I just finished "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets Nest", thus completing the Millennium trilogy. This made me think about where this trilogy ranks compared with other trilogies I've read. Let's start with an easy one:
Lord of the Rings Trilogy - score 10/10
- simply the best trilogy ever written although you could argue that it was actually one really long book instead of three separate books. It's my blog so I'm ruling this a trilogy.
Millennium Trilogy - score 8/10
- an epic, page turning trilogy from beginning to end. I loved it. It's hard to believe I read ~2000 pages in a few weeks. If LotR is really one single story spread across three books, then the Millennium trilogy is really two stories spread across three books.
Bourne Trilogy -- score 6/10
- very enjoyable at times, but also confusing and and a little dry. I know many people will disagree with this, but I think that Stieg Larsson (of the Millennium trilogy) is simply a better story teller than Ludlum. Not a better writer, necessarily, but a Larsson tells a more engaging story.
Hitchhiker's "Trilogy" -- score 5/10
- okay, there is roughly six books in this "trilogy", but I've only read 3 of them and "Trilogy" has appeared on the cover of every book since #3. They are fun and enjoyable, but a little boring at times.
The Border Trilogy -- score 2/10
- Three books by Cormak McCarthy set in the SW US and Mexico. Very boring, very depressing. No common characters or story lines, just a common setting and theme -- the depressing loss of a way of life.
