 |
| [Meesa what happens when sequels are allowed] |
This week's Top Ten Tuesday from The Broke and the Bookish asks us to list ten books we wish had sequels. My list is pretty short- is has zero books on it. Just as I'm generally not a fan of series, I'm not a proponent of sequels. I considered playing along and just listing my top ten favorite books, but the reality is that I really truly don't want those books to have series. Instead, since I'm not going to completely cop-out, I'll give you a few reasons why they're not my favorite. And, like always, there are exceptions, so don't get your panties in a wad.
1. While I don't need endings to be neat and tidy, I do need a sense of closure- a "now we're done" feeling. The idea of another book carrying on characters, plot lines, and relationships doesn't give me the sense of completeness that I desire. I like to be able to close a book and know that John is lost in the Canadian wilderness for life or that Mary is starting a new career as a bounty hunter. Knowing that I could pick up the sequel and discover when John is found by the Mounties or that Mary ends up getting shot by the cartel bothers me.
2. Piggy-backing on number one, I think that sequels take away the gift of being able to imagine possibilities from the reader. We're being robbed of creating a history for the characters.
3. Knowing that there is a sequel, or a series, means that I automatically feel obligated to keep reading, which can be a burden. Take The Millennium Series- I read the first one and didn't really care for it, but feel obligated to finish the rest. This happened as well for The Hunger Games.
4. I also feel like having sequels (and series) can be a bit of a marketing tool, especially for those with that "dun dun dun... to be continued" kind of endings. Of course people are going to pony up the fifteen bucks to find out what happens.
5. Leaving a huge gap of time between reading the first book and the next book can be a nuisance. Little details may be forgotten, character backgrounds a little fuzzy, etc...
6. While this may be the most controversial, I feel like sequels are a bit lazy on the author's part. No need to create a whole new set of characters or tone, as the writer is simply extending what they already came up with.
Agree? Furiously contesting my opinions? Speak your mind!
My list is very similar to the idea of yours. I don't like series and I HATE cliffhangers. It's one of the main reasons I don't like television. If I do watch something, I tend to start watching a season once the next one has already started.
ReplyDeleteI tried to come up with a list, I think I made it all the way to three. The rest were ones that I included that I wished did NOT have a sequel.
So, in short, I'm with you on this one.
Oh I'm a big fan of series but it may be that I mostly read fantasy and with that much world building it often takes a few books to tell the whole story. but a good standalone is always welcome but I'm not going to lie if I like it I'll want more, I'm just greedy I guess ;)
ReplyDeleteMy Top Ten
Ha haaaaa! I love the "Jar-Jar-Binks-as-a-cautionary-tale" image....Surely George Lucas is the poster-boy for ill-advised sequel/prequel action. Having said that, I think sequel goodness depends heavily on the genre, and in my opinion, YA paranormal romance is one genre that could well do with a lot fewer!
ReplyDeleteI made up my own titles for sequels to (mostly) picture books...
http://thebookshelfgargoyle.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/top-ten-tuesday-speculative-sequels/
Agreed! While there are some sequels I wouldn't be opposed to, on the whole I find sequels a terrible idea. I'm okay with the few great trilogies (The Lord of the Rings, A Great and Terrible Beauty, The Hunger Games), I think that's it's just lazy on the author's part and a total marketing scheme on the publisher's part.
ReplyDeleteWooooooweeee. Apparently I can't type. The last line was supposed to read:
Delete"I'm okay with the few great trilogies (The Lord of the Rings, A Great and Terrible Beauty, The Hunger Games), but generally I think that it's just lazy on the author's part and a total marketing scheme on the publisher's part.
While, I certainly can understand where you're coming from, I'm not sure I agree. I am a bit weary of series right now, and, in fact, I changed the TTT topic because there weren't really any books I wanted a sequel to. But I think there are some great books that are series.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't really feel like authors are being lazy for creating series. In fact, I feel like it could be more difficult, because those characters are already established in book one, so there are things that those characters wouldn't and would do. And writing always seems so difficult to me, new characters or not.
I read mostly YA, and the majority of YA being published these days are series. And I am definitely feeling series fatigue. But I can't blame the publishers for putting out series. It's their job to make money, and it seems series are bigger sellers.
Those are just my thoughts, though. :)
Okay, I kind of agree and disagree with this post.
ReplyDeleteWhile, I actually enjoy reading series or sequels, I can't stand them in the movie form. With a book, I enjoy getting all wrapped up in the main characters personality and adventures and sometimes don't want the ride to end [however, you are right. It can be lazy on the authors part and after a while, if a series drags on past its due date, you can really see that], but with a movie, 2 hours on the big screen is enough for me. Don't ask me why, it just is. [with the exception of a few movies, like Lord of the Rings of course!]
Anyways, that's my 2 cents.
xoe