Since I've been reading a couple of less than marvelous romance trilogies, I thought I would stop to consider what makes a good trilogy. For instance - at what point should all six of the romantic partners be on stage? In book one, book two or book three? How much should we know about each character in the books? Should the romance be started for the next book in the preceding book? Should the "alpha male" of the group if there is one find his romance in the first book or the last? How much do we want to see the happily together couple in the next book? Can they be main characters? Can their relationship have problems, or are they just glowing perfection from then out?
   I'm not sure I have answers, just irritation points. I like seeing the types of characters vary. If there is only one main goal over the three books you run the risk of boring the reader because the three romances will be very similar due to the characters and events being similar. If there is too much of all six hero/heroines in each book you run the risk of not having room to break out of stereotypes. If they all like each other the dialogue etc gets irritating quickly.
   A good writer can pull of anything, in theory. In remembering series that I've liked, it seems to go better when there is an overriding goal but each book has very distinct goals of its own, where all six hero/heroines aren't prominent from page one book one, and where the characters are different, not just differently-strengthed. Also I seem to prefer it when the last book's romantic partners play only minor roles.
   What do you think?