Writing Sequels

Short references for the relevant parts are acceptable. Longer expositions work if central to the books plot or theme - 'when this happened, we believed that, but in light of what we just went through...'

 

What’s necessary. It gets really, really annoying to read recaps over and over.

 

If it's about a backstory, then it's not really a sequel, is it? That would be a prequel. It would just be published later, chronologically in real world time, but not necessarily be the second book someone might read far into the future when lots of stuff is published.

Unless your plan is to write tiny once-a-month chapter books like Animorphs, your first book should stand on its own. Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star and everything is okay....for now, at least. Yeah, there's more, bigger problems to deal with, but there's a "happily ever after...for now." You have no guarantee that you'll ever get that second one published! Or that a reader will read it. But for prequels, it shouldn't be required reading, but should add to things or give a deeper understanding. Knowing that Anakin was good at podracing doesn't tell you a lot about Darth Vader, but seeing his whole life makes him more human (and also makes his "redemption" kind of questionable. I mean, he did kill all those younglings. Can he really be forgiven? That's up to you to decide).

Always operate under the assumption that someone isn't going to read your other books, or your twitter or wiki or whatever. That also means the prequel should stand on its own (they beat Darth Maul or whatever) and doesn't require the reader to have read other stuff.

 

I always leave a few questions dangling in book one, which paves the way for the sequel, but I don't do much reminding of what happened in book one. In fact, I've only completed one sequel - almost - and it just flowed on fairly seamlessly. Very few reference to what happened before unless required by the dialogue/context.

I have left space in all my other books though, for sequels, and mapped them out. But it's such a lot of work given my usual wordcount and complicated plots. I prefer to put most of my energy into writing that new breakthrough book that will demand sequels and send everyone scurrying back to my backlist.

 

It depends on the kind of sequel you write.

In my opinion there's two types of sequels. You have the "This is one single continuous story just chopped in pieces so it's easier to hold" kind of sequel. Lord of the Rings is this. And then there's the "these are all independent books which follow the same character / world / etc" sequel. Harry Potter fits in this category.

For the first type, these are books that are meant to be read as a single story (more or less). In these I would simply continue from where the previous one left off. I might include a part right at the beginning of "What happened before". But it's one story, so the stuff that happened in the previous book is not backstory, it's just story.

For the second type, I would assume that not all readers have read the previous parts. Which means that there will be some repetition of backstory. However, I would treat it like any other pieces of backstory. That is, in limited quantities, scattered throughout the book and only if it's relevant to the story I'm telling. Of course, it's nice to drop hints of what has come before, or just have a favorite character from a previous book make a quick cameo. It will make your fans who read everything notice while others will just skip over it. It's like a reference to Rincewind in a random Discworld novel. It adds spice for those who notice.

 

Completely agree with this.

 

I prefer to write stories which are fairly independent of one another, but that means that any recurring characters have to be detailed enough in each book to enable the story to stand alone. It does mean you have to be consistent in certain details (e.g. what they wear, what they eat etc). I sometimes refer back to earlier events, but thats usually to explain why something has happened or why someone is acting in a certain way. A lot depends on your setting too, and how you use that as both background and a way to drive the plot forwards

 

An advantage for X-Ray readers, if the author bothers, is that they can insert a bunch of reminder information into characters and places and events referenced in previous books without packing the pages for readers who still recall those events. It doesn't do a lick of good for print readers, of course. I've received a few questions over time from past it. Which also happens a lot. A reader once asked a question and I was like damn! Did I not put that in? I raced to skim the book and... it was there. They missed it completely.

 

there are such things as continuity and consequences.

A few months ago, I read the first two books in a series of thrillers - titles escape me at the moment. The first, the heroes were a bit late figuring things out; the consequences of which were massive riots and worldwide casualties (fatalities) well into the nine digit range (hundreds of millions) plus the sort of political mess that would take months to years of martial law to resolve - basically a partial collapse of civilization. I went, 'okay, this should make for an interesting backdrop for book 2.' Instead, book 2 went with a full reset, picked up a year later, and utterly ignored the devastating situation at the end of book 1. I didn't go for book 3.

 

I don't think so. It simply comes down to whether the sequel can be read by itself. Same character/different context will not require much back reference (eg, the Flashman books), but same character / continuing context will likely need quite a lot for new readers, which may be irritating for ongoing readers.

Less is very much more.

 

Yes, but the experience would be considerably richer for someone who'd read the first book as the characters and overall story grow considerably over the two books.

 

I had to deal with this in my 'Empire' series. Book 1 ended with a magical massacre and the capture of one of the people responsible. In Book 2, the Emperor takes a personal interest in the case, hence a portion of the book includes the evil-doers sentencing, and includes surviving secondary characters from Book 1. Additionally, a discovery in Book 1 provided an economic/social opportunity for certain characters in Book 2. Hence, in Book 2 I tossed in enough references to explain what was going on.

Book 3 superficially revolves around...issues...with the economic opportunity that came up in Book 2 - hence more references. Book 3 ends with a cliffhanger of sorts that had to be explained in Book 4 - went with incorporating that explanation into the first chapter as part of a failed effort to fix the situation. Book 4 in turn ended with another cliffhanger, which I again resolved with an introductory chapter in Book 5.