How much does it apply? I've started writing the sequel to something I've already written and have found myself completely lost as to how I should be writing the opening chapter(s). Part of me wants to get the catchup over and done with quickly and get back on to the actual plot etc. but it also feels too blunt. What have other people found to work well here?
In my opinion, if you have already given a lot of details on the character in the first novel you don't need to go through all of that again in the sequel. You should include any details or information that is relevant to the plot or interesting to the reader. ~Eliza
Showing vs telling is always a matter of balance. See my blog entry Show and Tell. In terms of back story: Write story, not backstory. Provide elements of the backstory only when they are actually needed, as revelations within the structure of the story. That's one of the problems writers, even some experienced ones, have with sequels. They incorrectly assume the reader MUST know what happened in the preceding book before they can proceed into the sequel. Both books must stand oin their own merits. Backstory like you describe is still an infodump, and should be avoided at any cost. Leave the catchup for the French fries.
A long re-cap is pointless, unless it pertains to the sequel itself. I infrequently mention my first novel in the (unpublished) sequel, as I saw no point to it, other than for when it actually mattered (for instance, time between the two - mine is about three months), or if certain characters mentioned past events.
Except when he's talking about adverbs or semicolons! - minstrel (President of the Adverbs and Semicolons Fan Club)
now, now!... personal attacks not allowed... stay with the topic, please... ;-) -maia (founding member of the cog fan club)
Well, when I read a sequel I really hate when there's a huge recap. Here and there if it's something pertinent is okay but a major "info-dump" is not the way to go. It's annoying.
Hmmm. Having recently started work on a sequel, your question is very timely for me. My approach to sequels is just as Cog pointed out. If it can't stand on its own, it's going to fall. As necessary, I will sprinkle needed bits of 411 throughout but, barely more than one would expect in weaving bits of backstory through a book that is not following a previous storyline. Even the oft-referenced Harry Potter series is a bunch of stand alones that, just coincidentally, happen to be about the same people and general circumstances. An even better example would be Ian Fleming's 007/James Bond books. Each one is self-supporting and all-inclusive. Unless the second book follows the events of the first so tightly that it should be a two-volume single release, there is no point in recovering old ground. Someone should be able to pick up your subsequent volumes in a series and know enough about the character from reading that one book to be able to easily follow the story. Come to think of it, if it IS a two-volume single release, there is no point in recovering old ground, either.
