Maybe this is just me, but I quite often read a really good book, and then wish (wonder) whether there is a sequel, and if not why not. For example, Tigana, Enchantment, Day of the Triffids. First of all, is there a simple way of finding out whether books have sequels (this would also be handy when you're on Amazon and mistakenly buy the third in a trilogy...) or whether one is on the way but just not for years? Secondly, does anyone want to join a campaign for a sequel to Enchantment? (Baba Yaga is too good to get just the one book).
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
i really like Enchantment as a stand-alone novel, but my first reaction to most of card's books is that i want another one simply because i now care about the characters and the goings ons of even their every day lives.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
lol, funny that you mentioned Enchantment since when I saw this thread it reminded me that I wanted a sequal to it Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
Tigana is perfectly complete as it is. Adding anything would ruin it. What that author needed to do was create other beautiful books like that, which he is doing. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I feel the opposite. Most of the time that I hear one of my favorite authors is releasing a sequel, I am slightly sad, because sequels are rarely as good as stand-alone novels or the first of a series.
For example, I *much* prefer Seventh Son, Ender's Game, Enchantment, and Treasure Box to Crystal City, Heartfire, Xenocide, or Children of the Mind.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
I agree, mph. When I was a kid (well, until 16 or so) I basically only wanted to read series, largely because I didn't know how to find more good books to read. I also read books multiple (ie, 10) times for the same reason. Now that my range and interests are wider, I know how badly I was shortchanging myself of quality for the sake of quantity. We're talking everything from Piers Anthony and Terry Brooks to The Babysitters' Club (up til 40 or so...) here. *breaks out in hives at memory* Series are going to be the death particularly of fantasy if current trends don't reverse.
[ June 15, 2004, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Lissande ]
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
sequels are usually good if they are not so much sequels as they are separate parts of the same story. i feel the ender books are like this, i love all of them, and they stand very well on their own and bring something new to think about it. the otherland books are one looooooooong story. lord of the rings? there has to be more than one book. spinoffs can work in an interesting universe.
i dont like sequels that are manufactured simply because the original was a success. there's a difference.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I'm in the not-so-fond of sequels camp. Most sequels I've read are nowhere near as good as the first. I wish more authors would put their energy into creating new, wonderful books instead of hanging onto a prior success.
space opera
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Would ongoing series qualify for this discussion? The oft-mentioned George R. R. Martin books "Songs of Ice and Fire" come to mind. They are part of one giant story that needs a conclusion, vs. a stand-alone story.
I agree, some books were fine on their own. Speaker for the Dead was great and while I liked Xenocide a lot, it wasn't really necessary. Actually, what made that sequel more interesting was its almost lack of Ender and his crew telling essentially a NEW story set in that same universe.
Harry Potter books considered sequels? Lemony Snicket? Bourne?
fil
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
A Song of Ice and Fire seems to go along with Pullman's His Dark Materials in that each book basically just stops. The story isn't yet finished. Unfortunately, the Ender Quartet isn't like that. Ender's Game is a beautiful story, and it's no coincidence that it was the first one written. Speaker for the Dead is an entireley different story, and while the Ender of Speaker for the Dead remembers the events of Ender's Game, he isn't really the same character. He is an adult, with an entirely new set of experiences to draw on. In Xenocide, however, Ender ceases to be interesting. The real story there, and the one it feels like OSC cared the most about, was the story of Han Qing-jao and Si Wang-mu. Also, Grego and Olhado actually emerge as interesting characters in their own right, since they have the same freedom from their Speaker for the Dead selves that Ender did in the transition from EG to Speaker. The elements that "carried over" from Speaker weren't the best part of that book, and really weren't even all that interesting. Children of the Mind didn't have any Path or Grego's mob. It was strictly a continuation of the relationships and plotlines already established in Xenocide. Yes, there was the journey of Peter, Divine Wind, Pacifica, and the Descoladores, but none of them really had the power to unify and make the story important like in the first books.
I have really just discovered that series' aren't as good in the past few years. The other day I went on a book binge in which I bought some really great books by people who have never written a series in their lives, and it's liberating to think that I won't have to ever pick up a book and find that a character whose power and life I admired in one book has become a shadow on the page, a marketing justification for the more interesting subplots.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
One of the reasons speculative fiction has so many sequels is that the effort that goes into creating the setting is so much greater than normal fiction. So authors want to leverage that creative process as much as possible.
Plus, fans fall in love with not only the characters, but also the setting. So they're doubly motivated to read a sequel.
That said, the best sequels happen when the first book/series didn't involve overcoming an epic threat to the entire world. After that, everything seems like a letdown.
Dagonee
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
But Dagonee, that's exactly why the sequels aren't as rewarding. I remember how great it was to read Treason and Songmaster and Hart's Hope and Worthing, where Card created these fascinating worlds, all of them new and fresh, but clearly from the same great mind. Well, he hasn't created a new world since Enchantment if that even counts. Before that how long has it been? My point is, when authors of spec-fi stop creating worlds, they stop being interesting. This is why I have such disgust for the shelves upon shelves of Star Trek and Star Wars novels at B&N. If you aren't going to bother creating a world, then write something else. Spec-fi is about imagination and the excitement of what could be, and how changes in the world can affect the possibilities of inter-personal relationships. New worlds make possible new situations that wouldn't be possible without fantasy. So why write half a book?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
The Day of the Triffids should not have a sequel (as in, a continuation of the initial story) because it would merely be one of survival. If there was a sequel it would have to be a different set of people, later on.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
I actually bought Enchantment because it looked like it would be a stand alone book. I do enjoy series every once in a while. George R. R. Martin's stuff is a good example. However sometimes I don't want to make a commitment to reading and paying for a bunch of books. I also dislike waiting for the next book in a series to come out. I read quite quickly so I actually enjoy reading a series when all the books are published and I can just sit down and read them all. However, the wait for a book to get published usually means I forget things about the story and feel that I should go back and read the older books again each time a new book comes out. And while I like rereading everyonce in a while I normally prefer to read something new.
[ June 15, 2004, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: sarahdipity ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think whether a book is a sequel or not shouldn't have any bearing on whether it is considered good or not.
That said, the novel Ender's Game was, in a sense, a prequel to Speaker . And Xenocide is probably my favorite of that series. Apart from the cliffhangedness of the ending.
P.S. And my family had me pretty convinced that it was the end, because it's now a trilogy and that's how books come, either one or a trilogy. Thank goodness they were wrong!
[ June 15, 2004, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
Speaker for the Dead is my favorite of the Ender series, maybe because I read it before reading Ender's Game (I know, I'm all screwed up!). Speaker is just so rich, and I felt a deeper empathy for the characters in that book than I did in Ender's Game. I was a little older than many people are when they first read these books, so that probably makes some difference as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But Dagonee, that's exactly why the sequels aren't as rewarding.
I was just discussing the rationale behind it, not saying the rationale was correct. Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I think a sequel can be good if the author makes sure that each book makes a significant contribution. George RR Martin is a good example of this. In each of the books the story really does move, things happen. OSC is as well, Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind are all different books...and different things are accomplished in each book. I actually read Xenocide before I read any of the other books and it worked as a stand alone novel. Terry Goodkind is another author who’s books have evolved over the course of a series. Of course that evolution has pissed off some people, but it is there nevertheless.
Robert Jordan is having problems with that aspect of writing. His early books did progress the story with each book, but lately the movement of the plot...and character development has ground to a halt.
Sequels can be a good thing, but the author just has to be careful not to become lazy. Just because you don't need to create a new world does not mean you can let your creativity slack off. Use that creativity to make each story as memorable as the last. Personally, I think this is more difficult than writing a new stand alone story...so an author should only try it if they truly have the skill.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Speaker is my favorite OSC book, too. But he said that he rewrote Ender's Game as a novel because he had Speaker that he needed to write, and it only worked as a sequel to a more complete Ender's Game than the short story as it was then. So I'm not really sure it counts as a sequel at all.
I do like series, though, in general. Just I'm not really into fantasy all that much, so most of my favorite series are science fiction.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Two of my favorite books that I have read in the last year take place in the same world but have only very little in terms of character connecting them. Anyone read China Mieville's "Perdido Street Station" and "Scar?" These two are AMAZING books (in my opinion) and take place on a world called Bas Lag. What is cool is that they really aren't sequels in the traditional sense. The first book takes place in one giant city (New Crobuzon), which he creates with great detail. It covers a huge span of characters and events that culminate with a very unique ending, I think. The Scar has one character that was mentioned as a throw away person in the first book yet is the focus of the entire second novel.
This novel sees the main character leave the city and gets involved with yet another very detailed city (one that floats on the ocean...a collection of ships lashed together and added to for years and years) and what happens there.
What is cool about this is it meets the idea of world building but does so without having to rehash characters to do so. Would this be a sequel or something different?
I like world building and I enjoy when folks do more with it than just follow the same characters through it. Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle did this with their "CoDominion" books. They wrote science fiction stories, some genuine sequels, but regardless they set them in this same universe. One series of books they wrote together had to do with the meeting of the first alien race (Mote in God's Eye and Gripping Hand) but others were about a different period of time when the CoDominion was created. Or another picked a new period of time and followed one particular character and those around him (the Mercenary books). That is kind of nifty, too.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)