Starting a Sequel

[Adrian Christopher]

I've started a sequel with my main POV character feverish, disoriented and trying to figure out where he is. He slowly regains his memory, giving partial insight in to what has happened to him previously. The sequel starts just a few hours after the first book finishes. It is a near-future space opera.

Does anyone have any tips about how much of the first story to try to drop in for the reader? Margaret Atwood in the Oryx and Crake trilogy sets out out a synopsis-style summary at the start, to get the reader up to speed.

Has anyone got any tips? Is there a guide on how to do this they could direct me to?

I don't want to regurgitate too much of the back story if possible. An appendix guide to the alien races and their alignments might be an interesting way to do it. There are only likely to be two books in this storyline, but there is potential for additional stories in this universe. I may end up combining the two books into one, as 87,000 words is perhaps a bit light for the first novel.

Many thanks

Adrian

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I don't know of any guides but I asked the question here a while ago and the common response was if it's a trilogy then assume the reader has read book one, if a series you might need a synopsis.

What I did in mine - a prologue with a character reflecting on the events of book one, whilst firmly also bringing the reader up to date (so readers wanted to know what happened to my antagonist - I held the reveal until book two and started with it, both satisfying curiosity and allowing that catch up.) I also used some flashbacks to remind people of what had happened. So far, the feedback is that it would be possible to read book two without book one, and that it was enough for reminding existing readers what happened in book one.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Does anyone have any tips about how much of the first story to try to drop in for the reader?

I'm treating it as backstory, and referring to it only when necessary to the character experience. At no point do I stop the narrative to explain why anything might be related to anything else.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Actually I just remembered I put the prologue up on the site. Here it is, if it helps:

Sunset Over Abendau - Prologue

 

[Ogma]

I would only add in the key information from Book 1 and then only when it's needed. An appendix is great but (a) only some readers will look at it (b) it involves coming out of the story to look at it and (c) the reader may have to dig through stuff they have no interest in to find the pertinent information (d) it puts off those readers looking for a 'light read' (e) there are readers out there (I've met one) who sees a table or whatever and thinks I need to learn this before I read the book.

There's nothing that sends a shiver up my spine than somebody regurgitating everything that happened in the previous book down to plot twists when in fact very little of this information is relevant to the second book. Yes, the outcomes from Book 1 are relevant but not perhaps the process by which those outcomes are reached. For example, Character A might be a major part of Book 1 but be only a minor character in Book 2, and the reader mightn't in fact need to know what happened to them in detail in the first book, only where they are now.

BTW, that cuts both ways. You might find strands/set-up in Book 1 that doesn't fit Book 2, so you can cut those bits out.

 

[ratsy]

It can be hard I think. I've read books where they've had a section like 'what's happened up to this point' with a three page synopsis of book one or the series so far. It's kind of like that 'previously on' so and so TV Show where they show you clips from previous episodes. I am assuming this is frowned upon out there because it has been few and far between.

I will also agree with Ogma, that I hate the info dump of events, even if in dialogue or thoughts.

I'm starting to think about writing a sequel right now, and my plan is to just continue the story, with as Brian said, only when necessary with character experience, will I add things from book one. I will assume those reading the second book will have read the first one.

 

[Gregory]

As a reader... I always find it funny that a writer can boil down an entire book into a few pages in the sequel. It really shows just how little happened in the first book and, makes reading the first book unnecessary.

 

[ratsy]

As a reader... I always find it funny that a writer can boil down an entire book into a few pages in the sequel. It really shows just how little happened in the first book and, makes reading the first book unnecessary.

I disagree with this. Just because you could tell the plot of The Fellowship of the Ring in a few sentences, doesn't mean there is no value to reading it. Though some books that may be the case...

 

[Gregory]

ratsy, not to argue but I've used some analytical tools for Amazon book sales and the back sale (people going back to buy the previous book) are extremely low. Many authors have tried giving away say the second or third book in a series to spur sales and it hasn't been producing the results they wanted or thought it would. I fully understand Amazon is not the end all to book sales but I do believe it is a pretty good indicator of the over all market. But,,, I could be dead wrong, it's been known to happen. ;-)

 

[ratsy]

I think that is why you make the fact that it is not the first book in a series very visible. And I do agree with you, if someone buys the second in a series and reads it, I do doubt many would go back and read book one.

 

[Adrian Christopher]

Thanks Jo, I like your approach a lot.

There is reflection by the Empress to show the reader how she got in to her current predicament, but also plenty of present day dialogue and some action to keep things going forward and avoid that "info dump" feeling.

 

[Adrian Christopher]

I would only add in the key information from Book 1 and then only when it's needed. An appendix is great but (a) only some readers will look at it (b) it involves coming out of the story to look at it and (c) the reader may have to dig through stuff they have no interest in to find the pertinent information (d) it puts off those readers looking for a 'light read' (e) there are readers out there (I've met one) who sees a table or whatever and thinks I need to learn this before I read the book.

There's nothing that sends a shiver up my spine than somebody regurgitating everything that happened in the previous book down to plot twists when in fact very little of this information is relevant to the second book. Yes, the outcomes from Book 1 are relevant but not perhaps the process by which those outcomes are reached. For example, Character A might be a major part of Book 1 but be only a minor character in Book 2, and the reader mightn't in fact need to know what happened to them in detail in the first book, only where they are now.

BTW, that cuts both ways. You might find strands/set-up in Book 1 that doesn't fit Book 2, so you can cut those bits out.

Thanks Ogma,

Yes, concentrating on the outcomes from the first book, rather than the process of getting there is good advice.

Personally, I tend to think of an appendix as an optional read. It's tucked away and can add a little depth, or can be a reminder, if say, you are picking the book up part way through after a break. I was thinking of writing a couple of pages at most as a quick reference. If there is a summary/prologue at the start of the book, then I would be thinking that this is the set up for the story and I need to concentrate here.

I can see though there are risks that adding an appendix could make the whole thing feel a bit "text-booky" (I think I invented a new word!). On balance, it is perhaps more elegant to weave in a smattering of back story, whilst keeping the main storyline moving forwards and trust in the reader's ability to pick things up without a guidebook.

 

[Adrian Christopher]

Thanks Brian and Ratsy,

It is certainly easier to write from the main character's viewpoint and to keep moving forward from where the first book left off. As a reader, I wouldn't want or expect any long discourse of what went before. I'm happy as long as I know enough to understand what is happening in the present.

 

[Brian G Turner]

As a reader... I always find it funny that a writer can boil down an entire book into a few pages in the sequel. It really shows just how little happened in the first book and, makes reading the first book unnecessary.

Certainly might be the case in some instances. I'm minded to think on Game of Thrones - near the end, Daenerys has a Drothraki army. 5 books later, the big ending is...Deanerys has a Dothraki army. Lol. And welcome to the chrons forums.