Starting a Sequel

[Teresa Edgerton]

HairBrain, I've never seen anything like that.

As for putting of potential readers for the previous books by including a synopsis, well it didn't hurt LOTR (in fact, it made me desperate to get my hands on The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers.) Also, for books by midlist writers, the first book or two may not be easily available when the third book comes out. I often like the look of a series book on the bookstore shelf, and then finding that the first book isn't there, give the whole thing a miss.

Of course I don't know if I am a typical reader in that respect.

 

[The Judge]

With my last book, I felt that a recap was, if not absolutely necessary for those who had waited long between that one and the previous, at least very helpful, and for those who picked it up cold, essential. So I included a synopsis of THS.

So, it was your idea/decision, not the agents' or publishers'? Did they have any comment on your idea, or were they happy to go along with whatever you wanted?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Yes, it was my idea. And if she had any reservations about agreeing to it, my editor didn't voice them.

Then, when I received the copy-edited manuscript, I discovered they had edited the synopsis down quite a bit. (I simply put some of it back in, but let some of their cuts stand.)

 

[MaraFox006]

Thank you guys!

 

[Oxman]

Lately, I've read a bunch of crime novels, some of which follow a particular detective through some of his various cases. These are all stand-alone stories, but you do learn more about the main character and the supporting cast as the books progress. I've even read a couple out of sequence and it didn't mar the enjoyment, aside from a peripheral character being dead, then alive again and then finally dead!

What I've noticed with these books is that while the characters continue to evolve, the change is slow and not significant enough to mean that if you miss a book out, the cast are unrecognisable. Also, there are a few descriptions that reoccur every novel, for example, "DCI Bobby Davro had a penchant for cold curry, especially when watching his beloved Boston United Football Club..." will turn up in some form or another in each book. Funnily enough, even though this is going over old ground and I've read it before, I don't get bored by it, perhaps because it's a sentence here and there and not a massive infodump at the beginning.

I'm struggling myself with a sequel to a novel. So far, I've got 15,000 or so words down and the story is progressing very nicely - a stand-alone story featuring characters from the previous book. My issue is with how much information I put into this second novel about the first. Currently, there is a BIG dump of information in chapter two, telling what happened in book one and actually revealing some details that would probably ruin subsequent reading of the first novel. This needs to be worked on, cut and edited, but I am struggling with how much detail to incorporate into book two, especially as there will be slow changes to my characters, which alter them as people. I’m thinking bare minimum would be best; just put in what is necessary. Does anyone think that the above "crime novel" method of revisiting the events of a previous book is a good one?

 

[The Judge]

I think there's a big difference between stand-alones which are part of a series involving the same characters and/or setting, and an out-and-out sequel.

I've read all the Sharpe books and the Aubrey-Maturin novels, and there is a great deal to be said for reading them in sequence, but in neither case is it vital. There is some back story filtered in to each of the subsequent novels, but we don't need to know why and how they are where they are. In that case, the odd bit of back story filtered in through casual asides and comments is plenty enough. For instance, we learn more about Maturin's childhood when it is relevant to the plot, but (if memory serves) not once does he ever recap his dire personal circumstances when he first met Aubrey since after Master and Commander it simply isn't important.

So, Oxman, my advice (for the little it's worth) is just put in what's necessary as it's necessary.

 

[chrispenycate]

But detective fiction is the sitcom of the literary world (no, I don't mean you have to be brain dead to enjoy it; just the structure, with the standardised set of characters, guest villain – no, there are enough detective films on TV that I don't need the metaphor.)

Each book is a case; started, investigated and solved. I can't think of a single trilogy where the plot was so complicated it couldn't be resolved in a single book.

Science fiction or fantasy series set in the same world, but with only that and a few characters to link them, like McCaffrey's dragonriders don't need massive "give the reader a sporting chance" section, because the story is enclosed in the book. The problem arises when the storyline is essentially continuous across a number of volumes; it is difficult to imagine someone stopping reading at the end of "The two towers", and being satisfied with the termination. But what if the first Tolkein book you discover is "the return of the King"? You don't know the characters, the races, the story, the significance of the ring… anything. There is a definite argument for putting the entire story under one (rather unwieldy) cover.

Synopsising the first volume in the second, and the first two in the third takes away the stimulus to obtain the other books. Leaving it out might take away the desire to finish the later volume you obtained earlier.

No, I can't see a cheap, easy and universal answer, save only writing more compact plots.

 

[HareBrain]

If there were a single right way of handling it, the question wouldn't arise. There are only preferences, and discussions about what percentage of the reading population might share them. My own preference is that where an understanding of previous volumes is crucial, a synopsis be included, which prevents people who have already read the previous ones being bored by stuff within the main text they already know. Where the books are basically standalones with the same characters and setting, that would be overkill, and you can get by with a few references, as has been said.

I'm definitely against compromising the book's integrity, and the reading experience of people who do read the books in their proper order, just to nurse-maid those few who are too disorganised to do so, especially since such nurse-maiding is usually unnecessary. Readers are generally quite clever, and can pick up a lot from context without being spoonfed background explanations.

In fact, the feeling of being spoonfed can be offputting. If I read a book in a series out of order, and can't understand it because I'm missing prior information, I don't put the book down and give up on it unless there's something else about it that causes me to do so. If the book is otherwise a good one, I will try to find the information out, either by reading the previous ones or looking up plot summaries. Having to do so gives the story an integrity; it brings the feeling of getting to grips with a work of art rather than being provided with a "service".

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I just started reading a book yesterday (I won't name it because it may turn out to be good after all and I will have nice things to say about it to balance the annoying beginning) and it starts with a long scene devoted to backstory: main character ruminating about what happened before, narration pointing out existing relationships between characters, old friends meeting and protagonist musing over resemblences to dear departed characters, etc. It's basically a sneaky way of getting a partial synopsis squeezed in between bites of pie and sips of ale, and some fairly boring dialogue. And throughout that scene I was thinking how much happier I would have been to get the background details over with in a brief synopsis (which would probably tell me more anyway), so that the real action of the story could begin that much sooner.

If I had read the previous books, I probably would not have minded this approach at all. The reunion in the tavern probably would have felt like a reunion in which I was included along with the various characters. As it stood, I felt it was a poor introduction.

Synopsising the first volume in the second, and the first two in the third takes away the stimulus to obtain the other books.

You sound very definite about that chris, but do you actually know this to be true for the majority of readers? I have no idea how it is for anyone but myself, but it does not stop me from wanting to read the other books. Quite the opposite. If the events described in the synopsis sound interesting, I want to go back and read about them in full, instead of being satisfied with a brief summary.

 

[Toby Frost]

Where the story is a continuation of a story that runs through several books, LOTR style, I see nothing wrong with a simple plot summary to help readers of the first book remember what went on. I don't think it's intrusive, although I find it hard to see why someone would want to read the books out of sequence where they clearly tell the same story over several volumes (assuming the earlier ones are obtainable).

Where you've got reoccurring characters in new stories it gets more difficult. What I wouldn't want to read would be a laboured in-story recap: "These biscuits remind me of our recent adventure in the temple of Aargh, where we defeated Donut the Bloody-Handed," Jim remarked casually. I think it would take a lot of skill to do this without becoming intrusive, and it would still feel awkward to me. It is possible to remind people of character traits without being OTT (Ah, thought Davro, a cold curry at the Boston game. Just what I needed.). In fact good characterisation ought to leave you with a pretty strong idea of what a character is like at the end of any book, so I don't think reminders are inherently a bad thing.

As regards Boneman's idea, I've never seen it and I doubt it would work very well in print. Film lends itself to this very visual style, especially since dialogue doesn't have to be attributed. If you quoted directly it also might look a bit like "Here are the best bits: you don't have to worry about the rest".

As an aside, I recently read Purple Cane Road by James Lee Burke, the first of his Robicheaux series that I've read. Although the book was great there was a real feeling of confusion as I'd not read the previous stories. About halfway through I realised that the hero was about 30 years older than I'd imagined and had had more adventures that Indiana Jones. An odd sensation.

 

[chrispenycate]

You sound very definite about that chris, but do you actually know this to be true for the majority of readers? I have no idea how it is for anyone but myself, but it does not stop me from wanting to read the other books. Quite the opposite. If the events described in the synopsis sound interesting, I want to go back and read about them in full, instead of being satisfied with a brief summary.

No, you're right. Unsubstantiated statement – I've always filled in the back volumes, too, when possible (Well, there are a couple of Elizabeth Moons outstanding, to be collected from second-hand shops or flea markets, since they're out of print) but took myself as an exception.

There again, perhaps all determined readers are exceptions.