I've mulled over sequels a bit since having written one for Oddball the First [the sequel being Oddball the Sequel since I'm a genius]. What makes a sequel a sequel and not just another book in the saga?
Yes, yes being another book is part of it. It's the book that comes after the first book. But it's more than that, right? Opening a sequel is so trepidatious for us readers. There has to be more to it than oh, it's just another book.
So why are we nervous about sequels?
--What if the characters develop in ways that change the things we like about them?
--If the first book ended with a cliffhanger or a lot of open ends, what if the outcome of the sequel doesn't pay off for all that suspense?
--Honestly, sometimes sequels are boring. The author and characters just re-hash the same themes/situations/conflict of the first book. We all go round the carousel again. Oh, yay.
--What if the author kills off the characters we love most?
--Some readers are just anxious people, oKaY!?
These are some great reasons. But as I kept thinking about this, I realized that maybe I was approaching my "what makes a sequel a sequel" question wrong. The thing is a sequel is a smaller part of something larger, and usually that larger thing is a trilogy.
Sometimes it's a duology or a massive saga, but I was writing a trilogy at the time [not to mention trilogies seem to be more popular?]. So the question that I needed to ask first was "what is a trilogy?"
Well, it's like a series, but it only has three books.
Again, I was determined that there's a little more to it. I started thinking of all the first books that I've read, particularly the first books to trilogies wherein I loved the latter books more [and most people didn't]. In retrospect, the first book always feels like it's only the beginning. The other two books dive deeper into the characters and the world of the story and the over-arching theme as well. The first book feels like the "get to know you" phase. In comparison to the latter two books, the first only scratches the surface.
It feels that way because that's what the first book is.
It feels that way because that's what the first book is.
The trilogy as a whole has it's own structure. It's a large three-act plot. In simple terms, it's a beginning, middle, and end. Yes, each book does have it's own complete arc, but each arc is a part of a larger arc. [Ok, so maybe you already knew this.] This is why I often end up liking the other books. I get a closer look at the world of the story.
One of the reason [obviously, I'm speculating] I think a lot of people don't like the books beyond the first one, is that they're wrapped up in the story of the first book. They don't see the larger arc that the first book set up for us; they only see the smaller arc of the first book and have very little idea where the next few books can go or little interest in it.
This could partly be that the first book just didn't set up well for the over-arching story. Both as readers and writers, we tend to have a mono-story mindset when approaching a book. Each book is a story to itself. But if we want to write a trilogy [and read one], we have to realize that the first book is the beginning of a story. It's the set up. It shows us the "normal," what to expect, what we're getting into. The first book sets the tone for how things are going to shift and nose-dive from there because--
The middle part of a story violates the "normal" presented in the beginning. So a sequel shakes things up.
It's supposed to make readers uncomfortable.
The middle part of a story violates the "normal" presented in the beginning. So a sequel shakes things up.
It's supposed to make readers uncomfortable.
But if the first book didn't set up things for the sequel well enough, the readers will be too uncomfortable. Readers have to be reassured that, well, there are worse things to come in the next book.
Another reason, we probably often hate sequels is that a lot of times we hate the middle part of stories. Some middles are slow and boring. Nothing much happens. It's the part when the characters travel from one problem or quest to the next with Legolas' superior elf senses to lead them on and Gimli complaining and straggling in the back. And we wait forever for something to happen.
Other middles are well-written, but in those, EVERYTHING happens. This is the part of the show where anything that can possibly go wrong, goes wrong. Our characters make bad choices, are abused, disheartened, dying, etc. They grow and experiment, sometimes in ways we don't like. Alliances and priorities shift or try to. The established "normal" changes. Everybody hates change, especially book dragons.
And of course, we don't enjoy watching our beloved characters suffer for a whole book. Since the end of the sequel initiates the ending [aka the third book], we cannot know if the sequel will end well or, more likely, leave our characters at their lowest point. This can also make a sequel feel like it isn't a whole story unto itself like the first book was, but instead like series of bad-stuff-happens.
And of course, we don't enjoy watching our beloved characters suffer for a whole book. Since the end of the sequel initiates the ending [aka the third book], we cannot know if the sequel will end well or, more likely, leave our characters at their lowest point. This can also make a sequel feel like it isn't a whole story unto itself like the first book was, but instead like series of bad-stuff-happens.
So really, the sequel [in a trilogy] is just the middle or Act 2 of a larger story. It's where everything falls apart. Once I realized this, I had a smashing time writing Oddball the Sequel. Making bad stuff happen is what I best at! [Don't look at me like that.] I might've went a little overboard though. . . We'll see once I get to revisions.
Anything to add?
