The problem of sequel-first readers.

[Astro Pen]

I'm sitting down to frame up a sequel to one of my books. But here's the problem.
I've never written a sequel before and I know that many readers are likely to read the sequel first. They shouldn't but they will.
So how does one go about giving them enough about how we got to the start of the sequel without an info dump that will bore the pants off those who have read book one?
Having spent a lot of time carefully crafting the characters you cant really do that quickly in the new opening. Particularly not while maintaining the writing style and flow of the first.
It may, of course, flow off the pen quite naturally once one starts but it definitely feels like it is going to be a 'tricky' thing to do.
I know some of you have done this already, so how did you tackle it?
Thanks
AP

 

[BAYLOR]

From a readers perspective , you might consider A very brief flashback recap of scene or scenes in the book as a prelude.

 

[Phyrebrat]

I’d say write your series and deal with the issue of those kind of readers to the publishers.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

If it's a sequel, make the assumption book one has been read first. If it's a series, you need to do a quick recap of salient points.

Eg Name of the Wind continues on: Vorkogisan reintroduces Miles each time. The first is (allegedly) the start of a trilogy that needs to be read in its entirety, the latter is a series of space adventures with a central character - it's better to read in order but each can be read separately

 

[The Judge]

It perhaps depends on what kind of sequel it is.

If the sequel is the second part of a duology or trilogy, so in effect it's one book spread over 2 or 3 volumes so it's imperative people know what went on before, then the easiest way is to use a "Previously on..." page just giving a precis of what's happened in book one and then continue the story.

If, though, it's simply a second book using the same characters and situations, then you could do that, but actually I don't think you need a lot of backstory dumped at the beginning -- the characters existed before book one and you didn't immediately dump all their past history on the page then. Instead, bring in whatever is needed when it's needed just as you did in book one.

If it helps, I'm just re-visiting the second book of my SF where I've gone the latter, but as and when (if) I do the second part of my duology I'm likely to do the catch-up page, so I don't need any explanations but can rush right on with the action.


EDIT: Ha! Completely the opposite of Jo's advice!

 

[HareBrain]

Force them to read the books in order by encrypting the second book in a code the reader can only derive by solving clues in the first one.

 

[Montero]

I'm just re-reading Ben Aaronovitch's series and there are some hints about previous books like character x, who we first met breaking in to yyyy and is now a semi-permanent houseguest or the like.

 

[msstice]

(I haven't written a book, let alone sold one or written a sequel. But I have accidentally read a sequel first. This is my qualification.)

I think the smart move is to write the story to be as self contained as possible. Every character has a backstory and every inciting incident has a back story. That's OK. This is true regardless of if there are other books.

It should be possible to tell the story, alluding to the backstory in such a way that fresh readers go "It would be so intersting to knew more about that person! I wonder if they wrote more books?" and existing readers go "Ah Ha! This is what happens next! Cool!"

As a reader I don't want to go "WTF? I'm obviously missing backstory because I don't care/understand this story." or "Why is this guy repeating what I already know. Yawn!"

A note on prequels: I don't like prequels that are _all_ backstory e.g. Fractal Noise – Paolini (2023) I was a bit annoyed by this book and doing internet searches later I realized this was a prequel and the later books had more action.

 

[Toby Frost]

It's a tricky one, especially when you're reading a series where the lead character has acquired a set of friends and hangers-on in the course of earlier adventures. I once read a late entry in a crime series where the hero had an adopted daughter who he'd rescued from drug dealers, a history of alcoholism, several lingering injuries and a gardener who believed in werewolves. It felt odd.

I've never really had this problem as the sequels I've written have been effectively "more adventures of the same guys". Where necessary, I've described characters again to make sure that readers don't forget them, or explained the relationship between people - but briefly. Quite often, you don't need to set out the exact history of characters if their relationship shows it, and a lot of that can be shown in the text without having to drop a chunk of backstory on the reader.

If it's an ongoing story, ie one story over several volumes, I'd just put a precis in at the start.

 

[Wayne Mack]

I wouldn't expect too much retained knowledge from the people who read the previous novel. I will often have months or years gap between a novel and its sequel.

Rather than repeating what happened in the previous novel, would it be possible to just describe the current state? The people who read the prior story will get a little easter egg in knowing why something is the way it is, while those new to the story will just have to accept the starting reality.

 

[sknox]

>I know that many readers are likely to read the sequel first.
I'm not sure how you know this. I would expect *some* readers to read the sequel first. Given the number of sales I've had, I would modify that to read, I would expect *a few* readers to read the sequel first.

But if you clearly identify this is volume 2 in a series, then it's really the reader's own choice to walk into the movie partway through. The movie is not obliged to catch you up. Moreover, some who read Volume 1 first might not come to Volume 2 for months or even years. Are you going to accommodate them as well?

I, too, am currently writing a series. One of the things I'm noticing is that I do make an occasional callback to Volume 1, but as someone else pointed out, every story has backstory. In Volume 1 I make reference to events that happened before (long before) Volume 1 even begins. Those events have effects that ripple through the whole series. But I don't need to somehow catch the reader up on the early life of all my characters. In a very real sense, we are always coming into the middle of the story.

 

[Parson]

I'm not sure this is really your problem. If the book is clearly labeled as "The sequel to ________" or "Book 2 of the Adventures of ___________" you've done your bit and it's their problem. Having said this, I also each book in a series should be like every sermon in a series. It should stand on its own. Having the knowledge of the first is a bonus and maybe heighten the drama a bit, but it should not a wall to understanding the story.

 

[Dave]

Force them to read the books in order by encrypting the second book in a code the reader can only derive by solving clues in the first one.

I once found a Bernard Cornwell book in a second hand sale called Excalibur. I thought it was okay, but it did keep mentioning a lot of things that had happened earlier. Turned out it was the final part of an Arthurian trilogy, The Warlord Chronicles or Winter King series.

Not sure how you can encrypt a paperback book!

If the book is clearly labeled as "The sequel to ________" or "Book 2 of the Adventures of ___________"

I don't believe that it was very well labelled, but that might just have been me. You can always look inside at that page that shows all the different series in order, but I assumed it was a standalone book. Anyway, I still enjoyed it!

If it had been instead called Sharpe's Excalibur then I would have known immediately.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I have accidentally started to read a sequel previously, but only because I didn't realise. As soon as I cottoned on to the fact that characters were 'continuing' rather than being introduced for the first time, I stopped reading and became slightly annoyed that the cover of the book gave little to no indication that it was not the first instalment.

The question is do you bore your existing readers by re-covering old ground, or cater for new readers who come in part way through your story?

Personally I would have a 'the story so far' prologue, where existing readers can skip or refresh their memories, and new readers can be brought up to speed.

Unnatural, forced dialogue and/or narration is likely to satisfy no-one.

 

[Swank]

A sequel doesn't need to recap the prior story, just introduce the characters in the context of their changes due to the previous volume. The story should stand alone.

Grab any of the Murderbot sequels for a quick read that illustrates my point.

 

[ColGray]

There's two styles of series and knowing which you're writing is critical to answer this question

1. Monster of the Week
Are you writing a story that could easily be a major US TV network detective show? Great, then each character should be an easily, immediately understood archetype, heavily reliant on genre expectations and the personal background and backstory of any character only matters if it intersects with/impacts THIS story. Think, (dating myself here) Law and Order, NCIS, CSI, etc. In book format, any of the Roberts -- Robert Patterson, Robert Crais, Robert Parker. Something happened three books ago? Great: Does it matter to THIS story? If yes: you need to fill the reader in. If no, it is irrelevant and can be ignored.

The reader needs to know nothing before they show up because no critical plot, character development or interaction is dependant on anything not within the 4 corners of the pages of that book.

2. Sequential Tale
Your story could be a single 30 hour long movie. What happens in hours 28 is informed by and pays off what happened in hour 2. If the reader is going to appreciate hour 28, they need to have read, or understood, the events of hour 2. Long time readers may need a light refresh. New readers can get a nod, but, this is where you're putting on your business hat: If you want to know why hour 28 is so important BUY THE FIRST BOOK.

That said, the first book in any series has to be the strongest because it is likely to be the one most purchased and most read. If Book 1 sells 10k copies, Book 2 is likely to sell 90% of that. Book 3 sells 90% of Book 2, etc. Long series are, typically, diminishing returns--unless someone reads book 2 and then tells their friends about it and then the friend goes and buys 1 and then 2, etc.

There are many series that skirt this or blend the two sides of this-IIRC, Vorkogisan is a great example of, here's a jumping off point and now standalone adventures! --but those are the two typical formats for sequels.

 

[The Big Peat]

*rubs hands*

This is just my party. I absolutely will read sequels first. On purpose.

Now, since I've been routinely told I'm a monster for this and I have very few allies so the first thing I'll say here is

Don't worry about us.

We're a small audience and I've never noticed any particular commonality between us. Might as well worry about whether cat owners will buy your book if there's not enough cats. At least there's a ton of cat owners.

That said...

... the main reason I do it is I find how authors handle reintroducing the story and characters a very good tell as to whether I'm going to get on with the writer's vision and craft.

If I can spot the author doing an in-book recap, I'm probably not going to enjoy the book (particularly not now that I've noticed this bias). I think it betrays insufficient trust of the reader, and insufficient trust in the author's own ability to introduce things subtly and naturally. That sort of thing turns up over and over. It's also often rather dull.

(I do know a lot of readers need recaps, but those are best suited to be synopsis prior to the actual story for my money).

I implore all writers of series, be they one long story broken up between books or many interlinked stories, to just start your subsequent books naturally. Introduce an interesting situation in which a character has to act in a way that will demonstrate who they are, and where their actions will lead to the book's issues. Doing so has the most universal appeal, and you can still slide in reminders.

 

[Astro Pen]

Wow. Quite a can o' woims.
Many, many different approaches. I suspect I will just 'write on', giving a touch on the wheel if needed on review, but keeping it clean and serial.
The place of this story in the line is very much "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water."
I ended the first book in such a way as to cue a sequel. So from that direction it will be expected.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I'm not sure this is really your problem. If the book is clearly labeled as "The sequel to ________" or "Book 2 of the Adventures of ___________" you've done your bit and it's their problem. Having said this, I also each book in a series should be like every sermon in a series. It should stand on its own. Having the knowledge of the first is a bonus and maybe heighten the drama a bit, but it should not a wall to understanding the story.

I agree that anyone complaining about not understanding a sequel when they haven't read the previous book really shouldn't. If you want to fully 'get' the characters and storyline, then read the stories in the way that the author intended.

Having said that, I don't think that books have to necessarily 'stand on their own'.

For me there are three main types of sequels; ones where the story continues on from the point where it finished in the last book (eg Two Towers), ones which take place some time after the events of the last book with the same characters (eg Thomas Covenant or Sharpe), and ones which occupy the same world, but which are about different events and characters (eg Discworld). Books such as Discworld can and should be easy to understand as stand alone stories, Sharpe/Covenant can be improved with prior knowledge and books like Two Towers have no responsibility from the author to be expected to read in any way other than after reading the preceding book.

 

[The Big Peat]

I'm just going to add, all the "well they'll have read it" -

You'll be amazed what people forget.

The extent to which stories benefit from repetition in general too is considerable. Reinforcing who these characters are and why is big.

Being able to quietly and quickly explain what happened before is a huge boon to any author writing a series. The fact that it allows a small minority of readers to slip into the series effortlessly is just another small part of a generally good idea.