Since Give Up the Ghost was released, I’ve been getting a question I suspect every writer hears after publishing a book not clearly part of a series: “Is there going to be a sequel?”
When I wrote Ghost, it never occurred to me to think of it as anything other than a stand-alone novel. The plot and character arcs I envisioned fit well within the scope of one book. I saw Cass’ story as being—well, maybe not finished—but finished enough that the rest could live in readers’ imaginations. But if people want to read more about her, why wouldn’t I pursue that?
It’s not as easy a decision as you might think. Many times I’ve read sequels to books I loved only to be disappointed: finding the book is only a repetition of the original’s events and themes, or an attempt to go in a new direction that falls flat. And the worst part is, reading an unsatisfying sequel often tarnishes my love for the first book. Once I’ve read an unfulfilling ‘what comes next,’ it forever alters my perceptions of the original work. As a reader, I would almost always rather have a new, unrelated stand-alone than a sequel. And as a writer, I don’t want to disappoint my readers.
Of course, there are still those sequels that are satisfying, that expand on the original with twists and surprises while keeping the magic that made it wonderful. So the temptation to attempt it is there, as I’m sure it is for many authors in the same situation. How does a writer decide whether it’s worth making that attempt? I can only speak for myself, but these are the questions I ask when considering any sequel idea.
Is the main character going to have as big a problem as in the first book? I see this happen all the time with TV shows. *coughs*Heroes*coughs* The protagonists start the first season with a huge, urgent problem, one they finally overcome by the climactic episode. But after you’ve rescued the world from certain destruction, any smaller conflict can feel like a let down. Cass may not be saving cities or uncovering vast conspiracies, but she’s already faced the biggest problem I could throw at her: trying to save a life after years of pushing away the living. Unless there’s another conflict equally powerful, why should that story be written?
Will the premise be different enough but not too different? Put a character back into the exact same situation they already overcame and readers will groan. But take them somewhere completely different and you'll face a whole '’other set of complaints. The trick to a successful sequel seems to be finding new angles on the original premise, or expanding it beyond the boundaries of the first story, while keeping the kernel of the idea intact. The best angles and expansions are not always immediately obvious, if they exist at all.
The last question, I think, is the most important. Do I want to destroy the ending I've already written?
Because ultimately, that's what a sequel does. It stomps all over the previous The End and writes a new one. I don’t know about my fellow writers, but I find writing the ending the hardest part of this job. It has to tie up all the vital loose ends. It has to leave readers with a sense that the major conflict has been overcome in a believable and appropriate way. And hopefully it’ll leave them thinking back over the events of the story, re-evaluating and reconsidering based on everything that’s happened. It’s the last part of the story most people read, an author’s last chance to make a permanent impression.
Am I going to try writing a sequel? You never know whether inspiration will strike. But I know I’m going to have to be darn sure that I want to throw away the ending I’ve already sweated over and conjure up a new one from scratch.
How about you: what are your favorite sequels? Are there any sequels you think shouldn’t have been written? Or books you wish had sequels but don’t? (For that last question, maybe this post will give you an idea why that might be.)
Megan Crewe is a Canadian young adult author whose first novel, Give Up the Ghost, was recently published by Henry Holt Books for Young Readers.
Wednesday November 04, 2009 09:56am EST
Wednesday November 04, 2009 12:38pm EST
But your core observation, "is the main character going to have as big a problem as the first book?", is incredibly insightful. If I ever do contemplate writing a sequel to anything, that's going to be question number one.
And if I ever decide to explicitly plan out a series, that will be central to my thinking in what the sequence of problems will be.
I wonder, too, if perhaps that question lies at the heart of why so many long-running series involve characters who get their challenges from their jobs. That is, people who tackle the problem because that's what they do: cops and lawyers (e.g. Robert Dugoni's stuff), private investigators (Stephanie Plum), et cetera. Those authors have, either wisely or luckily, selected a premise which naturally implies a sequence of challenges in the characters life which are:
* externally driven (really they're solving someone else's problems)
* similarly weighty
Hm. Great post. Made me think.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday November 05, 2009 04:36am EST
When I read a Discworld book I don't expect it to follow up where the previous one left, or to be like the previous one, especially because there's usually a 2-3 books pause before the same characters return as protagonists; there is enough detachment that, even if the 'sequel' is not up to par with the previous story, it doesn't mar the memory of the previous ones. It's a bit like TV shows: a bad episode won't ruin the show if the overall quality is high, and the new ending won't destroy the old one because it was already meant as an "end, until the next time".
Another example are side stories: a sequel set in the same world but about different stuff (maybe people we met in the original one, or cities we just glimpsed but never visited) might be a way to explore further on the themes, or world, or culture of the first book without making it feel like a repetition, and it can also be an occasion to touch themes that would feel out of place with the original characters.
Of course, in every case, a sequel has to be written when there is a strong and interesting story that you want to tell, and not just because the fans (or you!) want you to write one. Sometimes sequels are better left to fanfic and imagination.
Thursday November 05, 2009 04:34pm EST
The 2nd and 3rd of these trilogies seem written, not by the author of the 1st, but by some lazy hack who has not even read the 1st. And they're NEVER written well enough to be standalone novels.
So ... I've started ignoring ALL novels touted as "n of m" .
Please stop this practice, please.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday November 05, 2009 05:21pm EST
One thing worth mentioning is that a sequel set in the same world as the one you've already introduced but with different characters might not face some of the same issues as sequels featuring the same characters. So maybe the reader is a little more forgiving?
(That said, I heard China Mieville is not planning on writing another Bas Lag book because the ending he wrote for Iron Council was the place he really wanted it to end. At least, for now :)
VIEW ALL BY · Friday November 06, 2009 08:17am EST
Some types of stories lend themselves to sequels--ones where you set up a character with a particular skill that he or she can use in numerous different situations (detective novels, for instance). And sometimes you have a very large story that you can tell over several books, or a very large world, whose different aspects you can explore.
But yeah, if you have a self contained story about a character who goes through a certain development arc and resolves a certain conflict, then there *isn't* really a sequel. You can tell another whole story about the character--maybe--but it will be a completely different story.
Friday November 06, 2009 01:37pm EST
Newsweek once ran a chart comparing body counts between first movies and their sequels, and the differences were sometimes astounding. I think the Terminator and Die Hard franchises were the biggest offenders here.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 11, 2009 07:13am EST
@3 Atrus - That's my thought too; i'd do the story of the ancestors or descendants, or set in a different city in the same world, or something like that. And @4 Dave - I've avoided anything that's part of a series for ages.
Mind you, i love Michael Scott Rohan's books and only one of them ('The Lord of Middle Air') is not part of a series. Ironically i wish it were, as it's my favourite of his.
Talk of sequels reminds me of another gripe, and a different kind of fantasy. Why did Disney make up their own Dalmatians sequel, when Dodie Smith had written a marvellous follow-up to 'The Hundred and One...'? Not that i'd particularly want 'The Starlight Barking' adapted, but what a shame to snub it.
Wednesday November 11, 2009 09:15am EST
I do think it is okay to have a stand alone and to let the reader imagine where the story continues. And I appreciate your well thought out reasons for not wanting to do a sequel.