Sequels - do we need them?

[Mr. Birkegaard]

Hello there,

Just want to know your feelings about sequels in general (not necessarily SK-related): Do we need them?

As a reader I am sometimes turned off if I know a book is part of a series of 7-9-13. There is bound to be some "dogs" amongst them and is it really worth the effort? At the same time it can be entertaining to follow interesting characters in more adventures.

As a writer I suppose you somehow make a compromise - if you know (and have declared) you want to write a series of 10 books with the same protagonist, you have to "hold back" some of the back story or otherwise make the overall plot last longer in (I feel) a superficial way. I'm temped to call it cheating.

The reason I ask is that I see a trend in some debutants claiming that their first book is only the first in a series of 7-9-13 books, and I really think they are doing themselves a "bad favor" (probably not the right word) - why limit yourself when you're just starting out?

That is (one of the reasons) why I admire SK - he seems to let the story find the characters, not the other way around.

(I know that some will think this is a stab against DT, but its really not. I have not read it (yet), and my genuine impression is that its very honest - that it "developed" to be a series because it ... was.)

[bobledrew]

I'm no novelist, Mr. B. But I suspect that sometimes, when you sit down to write, you find out you're writing a short story; other times, a novel. It's likely that SK writes whatever the hell he pleases at this point -- he's got more money than some countries -- but I think that some writers do work to come up with a character who is "marketable." Specifically thinking of mystery writers, here -- there are a ton of series, and it's a long, honourable tradition there.

As to whether they are NEEDED? Really, nothing is NEEDED. Who needs another novel? Let alone a sequel? I think there's a meeting of the minds -- the writer decides he needs one, and the reader then decides whether he or she was right. For example: Black House is a good book. But for me, did it add to my experience of The Talisman? No. But your mileage may vary.

[Doc Wilson]

I totally agree. There are a few big exceptions, but very few.

[91rewoT]

(I know that some will think this is a stab against DT, but its really not. I have not read it (yet), and my genuine impression is that its very honest - that it "developed" to be a series because it ... was.)

Really, the Dark Tower is just one long story that was published in several books. Sequels are fine with me IF there is something more worth telling. Non-King stories that have good sequels (IMO)...Star Wars, Lord of the Rings.

[Aericanwizard]

I have mixed feelings about sequels. While I never like the adventures of my favourite characters to end, I've only rarely found a sequel that has been able to capture the power of the original (some series, as you say are designed as series, and feel more like one large story than a succession of sequels: The Dark Tower, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings spring to mind). Unfortunately, I find that with many series, I just get frustrated at what I feel is a dragging-on, holding over for another book (Star Wars Expanded Universe, I'm looking at you!).

Other times, I feel that an author can become too dependent upon a certain storyline / set of characters. The first few books are often good excellent, but after a while, the series seems to tell the same story over and over again, and the characters hardly change, as the author is comfortable where he is. Then, the series ends, and is tied up nicely (often 3 or 4 books past what was necessary), and the reader gets to anticipate the author working with new material. Then, all of a sudden, a new story with the same characters pops up, and it's more of the same.

I may sound like I'm ranting, but don't get me wrong, a good sequel can be a wonderful thing (all the better because they are so hard to get right). So often, anything that was left open at the end of a good novel (the very things that make us want a sequel), are not meant to be closed. I am of the opinion that a good novel breathes after it's finished. The reader needs to keep thinking about the novel after he has finished it. If all questions are answered, there is no reason to contemplate it; it goes back on the shelf, never to be thought of again. Sometimes it's better to have no definitive answers to our questions. I'll allow that good sequels do exist (I can't think of any off the top of my head, unless you consider the aforementioned "one story across several novels"), but I think that they need to expand upon the original story, rather than just be a safe rehash of the original.

Long days and pleasant nights.

[GNTLGNT]

Sequels in general usually make me feel the same way an electronic cigarette does-unsatisfied...and no, it's not a stab at DT-that's one long azz novel-not a series of sequels-nor will the new one be...

[Mr. Birkegaard]

There are, as you mention, exceptions (Sherlock Holmes is a series that I would dearly miss), but it seems that the publishing houses (and movie companies for that matter) are going for the safe bet these days.
Remakes [shutters] are not seen very often in written fiction, thank God, but how long will that last? :oo:

[omm poppa mow mow]

I haven't read a single Harry Potter story. Why? I dunno. Maybe it has to do w/reading or not reading something that everyone is reading. I haven't read any of that other lady's stories, either. S. Meyers? With her stories, I was curious, and I picked one off the shelf in the store, read a few lines, and came away w/this vision of an English school girl.

I've read The Hobbit, and I think I read the first of 3 of the Lord of the Rings. I don't believe I read the other 2. The last--The Return of the King?--well, last night I'm reading in The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao--and in there, he makes use of what apparently is one of the final scenes? Something to do w/a big hand in the sky. Hmmm, I think, The Stand. I wondered about the thematic applications of the two scenes...Stand...Return of the King...

When I was in the service, I began to read about Thomas Covenent, whose....6?...7? More? stories by Stephen R Donaldson SK mentions in his essay On Being Nineteen....or somewhere...I think it was there. Donaldson's stories are like Tolkien's story. I did not complete the series...and recently, I saw what apparently is the final book in that series. I was in a Borders whilst on vacation and picked up some beetching deals, but that one I did not buy. There's time...famous last words.

I read a 12-volume series...the Left Behind series....based on Revelation.

The Passage is book one of several planned, we have been told.

How about Dune? Didn't Harvard, or someone, lampoon Dune? The Kumquat Haagen-daaz? :)

[Chris Jones]

I am off mixed opinions when it comes to sequels. There are certain films I love and would really like sequels but I am glad their arent any because movie sequels are very rarely any good, in fact the majority are terrible. When it comes to books there are certain books that need sequels or should have sequels but many should be left alone. I know when Im writing and thinking about a character a lot I think of situations or plot developments that I feel are great but not for the current story I am writing, so sometimes I come back to them in another story but many times I just leave it. The thing about reading for me is that the story doesnt always finish when you close the book it lives on in your imagination. If all books just carried on with sequels until every single little thing is wrapped up, it would be very sad and ruin the magic of a good read.

[jellydonut25]

None are really NEEDED, but if sequels didn't exist we wouldn't have Godfather Part II, Empire Strikes Back, and I'm sure others that I can't think of right now.

The best thing about a sequel is that if it sucks, the original still exists...

[Chris Jones]

I feel that some sequels taint the original though

[Seb Shaw]

If the characters are worth following for more journeys (E.g. DT,HP, LOTR and a few others) then yes. We do NOT however, need a sequel to Cloverfield.... I HATED the first one, it was utter trash (sorry if any of you liked it) But for some reason, they are making a new one? Why? Simple... Money....

Sorry... Rant over...

P.S Like I said, If the story is good and the characters are good, then I have no problems with a sequel, in fact, I'd go as far as saying I love sequels, when done right :)

[dsurrett]

The best sequels are, I believe, planned ahead of time, but often they start out as good ideas in an author's head who has written a really good book, but the sequel just doesn't live up to the original, and either the author or the agent/publisher isn't willing to put the axe to it.
King has a lot of books that we'd love to see sequels to, but for whatever reason, they haven't been written. I'm thinking of Salem's Lot, The Shining, and a few others. It would be hard for a sequel to measure up to the original masterpieces. As an aspiring writer, I've got to think if I was writing a series, I'd have to know it ahead of time, and not have a good book out there and think "I need to write a sequel."
This post made more sense while it was still in my head, kind of like many sequels.