We've all seen them, read them, heard of them: the sequels that are just dumb. That you refuse to acknowledge as part of the series, or you do acknowledge them, with a sigh and a, "But the first one was the best."
I just read a really bad sequel, one that really only qualifies as bad fan fiction of the first, and I'm currently reading a really good sequel. Granted, the first was written by a different author than the first, and the second was written by the same author as the first, so there's that.
But it got me thinking about bad sequels and good sequels. Even sequels written by the same author can be bad and can hurt the popularity of the franchise. As someone who
has written a sequel (
Arts and Thefts, the sequel to
Under Locker and Key), I know how hard it is to write a sequel. It isn't easy. That said, I've come up with a list of traits I see in sequels that don't fly, things that writers can try to avoid in the future. This is brought to you by the bad fan-fiction sequel I just read, as well as all other sequels that fall just a little short.
1. The sequel is just the first book, all over again.
Everything happens the same way, again, with a new coat of paint. Did the heroes fight a water monster in the first book? Well, now it's a desert monster. Did they win by tricking it into saying its name? Same strategy, once again, and it works the same way. Only this time they trick it into repeating a spell they say.
Readers liked the first book, but a sequel should do more. It should be a chance to take those characters and give them a new challenge. If readers want the same book, again, they will reread that one. They read sequels to see expansion and change.
2. The characters have lost all development they gained in Book 1.
Characters need flaws. We get this. We all get this. So, when a writer has a flawed character who develops and loses those flaws at the end of Book 1, what happens when Book 2 starts? It can be very easy to simply erase that forward momentum and have the character relearn that lesson.
But who said writing is easy?
The thing about character flaws is that they're simply traits that work or don't work in a given situation. A stubborn character may have the grit to see a plan through to the end...or
not have the flexibility to abandon a flawed plan for a better one. See? So if a character changes by the end of Book 1, a sequel has the chance to explore how those changes are implemented (maybe it takes time for the change to fully set in, and the growth period is awkward) or to see how maybe now that change isn't the best.
Writers, your character is "new" at the end of a book. They've developed and Book 2 should start with that new character, not the old one from Book 1. Think about what would challenge or tempt this new character, or how a new trait may actually hinder them now. This is way more interesting than rewatching the same character make the same mistakes. Like I said before, if a reader wants to have the same thing again, they'd reread Book 1.
3. The sequel breaks its own rules.
Book 1 has a beautifully defined magic system. It's established that magic requires its users to kill something to unleash power, in all spells. The bigger the thing killed, the more power, with sentient beings as the higher levels. This establishes a conflict in the story: is the power worth the price? What would happen if you killed a large, powerful, intelligent creature, beyond humans, like angels or demons? This conflict is interesting and drives the story forward.
But in the sequel, people start using magic without the cost. It's not discussed or entered as a major shifting point for the character (suppose character killed someone in order for the magic it would give and now sees that wasn't necessary - what would that do them?); it's simply something that happens now.
Or, a character that is friendly in Book 1 becomes angsty in Book 2 for no reason. I see, usually, a character established as intelligent loses several dozen IQ points in the sequel just because it helps the plot stay complicated.
If the world changes, or if rules for characters change, there should be a reason for it. This goes for major genre things (Book 1 was a fantasy, and Book 2 suddenly is a science fiction - transition should make sense), and for smaller worldbuilding issues.
This kind of problem in sequels tells me that the author either didn't remember or understand what happened in Book 1 and why it was so significant or that those rules became inconvenient for Book 2 and were summarily dismissed. Either way, not strong writing.
4. Book 2 becomes a caricature of Book 1.
We've all seen this; it's one I feel happened to the TV show
Psych (though I still enjoy that show). The writer presents the first book, and the readers react. They love it, and they highlight the things they love about it. This character's antics, that element of plot. The way the writer breaks the fourth wall.
So the writer gets this feedback and decides, hey, let's give the readers more of what they want. So the character acts out even
more, and that plot twist happens again and again, and maybe now there's a fourth wall break stamped on every page.
The story becomes a parody of itself, all in the name of pleasing fans. It stops paying attention to character development and theme, and just becomes a checklist of items that need to be there to please the readers. The theory becomes that the more of those there are, the better. This replaces what probably drew the readers there in the first place: character and story. Favorite parts and traits work best when used naturally, in supporting a compelling story with a unified arc and theme, if you do themes. If it doesn't have that, the story has lost its soul.
5. Book 2 escalates in a ridiculous and unnatural way.
Yes, a sequel should move forward. That doesn't mean that when you have a first book about kids trying to win a kickball tournament that the second should have those same kids uncovering a massive weapons conspiracy and saving the world (unless Book 1 tends that way, in which case, that's rad).
Bigger isn't better. If your heroes fight that water monster I mentioned, they don't need to fight an army of them now, or the Queen Mother of all water monsters. If they've learned and grown and you want to challenge them, consider a different challenge. Not bigger, just different. Did they have to learn to work as a team in Book 1? Well, maybe now this one is about your main protagonist learning that there are things she's better at on her own. Maybe the challenge draws that out.
If you escalate, make it natural. Set it in a way that fits the plot arc of Book 1. Don't just Summon Bigger Fish (Thank you,
Darths and Droids) to give your characters something to do. They saved the planet, but doing so required a sacrifice that set a chain of negative events in motion.
And, of course, the solution to every escalated problem should
not be exactly the same. I hear the argument for formulas working, and they do, but you probably don't want your readers to feel like they already know the ending before they get there.
Those are all the sequel sins I've got right now. Do you know any traits of bad sequels that annoy you that you'd like to share? Or, do you know any good sequels that get it right that you'd like to recommend? Feel free to let me know; I always love a response.
