I couldn't finish the last three books I attempted to read. Tons of factors decide whether someone likes a book or not (recent events raising the bar for how good the writing has to be to pull me out of the real world notwithstanding), but all three of those books were sequels to others I had finished. My trouble with each sequel, ultimately, was how little those books delivered on my hopes from the first books.
This has kinda shaken me into awareness of reader expectations for sequels, and how my own plans for sequels might rub readers the wrong way. Now, I know no sequel (or book, really) is going to grab every reader. Some will put a sequel down because it's too different, some will put it down if it's too similar. But I think there might be pitfalls to avoid so hypothetical fans of a book aren't severely put off by that book's followups.
The sequels for the book I'm currently querying were going to involve significant time jumps between books, and each book would have a new-to-the-series main character (with the odd previously-existing character returning in a supportive non-POV role). Each book would introduce a problem and a development arc for that character, which they would definitively 'resolve' for better or ill by the end of that book. Each book would have a subplot that continues into the next installment, escalating each time, until it came to fruition in the finale. My intent was to start each sequel with some inciting incident that would engage new readers, while immediately re-grounding existing readers in the world (oh, this faction is up to their old tricks again, shakes fist). Cool, great, nothing wrong with that, right?
Well, assuming future books were written as well as the first, what if the main character of book 2 doesn't grab the same kind of reader as the MC of book 1? Even if readers would've liked the book 2 character had they picked up a different book, what if they really really wanted more of book 1 character and are instantly, irrevocably put off that that's not what they're getting? I feel like I could say each book is a 'stand-alone' story, but they would forever be listed on Goodreads/Amazon as BOOK 1, BOOK 2, etc, which sets expectations. I wanted to write the series in this manner because I feel giving a small cast of people the burden of solving every crisis that arises each book is a bit silly, considering how different the crises are, and considering the story I want to tell. And it's all the more fun when an old character does show up, especially in a major way.
Now, I haven't gotten an agent to even read my book 1, let alone get it into storefronts, but it never hurts to discuss these things. In what ways have book sequels dissapointed you? What sequels were dramatically different from your expectations, yet still grabbed you?
This has kinda shaken me into awareness of reader expectations for sequels, and how my own plans for sequels might rub readers the wrong way. Now, I know no sequel (or book, really) is going to grab every reader. Some will put a sequel down because it's too different, some will put it down if it's too similar. But I think there might be pitfalls to avoid so hypothetical fans of a book aren't severely put off by that book's followups.
The sequels for the book I'm currently querying were going to involve significant time jumps between books, and each book would have a new-to-the-series main character (with the odd previously-existing character returning in a supportive non-POV role). Each book would introduce a problem and a development arc for that character, which they would definitively 'resolve' for better or ill by the end of that book. Each book would have a subplot that continues into the next installment, escalating each time, until it came to fruition in the finale. My intent was to start each sequel with some inciting incident that would engage new readers, while immediately re-grounding existing readers in the world (oh, this faction is up to their old tricks again, shakes fist). Cool, great, nothing wrong with that, right?
Well, assuming future books were written as well as the first, what if the main character of book 2 doesn't grab the same kind of reader as the MC of book 1? Even if readers would've liked the book 2 character had they picked up a different book, what if they really really wanted more of book 1 character and are instantly, irrevocably put off that that's not what they're getting? I feel like I could say each book is a 'stand-alone' story, but they would forever be listed on Goodreads/Amazon as BOOK 1, BOOK 2, etc, which sets expectations. I wanted to write the series in this manner because I feel giving a small cast of people the burden of solving every crisis that arises each book is a bit silly, considering how different the crises are, and considering the story I want to tell. And it's all the more fun when an old character does show up, especially in a major way.
Now, I haven't gotten an agent to even read my book 1, let alone get it into storefronts, but it never hurts to discuss these things. In what ways have book sequels dissapointed you? What sequels were dramatically different from your expectations, yet still grabbed you?
)
