I'm writing a sequel to my first novel and so far it's turning out better than I expected, and to a degree, better than my first one. There's a variety of reasons I think this - my writing is better, I have a more cohesive plot this time and other reasons. But it's definitely a sequel. I think the book could be just fine on it's own, actually. I have some ideas on how to set the story by bringing in more elements from the previous book, but I don't want to screw it up. Any thoughts or ideas on how to beef up the sequel so that someone wouldn't necessarily have to read the first one to know what's going on?
I don't know that it's about "beefing up" but more about how intertwined it is with the first one. I would look at the parts which are dependent on the first book and try to make them independent. I relate to your post because my second manuscript is related to the first, in that the two main characters are friends, but the plots aren't linked and they are both standalone. The first manuscript hasn't sold but the second did (same reasons as you - I had become a better writer). If I had made the second a true sequel instead of standalone, it would never have sold.
I guess it depends on how "sequel" it is. Is it a direct sequel, continuing the same story? Or is it more a new story with the same characters? If it's just the same characters, you can simply ignore the first book as much as possible. Big changes to the MCs would need to be addressed, but if the story is all new, bringing it up could be confusing. Take crime novels, for instance. We often have the same detective solving cases, so it makes sense that his or her life and the people around them evolve over the course of the series. But once a case is solved, it's solved. Unless you bring back the killer in some way, or a plot that's related to the case (killer's family member want revenge), it's not necessary to mention it again.
Thanks for the replies. My second is not a direct sequel in that it doesn't pick up right when the first one left off. It has the same main characters, but it's over two years later and a lot has changed. This is something fairly basic that I think that I would be able to solve myself just by filling in details that one would not know unless they had read the first one. However, I worry about is going overboard with these details. If someone picks up the second book without reading the first, then quite a bit will be lost on them, so I'm trying to find a balance - and honestly I don't really think anyone can specifically help me here. I'm more or less just fishing for ideas. I'm still shopping the first book too, but there is always that fear that it will never be published. In the unfortunate event the first one is never published, I'll really need to lean on the second one.
So it is more a series chapter, than a sequel. If the only thing that is the same is the characters, and a few basic rules that apply to their universe, it is more a tie in episode, than a sequel. So if it has nothing really to do with/or rely on the first book, then it is not a sequel. Just an episode in a bigger story.
There are a few different ways to do this. Each book in the series is equal: This is common in mystery fiction. Any book that says "A Jack Reacher novel" or similar, without telling you the series number, is doing this. The idea is that anyone can pick up any book in the series and enjoy it. Often the characters in these books are iconic, and do not change much. Examples include novels by Tom Clancy, Michael Connelly, and Lee Child. Books are related but different: A good example is Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead. Ender's Game is obviously a prequel, but these books take place in different epochs and have different sets of secondary characters. Another example includes the star wars movies (think prequels, originals, and sequels). They key difference here is that the hero isn't iconic. The characters actually change throughout the series. But you can still pick up at multiple separate points and enjoy the story anyway. You don't have to read Ender's Game to enjoy Speaker for the Dead. Books are in the same universe but appear different: Think every comic book ever. Superman and Batman both exist in the same universe, but usually work separately. Brandon Sanderson does this well in the Cosmere. Different series, same universe. This is the easiest on the reader; while reading order of publication will pick up the most easter eggs, Sanderson's Mistborn Trilogy and the Stormlight Archive are different enough that a reader can pick up either first. Those are the examples that come to my mind. I actually plan on doing #3 myself. I'm going to write the first entry in several series set in the same universe, with easter eggs connecting them. As soon as I sell one of them, I'll finish out its series then polish up the one that I can most easily sell next.
I had this problem with the first series that I thought good enough to publish. I ended up with a total of five books, three of them published. It took no time at all to realize that I was growing as a writer, and the 2nd book was better than the 1st one. That trend continued, right up until the 4th book, which was worlds better. Basically speaking, I spent 5 years editing the first book (surpassing the 2nd in quality for a while), then 4 on the next, 3 on the next, on down the line. Editing becomes considerably less work as you go along, and now I can write a book in 5 months, and piddle at editing it over a few more before it's ready. The last two books in that series can be read out of order from the other three, because I learned during that first series. * The issues are many: If published, how long will the published ones stay available when the others show up? * If you are serious about writing, the next book should be better than the first, so you have to deal with that. * One book hinges on the other, and that might not be a good thing if readers loose interest. * You are going to be judged on the first book, and often writers create really bad later books, so readers are hesitant. Since that first series I have employed an entirely different strategy of intentionally making every book in a series fully self supporting. Even though my work is much more even in quality, I find that considerably more appealing, just from a writer's perspective. For example, my four Condotte books each have a whole new cast (with coincidental cast crossovers). A new person is the main viewpoint and main character and I travers a new time frame within the broader world and conflict. This is a strategy I have now used for four other series, although I don't always have a different main character. I do have a fresh story, fresh conflict, fresh protagonist, full new arc, etc.. You can now read any of my books out of order and I could care less.
Reading your replies makes me feel as though I should try to make this new book as stand-alone as I can. I imagine that I will just have to work in some of the details and not assume the reader has read the previous book. For instance, my main character is a songwriter, and is slightly autistic regarding music. He has a constant soundtrack in his mind - I don't always play up that feature about him, but I suppose I should mention it in the second book and not assume it would be known. I dunno, but at least this is not aggravating. It's kind of fun! Thanks so much for your replies.
I wrote a book that I never had any intention of writing a sequel to. When it was finished, the ending lent itself so well to a sequel and I loved the character so much I just kept writing what became the second book. It is odd that I think the first book is better but my readers tend to prefer the second. Anyway, I wanted them to be stand alone works as I personally don't like series that MUST be read in order for them to make sense. The incidents in the first book drive the MC to be who she is in the second. As I wrote the second book I filtered in only the bare minimum of details from the first book to giver the MC a back story. The details I hoped would be interesting enough to get a reader to go back and read the first book if they had not already done so but without making 'teasers'. Having recently re-read book two as I start work on book three I'd actually have placed fewer mentions of book one in it. TL,DR: less is more
I'm not a published writer, nor have I played played one on TV. That said, wouldn't a TV series way of thinking work for you? "Ripped from the headlines" works for crimes series folks. Different story, same main characters but different story lines. Each pretty much stand alone, yet relate in the setting.
The later William Gibson books do this very well. Secondary Characters from earlier stories become main protagonists. It is then multiple books in the same world. He does not eradicate reference to plot points from earlier books. He ( generously) adds details as a throwback though to previous novels. This gives you a little extra reward and sense of insider knowledge when certain characters nod at each other so to speak. Without appreciation being dependent on having read the prior book. He also (possibly accidentally) does not seem to give spoilers in later books to certain plot points which resolve tension in earlier books. I only know this because I read his non cyber punk books out of order.
I am in the process of writing a sequel to my first, @Matt E. 's "related but different" category. Historical fiction, it uses ten or so characters from the first book fifteen years on. The first was a Roman mission to China in 100AD, the second the Roman invasion of Mesopotamia in 115AD. Some characters have since had children, or their children have grown up into adults playing a role in book 2. Many of the characters were minor ones in the first, but now they play major roles in the second. I am trying to make this a stand alone book, but I refer back to events in the first book that brought them together, part of their background, why they know each other: two Chinese, the brother to a Parthian king, a Jewish centurion in the Roman Army, a senator, a legion commander, and some Xiongnu nomads from Mongolia. And Emperor Trajan. All knew each other quite well, or at least knew of most of the others, because of the first book's events. And I have to do it without regurgitating the first book. At least now I have them all (except one) in the Middle East in time for the invasion, so they are beginning to interact, no longer separated by 8,000 miles in a second century world. Looking forward to writing the chapter on a Roman legion fighting in sixteen foot snows in the mountains ... on snowshoes. (VI Ferrata Ironclads actually did) It's tricky, and basically the same rules apply... the first book is the characters' backstories in the second. In the first, their backstories came from an unwritten past, I could make it up as I went, and it had to be introduced a bit at a time to avoid forcing the reader to drink from a fire hose of facts. The same thing is true of the sequel, except the backstories have already been written, and I don't have the flexibility to change them. I have to introduce them in such a way that readers who have read the first will instantly recognize the characters, and not feel that I am simply retelling the story they already know; readers who haven't read the first feel that they are getting enough background to make the relations between these unlikely companions credible. I am taking David Poyer's lead from his Dan Lenson series, about 30 successful books of modern naval fiction, following the career of the protag from junior officer (The Passage) to currently rear admiral in Deep War, through various crises and wars modeled around (but not replicating) modern events. Hopefully his current story, a war with China, will never come to pass. Currently, the US is not doing well!
I've experienced this. Your stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. You need to give backstory in book 2 without boring the pants off those who have read book 1. My solution was to set-up infodump opportunities. e.g. Book 2 introduces the illegitimate son. He is introduced to the extended family at a barbecue. He asks his father how her met his stepmother. This gives the father the opportunity summarise many of the plot-points of book 1. And to keep it interesting . . . memories change over time. The father's recollection may not be entirely accurate.
This is what I've been doing to an extent - filling in backstory here and there in an interesting way, but not a big info-dump. It's not as easy as it sounds, but being 1st person in this case helps me a bit because I can have the MC remember things in ways that it doesn't interfere with the story. Things like thoughts and recollections during dialog. I'm still on my 1st draft, and I'm sure that a lot of this will become even more apparent up on subsequent rewrites.
