I've noticed something interesting about how you could initiate trilogies.
You could have the first book be the "explainer" where you get into the world and introduced to its problem. The plot only really begins in the second book, and then the third ties it all up.
Then you could have another trilogy where the first book is where the conflict begins, and then the second ties up the unfinished problems from the first. The third book is just the fallout of aftermath of the first two.
OR you could have all three set up in a way that could be read in a loop, over and over again.
There are so many possibilities, omg! And I just wanted to take a step back to appreciate the power we have as writers to do such amazing things.
While I have no examples for those three trilogy "formats", I could give one for my own trilogy, that being:
The first book introduces us to our protagonist, and she accomplishes her own personal goal; even though she's not finished with the overarching goal of the whole trilogy. The second book deals with the fallout and aftermath of the first and our MC's decisions, and at the end, our antagonist is redeemed, it's tied up there. Peace is made between the opposing forces.
In comes the third story, where the leader's second-in-command dislikes how things are going. And so he continues with their brutal ways, now both the hero and the redeemed antagonist go back to fight the common enemy.
Which of these formats do you find most interesting? Which do you personally like the most?
I am partial to all of these, and I KNOW I'm missing a lot, but this would be just a short list of ones I enjoy.