« Gotta be careful.... | Main | Year 2 »
Sequels
This post is a friendly response to Frederick Smith's blog entry about Sequels.
I must respectfully disagree with this:
Anyway, my take on sequels is this... I don't write a project with the intention of writing a sequel or continuation. To me, a project, novel, movie, etc... should be complete and self-contained within itself. The story should resolve and have a beginning, middle, and end. I think it's only fair for the consumer for a book to be complete and not with a deliberate cliff hanger.
Well, I only slightly disagree. I do not think a novel should EVER end in the middle of a story. I definitely think a novel should have a beginning, middle, and end....better yet, the five parts of a story: exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and the resolution. (Yes, I am old school like that -- sorry.)
All of my novels have those basic parts, because well, my English teachers taught me well. But, because I was influenced by the age of the sequel and serial, I never once thought of Lazarus as a singular phenomenon. If you've gotten yours yet, you will see a teaser for the first sequel, Covenant.
Back story -- this whole project began as a play called Behind Closed Doors, later renamed Discretion. After lots of editing and revising, I had a solid piece of drama in my hands. But I spoke with my mentor, and the only character he didn't like was Savion.
Clutch the pearls! Who in their right mind wouldn't like Savion?
So, because I felt Savion was so integral to the story of Adrian Collins, I went back to the drawing board. Discretion was put on hold and the story of how Adrian met Savion and pledged Beta was told. And that's how we got Lazarus.
We got Covenant because it was actually the first story written, albeit in a different form. Of course, it got rewritten and revised until it became something that wasn't so similar to Discretion.
So my take on sequels as a whole....I think they can be powerful as long as the writing evolves and the themes are fresh. I like soap operas a lot -- Days of Our Lives and The Young and The Restless are my favorites. Days is suffering lately though, while Y&R thrives. This is directly related to the writing. Y&R keeps things fresh and exciting -- they killed Cassie, for God's sake! Days...well...Days is falling back on the same old plot devices: amnesia, kidnapping, and paternity games.
I, like Frederick, also liked VC Andrews novels while growing up. And before her, I read lots of teenage supernatural novels. I can't remember the names, but two of my favorites were about vampire twins and a coven of witches. (So sad I ended up giving them away.) So I guess this notion of novels as chapters of an epic is okay with me.
I wish I could share more about the direction of the Lazarus novels, but that would give too much away. Personally, I think that there are enough unique themes in their world to keep telling great stories. And honestly, I do think of my readers when writing-- and I think of myself as a reader. For whatever reason, most people I know just don't want the characters to which they've grown attached to just ride off in the sunset.
Hell, I want to know what happened to everyone in School Daze, too. But I digress.
What isn't very literary, in my opinion, is when a novel blatantly ends with no resolution, when it's point is to make you buy the next one to "finish" the story. It feels unfulfilling -- hell, it's cheating!
I am working on project #3 right now and I know how I want it to end. And every issue in it gets resolved -- but, there will be a project #4 and what I have to be careful about is how I set it up. I am tempted to do a shocking cliffhanger so my readers can say "oh hell naw!" But I don't want it to be hokey, either.
(Sidenote -- y'all are realllly gonna like #3)
So....sequels...I like them. The average human being has dozens of stories in them -- why not stretch my own limits as a writer and show growth, not only in the main protagonist, but in his antagonists, supporting characters, etc.
But hey....every writer has his own approach! If you like writing using the same characters in different situations, just make sure you're not falling into a literary rut. Don't have Jack and Jill go up a French hill, a Dutch hill, and then an Australian hill and wonder why your sales are decreasing...hee hee...
And conversely, don't think you're all that unique just because Jack and Jill went up a French hill and Leon and Starquashia went up a Brooklyn hill in a different novel... ;-)
Posted by Rashid on July 25, 2005 7:42 PM
Comments
I don't think you guys are far apart. Your different artistic projects require different lengths to fully tell the story (or stories). Fred's next paragraph says "Now, I know several writers who have made their careers out of writing books on the same character(s). Their fans and readers love to follow the lives of those characters. That's cool. I have no problem with that." Lazarus, Covenant, and the remaining projects need the sequel process to keep the reader's attention and successfully tell the stories of each of the characters as you see them. Fred's concept was complete in one novel. It would not be good for him to write sequels that convinced readers that he said it all in the first novel and the rest were profit motivated. Shem hotep!
Commented by Fratman1906 on July 25, 2005 8:54 PM
Rashid, I agree with you. We are so conditioned that everything has to wrap up nicely in a convenient package. The detectives on Law & Order will find out the culprit 30-40 minutes into the program, right? Life doesn't work like that. It's a continuous flow of events that aren't always wrapped up. So, just keep writing!!!
Commented by Dwayne on July 26, 2005 12:15 PM
i like sequels and cant wait to read the next one
Commented by kristal on July 26, 2005 2:49 PM
Is there a difference between a sequel and a series? I'll use Armistead Maupin and Tad Williams as examples.
Maupin's "Tales of the City" novels don't feel like sequels to me, because the novels can stand on their own as separate entities. You can come into that series at any point and leave it at any point without feeling like I've missed anything.
Tad Williams' "Otherland" books feel like sequels. You need a bit of the backstory to understand the books, and you'll be somewhat lost if you read them out of context.
Your thoughts?
Commented by Cecily on July 29, 2005 1:19 PM