The problem of sequel-first readers.

[ablackenedrose]

Grr who?

I think I've heard of this guy. He wrote some fantasy novels a while back, but I don't know what he's done since.

Don't quote me on that.

 

[ColGray]

If plot arcs from the first novel are necessary to understand a following novel, I'd feel that the first novel was incomplete. If a first novel leaves off with major outstanding threads, I will feel cheated and I will not buy the sequels. In general, a one sentence recap should suffice.

If characters and their actions are not understandable from the current situations presented in the sequel, I feel that there are characterization issues in the sequel. I should not feel surprised about how a character acts simply because I haven't read a prior novel. Again, at most, a one sentence recap should be needed.

I wonder if my issue is misunderstanding your definitions because I'm struggling to think of series that meets this criteria for plot and characters that isn't pure Joseph Campbell genre trope.

If the plot from the first book is fully resolved, why is there a second book? The nature of series is that there is a multi-volume-spanning arc into which each book slots, contributing, resolving and initiating arcs- but continuing a single arc across the entire series. If the arch-plot is resolved, the story is done.

Sequels should stand alone, but they intentionally exist within a structure and should both further and subvert that multi-volume arch-plot.

Can you give an example of a series you thought did this well?

 

[Swank]

I wonder if my issue is misunderstanding your definitions because I'm struggling to think of series that meets this criteria for plot and characters that isn't pure Joseph Campbell genre trope.

If the plot from the first book is fully resolved, why is there a second book? The nature of series is that there is a multi-volume-spanning arc into which each book slots, contributing, resolving and initiating arcs- but continuing a single arc across the entire series. If the arch-plot is resolved, the story is done.

Sequels should stand alone, but they intentionally exist within a structure and should both further and subvert that multi-volume arch-plot.

Can you give an example of a series you thought did this well?

I don't understand your question. Sequels can carry on the personal history of a character, or they can resolve an immediate plot while contributing to a larger one to be resolved at series end. Or they can be connected by simply existing in the same history and don't have an over-arcing plot.

 

[ColGray]

I don't understand your question. Sequels can carry on the personal history of a character, or they can resolve an immediate plot while contributing to a larger one to be resolved at series end. Or they can be connected by simply existing in the same history and don't have an over-arcing plot.

Just to be clear, I understand a sequel to be a new volume that is a direct continuation of a single story involving at least some continuity of characters.

Example: Empire Strikes Back continues A New Hope's story with most of the same characters (with additions and subtractions).

Shared universes tell unrelated stories in a single universe where characters and plot lines may occasionally interact, but each novel is completely distinct from each other novel. There is no continuity between volumes.

Example: Banks' Culture novels are all standalones within a single, shared universe.

My question is, What is an example of a good sequel where a sentence (or a paragraph/something super minimal) is sufficient to provide a sequel-first reader with all necessary background on plot, character, etc.?

I understand the execution in the context of a shared universe. I'm struggling to think of a good sequel example.

 

[Swank]

I understand the execution in the context of a shared universe. I'm struggling to think of a good sequel example.

Star Wars stands alone because they didn't know if there were going to be sequels. ESB summarizes SW in a sentence at the begining. It is also a complete plot.

Children of Dune makes no summary, but gives you back story as you go along.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

Perhaps an important distinction is between sequels and serials.
As an example, one could read the Sherlock Holmes stories (pre-Moriarty) in any order and enjoy them. I am confident that I did not read them in the order they were published.

One way to avoid confusion is simply to add a subtitle - BOOK 2 of the exciting saga.

I'm curious if anyone has read Return of the King before reading Fellowship of the Ring?
When you know its a defined series then you're likely to read them in order.

 

[Swank]

I'm curious if anyone has read Return of the King before reading Fellowship of the Ring?
When you know its a defined series then you're likely to read them in order.

Those books were written as one novel. So were Dune and Messiah.

But LOTR is a sequel to The Hobbit.

 

[ColGray]

Star Wars stands alone because they didn't know if there were going to be sequels. ESB summarizes SW in a sentence at the begining. It is also a complete plot.

Children of Dune makes no summary, but gives you back story as you go along.

I've bounced off of Dune so, so many times but sure? Maybe? I've never made it past a couple hundred pages of the first book.

I shouldn't have used Star Wars as an example. There's so much myth vs reality with the series. TLDR, I don't think i've met an author (of any variant) who wrote a long work who had 0 intent or idea for making a sequel. Different topic, different thread, but, I put that into the Myth category with Lucas.

Even so, the crawl is like, it's a bad time, Rebels blew up an <in-universe term> and "freedom fighters" are being hunted. Okay: you exposition dumped a movie your fanbase saw 100 million times (i.e. you had 0 expectation anyone seeing ESB had not seen SW). That said, did SW tell a complete story, or did they tell a complete narrative arc? It's pure joseph campbell/Hero of a 1,000 Face, Chosen One + Mentor vs Oppressive Evil storyline, but, like the archetype, it sets up a continuation.

To my earlier point, If someone had not seen SW and started with ESB, they're relying on archetypes and genre tropes to understand stakes, character and plot. If any of those varied in the prior work, would an ESB initiate understand or would they be lost?

I'm trying to think of other classic sequel series and if they did this. Eddings and the Belgariad/Mallorean or the Sparhawk series all had like 5-10 page summaries (i think??) Jordan had a whole intro of, The Wheel of time turns and with it the ages, etc--but also, multiple books where the only action was sighing, being annoyed and worrying. Scalzi's OMW series is sparse on the re-intro. GRRM is dense and he DNGAF if readers are lost.

With modern series, Harry Potter doesn't re-intro each character beyond a description of their hair and clothes. Susan Collins might? Is that YA specific? Ann Leckie Imperial Radch was fairly sparse on prior details. Suneater intros and outro's as a journal to the reader, so it's not sparse, but it definitely gives a re-introduction to the world.

Sorry, i'm rambling. Asking because i'm breaking down a book 2.

 

[ColGray]

Perhaps an important distinction is between sequels and serials.
As an example, one could read the Sherlock Holmes stories (pre-Moriarty) in any order and enjoy them. I am confident that I did not read them in the order they were published.

One way to avoid confusion is simply to add a subtitle - BOOK 2 of the exciting saga.

I'm curious if anyone has read Return of the King before reading Fellowship of the Ring?
When you know its a defined series then you're likely to read them in order.

Classic thriller. And totally agree! Poirot is the same.

Honestly, a LOT of early 20th century lit is the same. P. G. Wodehouse and Jeeves and Wooster is the same. They're serialized but not sequelized.

Also, Wodehouse is amazing, as is the BBC series with Frye and Laurie.

 

[Swank]

I've bounced off of Dune so, so many times but sure? Maybe? I've never made it past a couple hundred pages of the first book.

I shouldn't have used Star Wars as an example. There's so much myth vs reality with the series. TLDR, I don't think i've met an author (of any variant) who wrote a long work who had 0 intent or idea for making a sequel. Different topic, different thread, but, I put that into the Myth category with Lucas.

Even so, the crawl is like, it's a bad time, Rebels blew up an <in-universe term> and "freedom fighters" are being hunted. Okay: you exposition dumped a movie your fanbase saw 100 million times (i.e. you had 0 expectation anyone seeing ESB had not seen SW). That said, did SW tell a complete story, or did they tell a complete narrative arc? It's pure joseph campbell/Hero of a 1,000 Face, Chosen One + Mentor vs Oppressive Evil storyline, but, like the archetype, it sets up a continuation.

To my earlier point, If someone had not seen SW and started with ESB, they're relying on archetypes and genre tropes to understand stakes, character and plot. If any of those varied in the prior work, would an ESB initiate understand or would they be lost?

I'm trying to think of other classic sequel series and if they did this. Eddings and the Belgariad/Mallorean or the Sparhawk series all had like 5-10 page summaries (i think??) Jordan had a whole intro of, The Wheel of time turns and with it the ages, etc--but also, multiple books where the only action was sighing, being annoyed and worrying. Scalzi's OMW series is sparse on the re-intro. GRRM is dense and he DNGAF if readers are lost.

With modern series, Harry Potter doesn't re-intro each character beyond a description of their hair and clothes. Susan Collins might? Is that YA specific? Ann Leckie Imperial Radch was fairly sparse on prior details. Suneater intros and outro's as a journal to the reader, so it's not sparse, but it definitely gives a re-introduction to the world.

Sorry, i'm rambling. Asking because i'm breaking down a book 2.

I'm not sure what Campbell has to do with anything. Believe it or not, we don't have archetypes built into our brains.


Reynolds' big space trilogy lacks a summary. I'm sure there are many others.


Write a story that is interesting and it won't matter if the reader missed the first book. All characters have back story, whether it is written down or not.

 

[Wayne Mack]

I understand a sequel to be a new volume that is a direct continuation of a single story involving at least some continuity of characters.

I will somewhat agree, however, I would replace "a single story" with "a plot arc." My point is that a story will often contain multiple plot arcs.

As a reader, I will feel cheated if a novel does not resolve all major plot arcs by its conclusion; if I am left with one or more cliff hangers at the end of the book. In this context, I am defining major as meaning that the writer has spent considerable time showing progress and setbacks for a specific plot line. The implication of this is that the writer has spent minimal time addressing any arcs that are left open at the end of a novel.

Returning to the original question, I don't feel it should be necessary for an author to spend time recapping what happened in prior novels. Either the plot arc was concluded, in which case the reader doesn't really care, or the plot arc had minimal progress points, in which case the recap can be covered very briefly. In many cases, the recap can be omitted and the reader will accept the current situation without needing to know the details that led up to it.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

Those books were written as one novel. So were Dune and Messiah.

But LOTR is a sequel to The Hobbit.

And yet one could read The Hobbit after LOTR and still enjoy it.

And hey - recurring characters. How did Tolkien manage the introduction of Gandalf, Bilbo and Gollum in LOTR?

 

[HareBrain]

An idea occurred to me about this. Maybe a terrible idea, but I thought I'd ask if anyone has seen it done.

Footnotes.

Where you have a serial story, and characters are discussing something quite complex that happened in a previous volume, and the reader probably has forgotten some of, it can be impossible to remind the reader of the complexities without tedious internal monologue or "as you know, Bob" dialogue. One way of getting around this would be short footnotes as memory-joggers. As a reader, there have been times when I would have appreciated these to avoid having to flick through previous volumes or look up the details online. Has anyone come across this in use? (From memory, I think Tolkien did this a couple of times in LOTR, where the footnotes are earlier page numbers.)

How did Tolkien manage the introduction of Gandalf, Bilbo and Gollum in LOTR?

There's a section, "Of the Finding of the Ring" in the prologue, which is a precis of the Hobbit.

 

[The Judge]

Terry Pratchett used footnotes books, though I can't now recall in what books, but from memory they were for comic asides rather than for a potted history lesson.

I seem to recall that in a couple of the Brother Cadfael novels by Ellis Peters where there's a reference to something that happened in an earlier book it's followed by an asterisk which links to a footnote confirming which earlier book it was -- but that's it, it doesn't give any further explanation, just the title.

Susanna Clarke has footnotes in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrel, of course, but that's for past history within the book, not for a precis of something from an earlier one. That works, perhaps because there's a kind of academic feel to the whole thing.

I would be worried about it taking the reader out of the story, though -- I know it's not real and I'm reading, but having a footnote would somehow make it more distanced and less "live". I think you're better off giving the information on the page and just making sure it's done well.

 

[HareBrain]

I would be worried about it taking the reader out of the story, though -- I know it's not real and I'm reading, but having a footnote would somehow make it more distanced and less "live". I think you're better off giving the information on the page and just making sure it's done well.

I'd say every strategy risks taking the reader out of the story. Having to flick back, because you can't recall something, definitely does. And unobtrusively including complex information about past events in the body of the text can be almost impossible.

In all these cases, though, it would be hard to predict what information about past events readers are going to need to be reminded of.

 

[Toby Frost]

Where you have a serial story, and characters are discussing something quite complex that happened in a previous volume, and the reader probably has forgotten some of, it can be impossible to remind the reader of the complexities without tedious internal monologue or "as you know, Bob" dialogue.

Old comics used to do this a lot, presumably to save space and to encourage readers to buy other issues.

 

[HareBrain]

Old comics used to do this a lot, presumably to save space and to encourage readers to buy other issues.

Ah, I think I do vaguely remember that. Good point.

 

[Elentarri]

I wonder how many people will need a recap if/when GRR Martin's book comes out?

They will go re-watch the series or read the wikipedia/internet summaries. I'm fairly sure there are summaries of his books on the internet?

 

[Swank]

Does anyone genuinely want to read a book where the action is incomprehensible without paragraphs of historical summaries?

This whole topic suggests "Don't write this way."

 

[HareBrain]

Does anyone genuinely want to read a book where the action is incomprehensible without paragraphs of historical summaries?

It would have very much helped me when reading Steven Erikson's Malazan series, and that has lots of fans. It's possible that most of its readers retained more information than me, but I'd bet loads of people were left struggling with trying to recall the salient points about a character that pops up who was last mentioned two books ago.