Pointers for a sequel?

Hello,

I would like to hear any and all pointers on writing a sequel to a novel. I'm having a hard time finding any solid information on the Web, so links and book titles would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Well, that depends. (Don't you hate that answer?)

Why do you want to write a sequel? Do you want to spend more time in that story world? Are there unresolved plot threads that you want to expand? Do you want to explore the further depths of your main character? Does one of the minor characters want to tell their story?

Jen

I've written a sequel and have two more planned. I try to think of the books in the series in the same way as you might think of chapters or parts in a book, it's just the next 'order of magnitude' so to speak. You could divide your stories up in ascending order of size as follows:

word
phrase
sentence
paragraph
scene
chapter
part (or section)
book
series

Looked at that way, each novel is like a big chapter or part in the overall story. Dunno if that is helpful, but thinking of the series as one long story helps me keep things in perspective.

The most important lesson I learned about writing sequels came from something that happened to Isaac Asimov. He wrote a short story about a wrecked spaceship.

Umpteen years later he was asked to write a sequel to it.

He went back and reread the original story. In it he had the main character pick up a pen from the wreckage. It was really wasted words, had nothing to do with the plot or the resolution. I'm surprised the editor did not kick it out and same the price of ten words.

Asimov decided to use the pen as the clue to the solution of what caused the wreck and therefore wrote his sequel as a bit of a detective story.

I have never planned on writing a sequel but I learned early, "Never lock a door behind yourself unless you have a key," so in every story I write I toss in something I might be able to use later if the need arises.

Thanks, CC. This sequel takes place 13 years after the first book.

To answer Jen's questions: I want to write it because there is more "story" to write. The story really doesn't "end" with the first book, though it does bring to a close one major aspect of the story as a whole. There's more surprises, conflicts and unresolved issues for my characters to explore later on.

I've been struggling with this manuscript, mainly because I don't even know if there will be a demand for it. I've got the story going on but I don't even know if the readers of the first book will hope to see a second.

Still, I could always use some pointers on how to write a sequel.

I feel there is almost always 'more' story to tell. Up til about the 10th novel or so. Then it often seems as if the writer gets tired of the characters. Take for example, Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time series. His later two didn't have the same power as the rest of them.

Of course, he upset his fan base when he decided to go for a series of prequels rather than extend the story.



David

I've got the story going on but I don't even know if the readers of the first book will hope to see a second.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about the readers wanting to read a second while you're writing it. IMO, I'm not really sure what pointers you need. You have the story going, and feel as if there's more story to tell.

Perhaps, don't think of it as a sequel. Just think of it as another, brand-new novel.

One of the main issues with sequels is how (or if) to incorporate what happened in the previous book. Do you simply assume your readers will remember everything, and continue on as if it were one big novel? Or do you try to clue new readers in, and if so, how? Flashbacks? Infodumps? Characters reminiscing? One person telling a story to another person? A "what has gone before" synopsis to start? With any of these options but the last one (which is also my least favorite), the challenge is to utilize them without being awkward or obvious.

I think you need to decide at the outset how much of a standalone you want your sequel to be.

- Victoria

I think the key to a sequel is first selling a book, and then to be asked for a sequel by the publisher. I find writing a sequel to be pretty much a pain in the butt, and I never could have done so without someone offering to pay good money.

If the first book hasn't sold, I think it's best to make the sequel a standalone novel.

maybe if you have to think about a sequel it's not meant to be, eh? i honestly think some people are more in tune with sequelization than others. it's not good or bad. i've thought about this before, and there's not a single book i've written that i couldn't derive a sequel out of, eventhough i tend to kill off every single character. especially when there are years separating the original book with the idea of going back into that universe, you can look back on the thing with fresh eyes and a different perspective and be surprised at how many avenues you have to go down when you used to think you tidied everything up to a tee.

also, people are mostly suggesting sequels as a continuation of the original plot as opposed to sequels being episodes, one not connected to another by anything other than characters and setting. detective novels do this (that's probably one reason i'm not into them), as opposed to there not being a large amount of sequels for romance.

my opinion is that if you have to consciously insert potential sequal material into a book, maybe that universe isn't rich enough to sustain a sequel. if you do these insertions you run the risk of sounding obvious, and when you do that i think you start sounding to the reader like you're in it for the money. my personal opinion is sequels should be organic, but if you want to do a sequel, i suggest having a vague idea of what that sequel would be about so you can plant some very, very small seeds now. it's impossible to make direct suggestions without any information, of course, but for an example of what i think an 'organic' sequel might entail would be how the father always went on business trips to a foreign country, so that when the girl finds her dad murdered and she resolves that book with the people who killed him, there's still a little fodder left for the sequel, like one of the dad's other trips lands him business associates who then comes and wants something from the girl. i don't know, something like that, lol.

I think that it's best for a sequel to be able to stand alone too (even if this means the work is more cumbersome, I think it pays off).

When do you think it's best to start writing the sequel? I'm not used to working on several project at once, but I'm prepared to start. Do you think it's best to start writing the first draft of a sequel while revising the first one? The revision process of the first novel will allow checking for clues and foreshadowning to be planted at the right moments for the sequel.
(sorry I have to hurry up, I'll come back later)
Pencilone

A good question was asked: Why do you necessarily want to write a sequel?

If the characters you created in your first novel were sufficiently interesting, and their situations too, then you are set to find sequel material simply by rethinking the end of your first book.

Myself, I've been working on a private detective series, with two novels finished (and off to the agent). I have the 3rd in draft, and maybe a dozen more novels planned, with raw notes on the plot outlines.

I set out from the beginning to write a series, so I have placed foreshadowing in the first novels that point toward the others. I've also created ongoing characters whom I feel have "legs".

What about in the SF/F (or other) genre? The trilogy or series is almost a standard in the Fantasy genre, and people will frequenty buy a book *because* it's the first in a sizeable series when they might pass over a stand-alone novel.

Can any of the published SF/F authors on this forum comment on whether the common wisdom of making the first novel stand on its own* applies in that genre as well? Or is more common for a first time author to sell a series?

*By stand on its own I mean have the major plot threads all resolved, even if a few minor ones are left hanging.

Thanks,

Valerie

hmmm

I think the first should be able to stand on it's own even if there are some threads hanging.

But second books don't really need to stand alone. After all that's why they are a second book.

Shawn

Re: hmmm

Thanks, everyone, for your comments and advice on this. And, yes, despite the loose threads in the first book, I do think it can stand on its own if numbers 2 and 3 are never written/published (though I will probably write them, anyway).

I think it really will depend on what a publisher/agent/audience asks for.

The revision process of the first novel will allow checking for clues and foreshadowning to be planted at the right moments for the sequel.

Click to expand...

This was done. I also have a rough sketch of what will happen to my characters in the next book.

>>Can any of the published SF/F authors on this forum comment on whether the common wisdom of making the first novel stand on its own* applies in that genre as well? Or is more common for a first time author to sell a series?<<

First-time SF/fantasy authors do sell series--not always, but does happen. Duologies and trilogies are a staple of the genre, so it makes sense to think in those terms. However, there are no guarantees, so if you are planning a series, make it the kind of series where the first book can be bought and published on its own, and query ONLY for the first book (not for all two or three or whatever). That way you have all the bases covered.

Do mention in your query that you're working on a sequel, and even that you've got a third book outlined--it's good to show that you're not a one-shot writer, and to let agents and editors know that if they like Book 1, there's more. But don't mention more than two or three books. It's a real turnoff to an agent or editor when a writer mentions their already-written 12-book series, or their planned quintology. No way is a publisher going to commit to so many books from a newcomer (or even most established writers). If you sell a duology or a trilogy and it's successful, the publisher may buy more books in the same series/world, but you have to prove yourself first.

- Victoria

If you have great characters that have lives beyond your original story, people will want to read the sequel.

Sequels should stand on their own. Meaning, if a reader has never read the original book, he or she should not be lost. The characters should stay interesting and engaging. The plot should be stand-alone and fulfilling. Some back stories might be necessary to bring the readers up to speed; but if the readers never read the first one, nothing should be lost. A successful sequel also would make the readers want to read the first one.

Thank you so much for that info!! It really helps.

I'm curious: Is there a difference between a book that is a sequel and one that is a part of a series? I look at Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles and see it as a series, but I look at the Jaws stories and see them as a sequel.

In my vernacular, "sequel" is a cheep knock-off that re-creates every good facet of the original, in the most assinine way, with no redeeming qualities. "sequel" is a hat in a hand begging for a hand-out, boasting of past success:

"Once I had a railroad. Made it run. Made it race against time..."

A planned trilogy is a noble thing. A planned series is also noble. Given the vagaries of the publishing industry, it's good to make each installment self-sufficient.

But if you must write an unplanned sequel to a good story, you MUST:

1) Expand the characters into previously unknown territory
2) Develop a whole new plot with all the sincerity and gusto of your original plot, but with no resemblance, save to keep things in the same universe.
3) Do NOT; jump the shark, leave it all to the muppets, or introduce a cute Oliver character.

A sequel can also be Book 2 of a planned duology, in which case it's not a cheap knockoff but the second half of the story.

To my mind, a series is open-ended--it can include any number of books. There may be a meta-story that develops from book to book, and the same characters may be featured, but each installment is pretty much self-contained, and the series could either proceed or end with each book--like Reginald Hill's Pascoe and Dalziel books, or Lois McMaster Bujold's Miles Whatever-his-name-is series. A duology or trilogy or quadralogy, on the other hand, includes exactly that number of books, and once they're done, so is the story. Theoretically, anyhow.

- Victoria

Sequels should stand on their own. Meaning, if a reader has never read the original book, he or she should not be lost.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! I've spent a lot of time on this in my 1st novel, and tried very hard to provide a good story. Likewise for the 2nd book. I didn't leave the reader hanging on unresolved plot threads in either.

What I did do, however, was to create a character (my protagonist), and ancillary characters whom I feel are sufficienlty interesting that the readers will want to read further adventures (aka Robert Parker's "Spenser" and his ongoing romance with the much-maligned Susan Silverman).

I've put "hooks" of foreshadowing in my novels, and also references to past events, but in no case do these items require the reader to be knowledgeable about the other books. It may hopefully pique the reader's interest, though.

For example, at the end of book #1, my progagonist (modern Houston private detective), sits in jail, hungover and guilt-ridden. We know he'll get out the next day, but we don't know whether he'll dig himself from beneath his despair. In the end of book #2, he collapses in grief as the realization of his misdeeds pours into his mind. (Just a couple of cheery upbeat stories to lighten the soul, ya know. ha ha)

Book #3, now begun, he's going out of town to recharge his batteries, visiting a pal in Austin for a couple of weeks. This story will be a more up-front mystery with less soul-searching and more bad-guy beatings.

On a related note, what about spin-offs? They're not uncommon in television or films, but what about books?

I think the same things would apply. Additionally, you need to pick a character that is just as interesting (or more) with a life as your original protagonist. Think Frasier. Or a potential Hermione Gringer and the Witch's Diamond....

In my first book, some of my characters are so colorful and vivid that my readers have suggested I write a spin-off. I haven't decided yet, but I think it could be a good idea if I can find a good story to tell. Then characters from my first book can make cameo appearances...

I hate spinoffs.

If I like a book well enough to read a sequel or continuation, it's usually because I've enjoyed all elements of it, especially the characters. When I read "spinoff" novels, I feel like there's something missing - all the other characters I loved from the first book. It just doesn't mesh right with me.

Sure, Frasier worked out, but I never watched Cheers. And I despise Joey.

Taking the same characters and writing a new novel, but changing the POV character would be different. Changes things around a litte, makes things interesting.

That being sad, I'm sure there are authors out there who have accomplished this brilliantly, but I'm not familiar with any of them.

Can one argue that Lord of the Ring was a spin-off of The Hobbit?

Just wondering...

Is that a spinoff? There I would go for continuation. The main character in LotR wasn't in the Hobbit, was he?

I guess I wouldn't know, I never read any of them. (Don't tell Ruth.)