Let’s talk about sequels. Are they better than the original? Or do sequels/subsequent books start to lose something?
Julie:
There have been quite a few series I’ve read where the first book is excellent while the sequels just flop (case in point: Matched, The Testing, Delirium). Then there are other books where the sequel and subsequent books get better and better (Harry Potter, Soul Screamers) or the sequel is way better than the original (If I Stay – sequel Where She Went) . Most are hit or miss though.
Lynn:
I’ve been trying to think of sequels that I liked better, and I’ve only thought of a few. Lola and the Boy Next Door for sure (love Cricket Bell!). Good for You (the third book in the Between the Line series) was the best out of the series. I did think Where She Went was better than the original. And the Harry Potter books really improved as the series went on. But mostly, I think I love the original book so much and then the sequel, or the rest of the series is always a disappointment. The first book of the series is usually genuinely intriguing. But then the follow-up books fail to stir those same feelings in me. I think it all depends on the author and the characters. Do the characters grow? Does the plot have somewhere to go past the first book? Sequels need to have a purpose. And I think that lately, a lot of sequels do not.
[…] Julie and Lynn share their thoughts on sequels. […]
I tend to think of books as series when they are part of one so it’s hard for me to differentiate unless there really is a huge gap in quality. I can think of a few examples both ways – where the author has gotten better and better as the series progresses and where they’ve gotten worse and worse. I can’t say that I think one or the other is the norm though. Sorry not to be much help on this topic! 🙂
Thanks for sharing this at Booknificent Thursday!
Tina
Tina at Mommynificent recently posted…Booknificent Thursday Link Up Party #95
Well that’s good that you think the norm is the series overall is on par with individual books in the series.
I can’t say I usually like sequels more… I think I really prefer the original in most cases. Although, is Lord of the Rings a sequel to The Hobbit? I like that one better.
Brenda @DailyMayo recently posted…15 Striking Books with Green Covers: Lit Lover’s Link Party
I wonder if that is considered a sequel or a spin off. hmm
I think it can work either way, but I think it happens more often that the first book is better. Though sometimes last books can be amazing!
Nicole @ Feed Your Fiction Addiction recently posted…What I Did Instead of Changing My Ratings – Let’s Discuss
It is rather hit or miss, but when the series finale book is epic, it is so much fun.
Like you both say, I think it depends. There are some sequels/subsequent books that are better and really add to my love of the characters. I’m thinking Colleen Hoover right off the bat. But then I’ve read a few series – House of Night and Evernight (off the top of my head) – where I stopped enjoying the story and/or stopped reading because I got bored. :/
Bookworm Brandee recently posted…#ShelfLove ~ Preventing Relapse
I feel the same way about House of Night!
Sequels are tough. I would say Harry Potter definitely got stronger as the series went on. Artemis Fowl improved with age as well. Honestly, in the Outlander series, I think book 3 is the best of the series.
Terri M., the Director recently posted…Comment on In the Spotlight: Aaron Bunce, author of Within by Terri M LeBlanc
I really liked book 3 also, but I think the first Outlander book is the best.
Hmm, that is a good question. I think the only one I can think of is Twilight. The final book was better than the other two. It is rare that this happens though.
Cynthia recently posted…Sunday Post
Agree, the final book was the best in the entire series. But it makes sense as an author gets better with time, you’d think you’d see it more often.
This usually happens to me with fantasy series like KMM’s Fever, Ward’s BDB, Andrew’s Kate Daniels, etc. The world building can drag it down for the first book then once that’s out of the way, everything just flows.
Braine Talk Supe recently posted…Liked It: Garden of Dreams & Desires by Kristen Painter
Good point, once the world building is out of the way, the characters can take over.
Well, it’s rare for the sequel to surpass the previous book, but it does happen. But usually, the first book is really good, the second feels like a filler and the third is pretty decent. I can’t remember the last time I was pleasantly surprised by a sequel – maybe Chris Howard’s The Rift (sequel to Rootless)? Not that it stops me from picking up new series, lol 😀 Have a beautiful Sunday!
Ramona recently posted…2015 ALA List Of Challenged Books
I agree, too many trilogies have a middle book that would do better as a novella than a full novel. Catching Fire is a great exception to that rule though.
One author I think did great at building up the plot and tension in each sequel up to the end is Rebecca Zanetti with her Dark Protector series
Daniela recently posted…Where on Earth? [1]
I’ll have to check that series out 🙂