ombnibus and immediately got in there and separated it into 3 separate volumes in my Calibre library.

I may not want to read all 3 volumes at once but based on the way I manage my eLibrary I'll want it to be clear what I've read and what I haven't. So having the separate volumes makes it easier for me.

Ah - I've been in an IT operations environment too long. *sigh*

[charlesatan]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

What's the difference between a trilogy and a series?

The series can go on for more than three books

But in general, we can't generalize about series (and to a certain extent, trilogies).

Books in a series can stand on its own (i.e. a lot of Harry Dresden, Anita Blake, Discworld books), either episodic in nature or have an overarching major plot in the background.

Some end in a cliffhanger (i.e. Wheel of Time, A Song of Ice and Fire) or have no real "closure" point.

These two provide different reading experiences. I can easily dip into the Discworld series as whimsy dictates. Getting into the Wheel of Time is an investment in time.

[tompe]

An n-ology is essentially one book. A series is not one book.