Should sequels necessarily follow the protagonists the readers met in the first book? Or can one leap far forward in time to return to the world after the original characters are dead or very old? Is that letting readers down?
Come and introduce yourself in the Welcome Forum – we’re all dying to meet you! :)
Litopia
We’re delighted you’re here! You’re just a few clicks away from joining the ‘net’s oldest community for writers… and certainly the friendliest. Click the “Register” button to create a free account. See you in the Colony!
-
Clichés & Tropes! Can’t live with ‘em, can’t live without ‘em! Share your opinion in the latest Craft Chat, live now until Saturday
Sequels
- Thread starter Rachel Caldecott
- Start date
- Status
I don't think so, no, not necessarily.
Certainly, if it serves the story. I don't see why you couldn't go back in time as well, or sideways.
I think that all depends on the expectations you've engendered in your readers. If the first volume ends with lots of central-character questions unanswered, then it's likely that your readers would expect a direct sequel (you'd be writing a serial, not simply a series), but if the protagonist's major plot goals have been achieved at the end of volume one, you'd be free to go where you like in volume two, I reckon.
I don't think there are any hard and fast answers to your questions above. It all depends on the story you want to tell. Do you have a story that's too big for one volume? If so, you're writing a serial and each volume will be a direct continuation of the last (and the series must be read in order to make sense). Or are you writing a series? If it's simply a world, situation or character/s you're exploring, you're free to tell any number of stories about them in any number of volumes with as many cast changes as you like (and readers can dive into the series at any point). Or is it a hybrid? Do you have a set of independent stories connected by an overarching plot thread? In which case the series would be best enjoyed in order, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if you read them out of sequence.
It's very common in fantasy fiction for a world to contain various sequences of books: perhaps a trilogy following one set of characters, a stand-alone set many years before, another trilogy set many years after, another stand-alone about a previously minor character, etc, etc.
- Awards
- 1
David Gemmell did this in his Waylander trilogy (an old fav). I quite like it. It's interesting to figure out how the two fit together, so I'd pay attention to that. There's definitely an audience if you do it well.
Although, I'd say it depends on your story questions as to where you go...
To digress, slightly, I enjoy it when a key character from one book is given a cameo or even a mention in another from the same author. Not so much a sequel as various books set in the same 'world'. Elmore Leonard did this frequently. Notably, in Tarntino's adaptation of Leonard's Rum Punch- Jackie Brown, Micheal Keaton played ATF agent Ray Nicolette. Keaton popped up, playing the same character in Steven Soderbergh's adaptation of Leonard's Out of Sight. A gimmick, maybe, but very satisfying for fans. My three novels are all set in the same 'world' or 'universe'-whatever you want to call it: I had Sam Conner, the protagonist from my first book, crop up in the second. I my second book Ariadne. an artist and forger, painted a picture called The Wretchedness of the Gimp, which turned up, hanging in a gangster's study, in the third book. A bit self indulgent, I'll admit, but fun. Anyway, just thought that might be something you could play with, a sequel that isn't?
Another thought: Although I confess to not being a fan of the genre (I find them a little samey), Marvell etc have had massive success with cross-overs and opening up 'worlds'.
Beat me to it!
Robin Hobb also did this with her Realm of the Elderlings series, only she did it from trilogy to trilogy, with some main characters in one story appearing as minor ones the next.
Dan Simmon's Hyperion Cantos series also does this. The first two books are with one set of characters, then a new set of characters are introduced for books 3 and 4.
It's your series, you get to choose! Either, or both, I'd say.
Yeah, what they said. 
Anne McCaffrey did this in her Dragonriders of Pern books. Some books follow one after the other, and then others jump hundreds of years, or to different places within the world. The sum total is a rich world full of characters the reader knows.
Anne McCaffrey did this in her Dragonriders of Pern books. Some books follow one after the other, and then others jump hundreds of years, or to different places within the world. The sum total is a rich world full of characters the reader knows.
I think if you retain the same characters it's a direct sequel, whereas if the events and characters of the first are unrelated to the second, I'd say it's a new novel set in the same universe.
I would like to see some connection (otherwise what’s the point of a sequel). Maybe relatives of previous portags, or a house that passes through different protags. Just something to link previous story in some way.
Well, this is all very reassuring. My sequel follows the adventures of the granddaughter of the MC in the first book. The previous mc only features in the first chapter of this one before dying. But it is the very much the same universe, but different time.
- Awards
- 1
How did I forget Anne? Brilliant series
I feel that's a strong enough link @Rachel Caldecott-Thornton
- Status