Monday, February 11, 2013
Why I Hate Sequels
There are three things of which I am absolutely certain:
1.Chocolate chip cookie dough is one of the best food substances ever invented, hands-down.
2.I'm not a timely blogger (breaking news, I know; in my defense I've been trying to keep up with TWiG while doing 100-for-100, and continuing work on my novel)
3.I do not like sequels.
It is not that I've never read a good sequel. I love good sequels. For example, Peter and the Shadow Thieves, the Harry Potter saga, and New Moon are all great sequels (I was joking about the last one; you can stop hyperventilating now -although I don't believe the Twilight series is the worst set of published words known to mankind for thousands of years to come--it's just not my taste-). However, often sequels aren't good. They're simply just a way to pass time between the end of the beginning book and the start of the last, and not much really happens, relatively speaking. Of course, that is the point of a middle book, but there has to be some sort of resolution before the third book. And most don't have that.
What middle books often lack is the care bestowed to the first book. The authors have already gotten published, now everyone is watching them, and they're under a deadline. They spent all of this time on their first book cultivating the idea, going through revisions upon revisions, and finally getting rejected by literary agents all because they believed in their book and loved it so much. With the second book, you don't have that. Most of the time, it seems like the author is just continuing a trilogy because they already signed a contract and because series books are popular right now.
That is why I write stand-alone books.
And because I think it's more fun that way.
The writer girl