Someone on the survey I posted a few weeks ago suggested I write about "why sequels are not as good as their predecessors."
Anonymous Person, your wish is my command.
In general, I feel that there are two types of series:
- Series with books that generally feel very episodic- same main characters, but a new conflict, villain, etc, introduced each book. I imagine this is what the Nancy Drew books are like (I've only read like one of those so I can't really say for sure). Also, the show House gives me this impression (but I've seen like two episodes of House so who knows). Or, series that are set in the same world but focus on different characters (like Peeps and The Last Days, the Stravaganza series, etc).
- Series that have a few mains goals, at least in terms of plot. Series like Harry Potter, where the whole point is to have Harry defeat Voldemort. Each book also has a smaller goal- Harry figuring out what is up with that Sorceror's Stone, Chamber of Secrets- but the series as a whole seems to focus on Harry eliminating Voldemort once and for all.
To me, many Type 1 series often don't feel like they have much of a connection other than that they have the same characters/world. The characters may be the same, but most of the time it feels like the things in past books have been forgotten. I don't like that. I want to see how they have been affected by the crazy past events, but a lot of times the characters are just like "oh this happened and now we are like this. BACK TO THE STORY." On the other hand, though, because there's a new conflict and challenges, I feel that maybe they shouldn't focus too much on the past and just get down to business and do what they are supposed to. Most series are not this type; it seems most mystery novel series are, they and should probably be judged without thinking much of the others.
Type two series are much more complex.
The two biggest things that I can think of that play a role in whether or not the sequel is better than its predecessor are:
- how many books are in the series and what book the sequel in question is
- what the first book was like
For example, if the series is comprised of ten books, like the Confessions of Georgia Nicolson , obviously not all of them will be great. They'll drag a bit in the middle because you can't really make one conflict last ten books. I can't even differentiate between books 3-9 of the Georgia Nicolson books because similar things happen in each one. I also can't differentiate books 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the Pretty Little Liars series because similar things happen. There's too much time spent on the same subplots that never seem to get resolved. So obviously, because book one of the Georgia Nicolson books was brand new to me and didn't have the same things book 4, 5, and 6 did, I liked it more. I like book one of the Pretty Little Liars series because even though it was full of the same things the later books were, it was new to me.
To sum up the whole above paragraph, one reason why sequels are not as good as the predecessors: they don't get to the point quickly enough. They drag on forever and are partly comprised of the same things, only rewritten. Book 4 of the Pretty Little Liars was one of best because we finally got to see who A, the villain, was. We finally got somewhere. I love the Pretty Little Liars series- they are all full of small and frustrating twists that make me love them. But some of them don't feel different enough.
I feel like dragging isn't a problem with shorter series- trilogies and quartets, mostly. Figuring out why the sequels may be worse deals more with what book one of the series was like.
If the first book started out with a bang and was full of action and fighting and generally really exciting, book two isn't going to be as good. If there's too much excitement in the beginning, there's less time for exposition, so book two is going to have to pick up the slack. Or, if the events in book one created huge problems, book two is going to have to explore the problems more (I'm thinking
The Hunger Games and
Catching Fire).
If the first book in a series was comprised of a whole ton of exposition and ~mysterious things~ rather than actual events, than obviously book two will be a bit more exciting and better because all of introductions are out of the way. I'm thinking
Leviathan, even though book two isn't out yet. The first half was full of introductions, and in the last half there was the discovery of bigger problems. I anticipate more action in book two of that series. (This is the only example I can think of right now, but you get the point. Hopefully. x])
Or maybe the sequels seem worse the topic of the sequel just isn't as interesting. Sometimes book 2s just seem like a bridge to get us to book 3. They aren't as exciting because they're setting everything up for the conclusion.
They don't seem as special because they are not the beginning- they don't introduce us to a magical new world and cast of characters- and they are not the end. It's not like book 2s are bad- they just don't
seem as good. I love each of the Gemma Doyle trilogy books, but I don't recall much of book 2,
Rebel Angels. Books 1 and 3 stick out, but book 2 just doesn't. And I know Vampire Academy is more than 3 books, but I don't remember much of
Frostbite, book 2. I remember more of
Uglies and
Specials than
Pretties. So, Anonymous Person, the answer to your question/topic:
I have no clue. They aren't always worse, but as you can tell from this post that is full of all kinds of crazy thoughts, I don't know why some are. Maybe someone else knows.
