venturing into the land of "book 2"

[Sassee]

So, my busy little writer's mind has come up with a brilliant form of procrastination against revising my current novel. Write the sequel! (I know, what an original idea, right? I'm so unique :rolleyes:)

It's just a way to kill the time, I told myself. I hadn't written anything noteworthy in a while and I wanted a break from revisions, so I figured what the hell, I'll just play around with some future scenes.

Of course I tried to dive right into a chapter 1 scenario rather than picking a random action point, and I've come across an interesting problem. With the way my mind works I'm now going to be preoccupied until I work it out.

This book picks up pretty close to where the other book left off. Within a few days. Hours, even. Err... well it does right now. Assuming I actually continue this little project that might change, but just play along for a minute. Let's assume I keep the time line as-is and I actually use this in the future.

How do you go about getting the readers up to speed in the story without splooging massive info dumps all over the place? What's your preferred method (if you've written a book 2, 3, whatever)? What are good examples you've seen from other authors? What are some things you DON'T like to see in the beginnings of a sequel? Is there a book or blog out there with suggestions for this very situation? Is there a thread already in here I didn't find in my 0.5 seconds of using the search function? A "don't do this" list? Advice in someone's signature? Anything?

Advice is much appreciated. Thanks!

[Constantine K]

I, personally, hate seeing any info about the previous book in a sequel. The entire time I'm pulling my hair out saying, "I ALREADY KNOW THIS."

If you don't remember what happened in the previous book, tough titty said the kitty.

I like how Stephen King did it in The Dark Tower series. He took a few pages in the beginning to sum up everything that happened in the previous books. If I wanted to, I could read it. If not, on to the next story.

Not sure if this would even work for you, but I really liked it.

If I have to read "backnovelstory," I prefer it in little tidbits, splashed here and there. Like a friend sharing an inside joke: "Oh, yeah. I remember when that happened. Fun times."

[Axelle]

Well, I'm not much experienced in books 2 things as I just finished my first novel today, but in my opinion, the simplest way to do it would be to summarize your first book in as few sentences as you can manage. Then you can try to work these sentences in the first chapters, without any massive info dump. You probably won't want to give any more details than absolutely necessary, so you don't bore the readers who read the first book, but enough so the reader who just happened to stumble on book 2 understands what's going on. It's even better if you can arouse book 2 reader's curiosity so he'll want to read the first book ;)

[IdiotsRUs]

What are some things you DON'T like to see in the beginnings of a sequel?

A three page rundown of the last book.

I think you have two ways. Assume your reader has read the last book, and just nudge them with teh odd word or two. Or segue in the backstory the same way you would any other book -- show your character/s doing what they would do,show their personalities, and add in little bits and pieces as and when it is vital the reader should know about it.

[HeronW]

I drop in a couple of Pp here and there between ch 1-3 recapping book 1 as dreams, mourning, flashbacks, etc. Mine have some of the same characters but are more alike a series vs a sequel.

[Madison]

I too hate info dumps. But backstory is usually necessary. I've been reading that the publishing world likes sequels that can stand alone - aka sequels with enough information for the reader to put together an idea of what happened in the first book, even if they haven't read it. that doesn't mean a three page info dump. I've encountered those before and even the best of writers can't prevent their dryness.

[rugcat]

I too hate info dumps. But backstory is usually necessary. I've been reading that the publishing world likes sequels that can stand alone - aka sequels with enough information for the reader to put together an idea of what happened in the first book, even if they haven't read it. that doesn't mean a three page info dump. I've encountered those before and even the best of writers can't prevent their dryness.I write series stand alones, with continuing characters, and it's the hardest part for me. And if you're writing urban fantasies, as I am, you've already built your world and premise, dribbling information all through book one. You can't do the same in book two; those who have read book one will hate it and it's boring as hell to say the same stuff in a different way anyway.

But you have to provide enough context so that a reader who hasn't read book one won't be totally confused. But you also can't give away any big spoilers; if they like book two, they might want to read book one.

It's a balancing act, and nobody ever gets it just right.

[Varthikes]

I've been working on a Book 2 myself lately. I adopted a method that Anne McCaffrey uses, writing a prelude that briefly recaps what happened in the previous novel.

[peevy]

Sometimes there's a huge gap of time between when I read the first book in a series and when I read the next book, and if the author vaguely alludes to something important that I can't remember I get frustrated.

But I also hate hate hate reading infodump!

It's got to be a balance--make references that are specific enough to serve well as reminders of what happened in a previous book--but don't get caught up in summarizing.

I'll admit this is an issue I will soon have to tackle on my own, so we'll see if I can even follow my own advice. It sounds pretty difficult! I'll be watching replies to this topic to glean tips for myself. :)

[Sassee]

I write series stand alones, with continuing characters, and it's the hardest part for me. And if you're writing urban fantasies, as I am, you've already built your world and premise, dribbling information all through book one. You can't do the same in book two; those who have read book one will hate it and it's boring as hell to say the same stuff in a different way anyway.

But you have to provide enough context so that a reader who hasn't read book one won't be totally confused. But you also can't give away any big spoilers; if they like book two, they might want to read book one.

It's a balancing act, and nobody ever gets it just right.

That's part of my issue... it's urban fantasy and I'm not sure exactly *what* needs to be re-explained, if anything, to get the reader up to speed on my world.

I, personally, hate seeing any info about the previous book in a sequel. The entire time I'm pulling my hair out saying, "I ALREADY KNOW THIS."

If you don't remember what happened in the previous book, tough titty said the kitty.

I like how Stephen King did it in The Dark Tower series. He took a few pages in the beginning to sum up everything that happened in the previous books. If I wanted to, I could read it. If not, on to the next story.

Not sure if this would even work for you, but I really liked it.

If I have to read "backnovelstory," I prefer it in little tidbits, splashed here and there. Like a friend sharing an inside joke: "Oh, yeah. I remember when that happened. Fun times."

That bolded phrase is so full of win. Just thought you should know that ;) I haven't read the Dark Tower series, but I can definitely check it out to see what he did.

Sometimes there's a huge gap of time between when I read the first book in a series and when I read the next book, and if the author vaguely alludes to something important that I can't remember I get frustrated.

But I also hate hate hate reading infodump!

Me too, which is why I posted this question to everyone! This is a toughie.



Thanks for the replies so far - you all are thinking along the same lines I am. I don't like repetitive info-dumplike summaries, but at the same time, a bit of reminder is helpful.

I might try it both ways. Write one with minimal (or no) info sprinkles, write the same one with more dumps, and see if there's a good middle ground I can reach.


<3

[mscelina]

With my series, I did what Varthikes suggested. Every book has a Prologue, 3-5 pages that bridges the gap between the previous and current books. I write them in present tense, with action that starts off the new book, with MAJOR PLOT references from the previous book. I only refer to the major conflict and its resolution--the rest of the info I insinutate into action within the body of the book. I figure that as long as that one major plot point is brought back up, I (and the reader) can move smoothly into the action of the new story.

[LisaHy]

Weave the events of book one in as you would any other events from the characters' past. I presume they didn't all start as infants in book one and had their whole lives displayed for the reader. You wove their history into the elements of book one. Therefore, weave book one into the elements of book two. When events from book one impact on events in book two, that's where you drop in the backstory that is book one.

I apologise if none of that makes sense. I've had a bad day.

Cheers, Lisa.

[Joe Moore]

This is a tough question, and one of the challenges of writing a series. I just started #5 in the Cotten Stone supernatural thriller series (http://www.cottenstone.com) and the issue is one I must address constantly. How much is enough? It’s similar to asking how much seasoning do you need to put in your food? The answer is: just enough to make it taste good.

You must assume that there will be a percentage of readers who pick up a book in mid-series. You have to balance between the book being considered a standalone and an installment. I suggest keeping your backstory as simple and basic as possible with a salting of the background sprinkled along when it’s needed to clarify. Always keep the first-time readers in mind, but don't write exclusively for them. If the story is strong enough, they’ll get through it fine, and hopefully want to go grab the previous books in the series.

One more thought: one of the biggest advantages to writing a series is your knowledge of your main character(s). Although the protag grows through the series, you don’t have to start from scratch inventing him or her with each new book. Good luck.

[Namatu]

That's part of my issue... it's urban fantasy and I'm not sure exactly *what* needs to be re-explained, if anything, to get the reader up to speed on my world.For now, err on the side of too much. Slash and burn later. (It's fun!)

Thanks for the replies so far - you all are thinking along the same lines I am. I don't like repetitive info-dumplike summaries, but at the same time, a bit of reminder is helpful.Personally, I don't mind if infobits are lightly sprinkled to give me a hint of what happened, but not the full picture. If I'm coming in mid-series, I expect to not know everything, and if I want to read the earlier books, I will (but probably not if you tell me everything that already happened).

[ink wench]

Personally, I don't mind if infobits are lightly sprinkled to give me a hint of what happened, but not the full picture. If I'm coming in mid-series, I expect to not know everything, and if I want to read the earlier books, I will (but probably not if you tell me everything that already happened).
This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say. I prefer when writers treat book 1 like backstory. Sprinkle in what's necessary for me to know, but leave enough for me to get interested in book 1.

[ClaudiaGray]

Well, when I wrote my book 2, I gave only very light info on what had happened before and figured my readers could pick it up from context. My editor said, "Think again." I tried to avoid an info dump, but I had to go back over several things I considered pretty obvious; publishers really will not allow you to assume that everybody reading the second book read the first. (Unless you're JK Rowling, in which case, everybody and her mom read it.)

It helped me having that experience, though, because I think I was able to get the catch-up info into the third book much more organically. Though of course my editor hasn't seen that one yet --

[ToddWBush]

I'm in the same spot as you, Sassee. Mainly, I'm trying to work the series (it's got the same MC) the same way Michael Connelly works the Harry Bosch series. Anyone can pick up a Bosch book out of order and not be lost. Sure, there's brief mentions to former cases, former lovers, etc. but they are brief. They aren't utilized to catch readers up who've not yet read those books, but rather (to the new reader) just to serve as a way of saying "so yeah, Bosch knows this person" or "ok, so Bosch is recovering from a lover who's left him."

If you read the previous books, then re-read the book you started on, it makes more sense in the grand overview of the series. But, it doesn't make you frustrated that you started so late. In fact, Connelly is so good at this stuff, that if you didn't know it was a series with a continuing character, you'd not even have a clue.

That's what I want to do with my second book. I want the whole story from the first book to be briefly mentioned in dialogue with MC and someone else, but nothing more than that. To the new reader, it's just a small window into his past, but to the "Constant Reader", it's a secret only they and the MC share.

[dreamsofnever]

Ooh, tough question. And yay for procrastination via sequel writing!

Actually, writing the sequel to my first novel is helping me to figure out what needs to be edited and added to it, so it's actually *helping* with the editing process.

Now for the question at hand... I kinda skipped adding explanation of the first book in the beginning. I'll probably add some as I go back, but I am mainly approaching the second book as a standalone story. I want it to stand on its own while also continuing threads started in the first book.

Certain points from the first book that are extremely important have and will be woven in through flashbacks and allusions in the storytelling itself. Like Constantine, I'm not a big fan of stories that spend time catching you up on what happened in the last book. Though I do understand the reason for it, since not everyone retains information from one book to another.

Anyways, do what feels right for the story, resist the urge to info-dump and try to make this story standalone enough so that the reader could pick it up and read it first and get most of it.

Good luck with the sequel!

[timewaster]

I've just written book 3 of a series with the additional problem that part I was originally published in 2000 and part 2 in 2003.

When I wrote the second one I just alluded to previous events in the text where I could fit them in, but never more than a line or two at any one time. The reader only needed to know a few key facts and I only dealt with them when knowing them became necessary. I'm not a fan of big info dumps.

I have done some of that in the last book but there is too much significant material to make this approach work. I am going to do a page introduction for new readers at some point because I'm not prepared to clutter up the text with references to previous events. It slows everything down.

Each book is a stand alone story but the past becomes more important in the last book.
I am waiting for editorial comments on book 3 so I will see if my editor agrees with this approach.

My books are high action adventure for teens so it makes no sense to weight the text down with memories - for other books that might be a perfectly legitimate approach.

[Phaeal]

As a reader, I'm careful to start series with Book One -- I like following the characters and their development from the start. I wonder how many other readers do this.

One of my favorite series is the one by Doug Preston and Lincoln Child featuring FBI Special Agent Pendergast and friends. It includes both more or less stand-alone novels, like Still Life with Crows and The Cabinet of Curiosities, and more tightly linked novels like Brimstone/Dance of Death/Book of the Dead. Preston and Child sprinkle references to earlier books into later ones mostly through character memories and reflections. I'd say they do a lot of trusting their readers to be clever and patient and (for the closer linked books) loyal. Works for me.

[Wolvel]

I'm on book two in my werewolf series, what I am doing is writing each book as a stand alone so a new reader can pick up in book two without needing to read book one.

Since there is a twenty year gap between books, I will drop bits and pieces here and there to catch readers up, just not a up front info-dump.

To tie the trio together is the endings of books one and two. They leave you wanting to know more.

[Prawn]

Let me caution you! I have written four novels involving my MC, and the first one may never sell, which may mean the other three may not sell either. My problem was that book 2 is too closely tied to book 1, so if 1 doesn't sell, 2 doesn't either. I made sure that 3 and 4, even though they involved the same character, stood on their own, and weren't as "sequelly" as book 2. Don't get me wrong, I learned a lot by writing the sequels, but I think I would have learned a lot by writing something completely different. The trouble is that now I feel that if the concept of book 1 doesn't work in the market, then none of these books will ever be published.

So.....Just realize that you are really putting all your eggs in one basket by writing sequels to a book that hasn't received representation or sold.

[Feathers]

May I suggest that you treat Book 1 like an important backstory? reveal it slowly, like you would any kind of backstory. Make Book 2 worthy to stand alone. Use new revelations. Deepening understandings of the characters. Book 2 should have it's own plot, it's own fresh perspective on the world. But also, if you throw in an entire new cast of characters, with the old MC's as sort of part-time people, I'll be mad then too. So don't do that.

I actually hate the avgerage sequel, esp if they are book 2 of a trilogy. They feel like the random middle of some huge story, no beginning and no end, and there's never any resolution. A good sequel is one I can pick up and read a few chapters before realizing it's a sequel.

-Feathers

[Elodie-Caroline]

Thank you very much for this posting, it's just what I needed! :)

I had been having a discussion with another couple of AWers last week on here, as my first novel is miles too long, 182,000 words! We spoke about breaking it in half and I was a little concerned about doing it, as to me, it's technically the same story.
But after reading this posting and it's replies, I realise that I can break it in half. The first half is how my MCs met and fell in love, but it's a kind of an action thriller too; whereas, the second half is showing how each of my MCs deals with my female's terrible past; her shame and his jealousy etc.

I've also been thinking of doing a biography (a third novel) for my female too! :D


Thank you one again... Elodie

[Constantine K]

I've thought about this some more, and it really irritates me to think that someone might pick up a book mid-series. I've never done that, and couldn't imagine doing it anyway. If I'm interested enough in a book to plunk down my ten bucks, I'll look to make sure it's either the first, or that it's not part of a series.

Would someone really go to the mystery section and say: "Well, the Stephanie Plum series sounds neat . . . let's start with Twelve Sharp."

I say dump on that.

[Elodie-Caroline]

Hmm... way back in the 1980s, I read the second book, Petals on the wind, of Virginia Andrews, Flowers in the attic, series, not knowing it was from a series at first. It didn't bother me that I read them back to front, so to speak.


Elodie