The problem of sequel-first readers.

[Phyrebrat]

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.

Couldn’t agree more (without shouting). There’s this phrase that Chrons authors use with alarming the-sky-is-falling-down regularity: ‘taking the reader out of the story’. To be brattishly blunt I think it’s ludicrous and intolerant.

If that’s ‘your’ thing then that’s okay for ‘you’. But I suspect we care about it more than an editor or reader (if current and past novels are any indication).

One thing I noticed when I joined Chrons was I found myself saying to myself ‘everyone’s talking about trilogies and series’ etc’. As a horror writer this was a relatively novel idea to me; I don’t read trad fantasy and have tended to stick to hard SF so I’d not been exposed to it.

As a result I’m now writing a series of horrors but they’re designed to be read in any order. Sort of parallel as opposed to chronological. What this means to me as an author is being clear on what a new reader might need to know from prior stories and only worry about that. It’s a challenge to keep that info in ‘floating memory’ but I’ve not failed to do so.

Finally don’t forget everything ain’t for everyone. You could write prose and arcs that are ‘perfect’ and some readers would still be unhappy.

It’s important to tell your tale and not dilute your craft too much with others’ opinions.

I was beta-ing something for Harebrain a couple or so years ago, and he said on response to one of my comments, ‘I think that might be the story you’d like to read/write but it’s not what I want to.’ That really made the penny drop for me in terms of writing and remembering to temper our training here along with our own aims.

 

[Wayne Mack]

I wonder if the problem is more that the writer wants to include detailed information in the sequel and not that the reader needs or wants that level of information. If a novel spends a great deal of time creating a scenario that is unresolved and left to the sequel, I feel shortchanged. It should be sufficient in a sequel to just provide the current state of affairs and not have to include a flashback as to why things are the way that they are.

The one exception I see to this is worldbuilding. In this case, it is usually sufficient to have the opening chapter be its own stand alone short story that gives the relevant science or fantasy elements.

 

[Swank]

The one exception I see to this is worldbuilding. In this case, it is usually sufficient to have the opening chapter be its own stand alone short story that gives the relevant science or fantasy elements.

World building is the stuff that happens in the plot, not the encyclopedia that you need to digest before reading the story. Worlds are like characters - they are revealed as their characteristics change or become relevant to the story.

As for the topic, I can't imagine a scenario where the book can't be read easily without 'reference material', and anyone struggling with this ought to post the specific problem and get it workshopped. There is always a way to keep what is going on immediate and to the point.

 

[Laura R Hepworth]

I really wouldn't worry about it too much and just write the story in a way that feels natural to you and wouldn't annoy you if you were the one reading it. There are many types of sequels and they don't all have to stand on their own, nor do you have to do a major recap when writing them. There are subtle ways to drop reminders of events from the previous books where the information is relevant if the thought of doing an obvious recap (which some readers to detest) if this is something that you want to avoid. However, there are also styles in which doing a recap could work quite well (especially in humorous fiction or noir; I can absolutely see it being done a farcical way). There really isn't a 'right or wrong' way to do it, just a bunch of style preferences though, yes, some methods do tend to be more effective than others.

 

[therapist]

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.

But is there any downside of including a recap section at the start? By not embedding it in the actual story, readers can choose to skip over it and dive straight into the novel. And always know where it is if they need a quick reminder. Maybe it could also prompt new unaware readers to go and buy the previous book.

I'm currently rereading Robin Hobb's massive series. It feels like each trilogy is basically a 2000 page book broken into 3 parts. And the constant recapping is a real pain when reading it all in one go. Although it clearly isn't bothering me too much if i'm choosing to reread it all and consider her my favourite author.

 

[HareBrain]

But is there any downside of including a recap section at the start?

Fewer downsides, probably; it's what I did. (They're hard to write, though!) I guess some readers might be put off by the very existence of one. It's also hard to include all the information that will be relevant later, and readers might well have forgotten it by the time they get there, but I guess you could have specific recaps for some things too.

 

[Danny McG]

There's at least four authors that I stopped buying their books, this is because I spied a book in a shop, bought it and started reading and then realised it was book 2 or 3 in a trilogy.

Not one of these had the nous to clearly indicate on the front or the inside blurb that they were part of a series.

I thought if they've got a f*** you attitude to the readers then I've got a f*** you attitude to buying their scrawlings.

 

[therapist]

(They're hard to write, though!)

As someone who has spent the last week trying to write a short synopsis of my book, this does not surprise me!

 

[Swank]

There's at least four authors that I stopped buying their books, this is because I spied a book in a shop, bought it and started reading and then realised it was book 2 or 3 in a trilogy.

Not one of these had the nous to clearly indicate on the front or the inside blurb that they were part of a series.

I thought if they've got a f*** you attitude to the readers then I've got a f*** you attitude to buying their scrawlings.

So the individual volumes where unreadable as is, or you stopped reading out of principle?

 

[Fiberglass Cyborg]

There's at least four authors that I stopped buying their books, this is because I spied a book in a shop, bought it and started reading and then realised it was book 2 or 3 in a trilogy.

Not one of these had the nous to clearly indicate on the front or the inside blurb that they were part of a series.

I thought if they've got a f*** you attitude to the readers then I've got a f*** you attitude to buying their scrawlings.

I've run into a couple like that, but I think it's more a publisher issue..... authors seem to have surprisingly little say abut the exterior of their books.

 

[Danny McG]

So the individual volumes where unreadable as is, or you stopped reading out of principle?

I realised while reading that I was missing too much back story so I stopped in a sulk .
One was The Dark Forest, the second book after The three body problem - I think I did a moany post about this somewhere here in Chrons.

A few weeks later I saw the first book at half price in the local bookshop, I thought "There's that book, I've heard it's good, to hell with it, I'm never buying anything by Liu Cixin again"
And I haven't, there's plenty more writers out there