Writing a second book based on the first. How to balance exposition?

Bring over only what's necessary and don't do a core dump right off the bat. Spread out information about your MC and their world as it becomes relevant.

And, more importantly, 'if' it becomes relevant.

If it's just the same character(s) there may not be any reason to refer to the previous book at all. If the characters are likeable and/or new readers connect with them they'll look for and buy the previous book for that reason alone.

Lee Child has written 25 novels with the same character and you could read any one of them on its own.

I suspect there are many folk who started reading Harry Potter at Book 3 or 4 or whatever and then maybe decided to pick up Book 1.

In a similar position to the OP, I deliberately chose two groups of betas - one group who had read the first book, and one who hadn't - the feebdack was invaluable!

I did a summary first chapter. But that first chapter of 10 pages or so summarized 2 volumes amounting together 500 pages.

jmurray2112 said:

I’ve read authors who feel like each book has to be a stand-alone read, so there’s lots of duplication, whether it’s a prologue or lots of re-capping in the first chapter or two. I can’t say that I’m a big fan of “previously, on…”, but neither do I want to lose my reader by referring to events they may not be aware of.

Click to expand...

This is interesting, because in my series I very much want each book to be a stand-alone read, and I don't do any recapping at all. Continuing readers already know, and why would a new reader care about "previously, on..." if they don't even know the characters yet? Backstory covered in other books is introduced like backstory not covered in other books: as needed, and only in the level of detail required to make the current story make sense.

And now that I think of it, I'm not sure "previously, on..." serves a purpose even in a series where each book is dependent on its predecessor. I read a book like this last year. The author had summed up the previous books of the series in a prologue. It took me two paragraphs to realize what he was doing, but I still had to skim the rest to make sure he hadn't added anything new. It was kind of annoying - I felt like he was wasting my time and his word count on stuff I already knew.

One thing I was told - repeatedly, and by different sources - was that in general if a reader knows a book is a series book, they'll seek out Book 1, even if it's Book N that caught their attention. Most readers want to start at the beginning if they can, no matter how stand-alone an author tries to make a story.

As a reader it drives me crazy when authors reintroduce characters, events, and the world in every book when it's part of a series. As liz says, if it's a series, I'm going to pick up book 1 FIRST to get caught up before I get to the new stuff, so I'm probably not going to need to be told what's going on.

Now there's ways it can be done well, such as if there's a significant time skip leading to substantial changes, (like a generation or more) or if it's the start of a new series and the author wants to disguise that it's set in the same world as the previous one until it's revealed in a plot twist. But if it's a "Book 1 leads into Book 2 leads into... but each story stands alone" sort of thing, or a Tolkienian "this is one novel but the publisher decided to break it up" thing, I don't want to read through exposition about the world or existing characters again. Save the exposition for the new stuff I've never seen before.

jmurray2112 said:

One of my current WsIP is a second book based on the MCs from my first book. After doing some editing in the first chapter, I found myself wondering if I was leaning too heavily on the notion that of course my reader would have read the first one before starting the second.

So, I figured I’d ask here. For those of you who’ve done multiple, sequential books using the same characters, how do you address re-capping, or how explicit are you about exposition in the new work as it relates to the previous one?

I’ve read authors who feel like each book has to be a stand-alone read, so there’s lots of duplication, whether it’s a prologue or lots of re-capping in the first chapter or two. I can’t say that I’m a big fan of “previously, on…”, but neither do I want to lose my reader by referring to events they may not be aware of.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I would address it the same way as I'd say it should have been done in the first book - use context for explanation over an info dump, and try and maintain a sense of verisimilitude over info dumps and 'as you knows.' If it's not relevant to go into extended detail, don't.

Ooh boy. Have I ever done this.

YES to each book should operate as a stand-alone, but I'm pretty sure "previously on..." is the opposite of that. To me adding a prologue that explains the first book is the essence of "BTW this is a series and you were supposed to have read the first." They actually have that in many editions of Lord of the Rings.

I strongly feel the way to deal with Book 1 (and Book 2 if needed etc) is to treat it exactly as you would treat any backstory. And what's the right way to handle backstory? You drop it into the story in bite-size pieces, sparingly, in places where it's truly needed. (Or if some of it's extra juicy you drop it in in larger pieces in places where it's sure to entertain.) You share enough of it to make sure your reader knows what's going on, without info-dumping. That's how you make sure there's not too much duplication--same way you make sure there's not too much backstory slowing the reader down in any book. And yeah, that's a tough, tough process. Especially when there really is a lot of backstory. I had to write Chapter 1 so many times for my latest novel (third in a series), with an info checklist in one hand the whole time...

As a side note, I do think readers who pick up Book 3 and like it will seek out Book 1 (or I sure hope so!) But for letting them know there's a Book 1, that's the job of the cover (front or back, depending) and possibly one of the inside introductory pages. As far as how visible the info should be, it's up to whoever's making it to balance the "will they put this down b/c they haven't read Book 1" against "I want series readers to spot this one."

I have the same thing with my second book, I only plan to write two about this particular world and as I'm at 'spilling on to the page' part, I haven't added a single iota of back story. It will be a conundrum at the editing point. Hopefully, it won't drive me to tears, though I can imagine that it will.

Getting a reader who hasn't read the first book will be key I feel and should be easy as I don't expect many people to read my first book.

The really cool warrior, slammed the crystal down breaking it and the door opened allowing them to escape. Did you need the previous 300 pages?

I've never made any effort to catch readers up with my older books if they are new to the current one. There are certain things you do though. Any time you use an abbreviation or made-up term for the first time in a novel, you must explain it. This is true for old readers who might have forgotten. When I write I don't depend on my readers to have read the previous book, but I always teach them the language. You can always brief your readers quickly about something if you need to.

- Mark Charke