Prequels, Sequels, and Series

Everybody's Fool:

I could never do a sequel. Never. *shudders*

It feels like it's cheating somehow. Like if I wanted to write that, then why couldn't I just put it in the story to begin with?

I think that sometimes a story veers into a different plane that isn't something you want included in the previous story.
For instance, why do we have seven Harry Potter books instead of one?
Because, although they follow the same story, they have extremely different plotlines.

druscilla; team ryro:

Everybody's Fool:

I could never do a sequel. Never. *shudders*

It feels like it's cheating somehow. Like if I wanted to write that, then why couldn't I just put it in the story to begin with?

I think that sometimes a story veers into a different plane that isn't something you want included in the previous story.
For instance, why do we have seven Harry Potter books instead of one?
Because, although they follow the same story, they have extremely different plotlines.

Not to mention how huge the book would be if all seven were compacted into one. :XD

I've written a sequel before, but since I deleted the prequel and never want to speak of it again, it doesn't really count. The sequel can stand on it's own and its plot is definitely better (not to mention more realistic) than its previous part.

I'm trying desperately to write a story right now, and there's a large time gap between the death of a character and where the story restarts (where my main character gets her head back on straight) so, to me, a sequel makes sense.

It all depends on the story. I think a good reason to break a story or write a sequel is a shift of the main character, a large time gap, a completed plot morphing into a new plot, and probably lots of other things.

I don't really agree with sequels when it's exactly the same story line as that of the first story. I read one like that, and while it was probably one of the most amazing and well-written things I've read in really long time, I couldn't help but wonder why they didn't just carry it on in one story. Also, the ending of the sequel was even more uncertain than the end of the first story. I was a bit confused.

I've recently started a sequel to my first story on Mibba, and I think the main reason I did that was because I left the first one quite uncertainly, and I came up with a new story line that could work with the first story without it being exactly the same.
Sometimes I think I shouldn't have done it, and I kind of worry that it'll just be really bad and done for nothing...but I guess I'll just have to wait and see. It's only like three chapters in right now anyway.

Max.:

I don't really agree with sequels when it's exactly the same story line as that of the first story.

I don't either.
It's like the movies where they call it a sequel and it's just a remake.
X_X

I, personally, don't see much in sequels.
Really because I feel like it's over-doing a story.
And if it's like Harry Potter, I really tend to shoot straight for one book.
(That being POA. )
I guess it upsets me when there are sequels.
I feel like the story should be over.

:shifty
I've tried writing them, and it just fails.

Sequels are okay as long they make sense and there not all over the place.
I can't decide if i want to do a squel to my story or not, i'm terrified that i'll ruin the first story which is my first plan ahead plot.
i don't know what to do AHHH XD

Up until now I’ve never written a sequel to any of my stories.
Mainly because I’ve never gotten around to finish any of them. :tehe:
But now I have two finished chaptered stories and just started on a
sequel to one of them.

Generally I tend not to like sequels. I like series though as I like fantasy.
But I like one ongoing story that continues throughout several books.
And not like the Harry Potter books that have like different plots
in each book but more like The Belgariad or The Wheel of Time.
And The Belgariad series has a sequel; The Malloreon, which
is also a series of five books. And that one’s not as good as the first.
Because it’s a lot of the same story, which is often the deal with sequels.
Or at least the sequels that I’ve read. But if the sequel adds something
to the prequel then it can be really good. And some very few very rare
sequels will not only be good stories in themselves but add something
to their prequels making that story better as well.

So yeah, it depends on how and why it’s written.
It’s often possible to see when the writer likes the character and the
first story so much that s/he wants to write more because s/he loves it.
That doesn’t mean the sequel will be good though. If all it took was
enjoying writing and holding on to a story concept you love there’d
not be so many poorly written stories out there. And also it shows
if it’s only written for things like money or popularity or fame.
It may sound dumb but a sequel is only good if it needs being written.
If the sequel needs to be written and wants to be written it should.
And if the sequel completes the story it can be really, really good.
So sequels can be fantastic but more often than not people should
just write a new story instead because sequels are not very easy
to do a good job with.

On Mibba, the worst kind of sequel (and the only type I ever seem to find) is that of when the original story ends with a wedding or the birth of children. Sure, the first story was okay, the plot was a little lame, but over all, not a bad read. But then the sequel had to come along and continue the story into wedded bliss or baby troubles. It's like people center the second story around the first's ending without a real plot to it. It irks me to no end, and therefore, I dislike online sequels.

I had a sequel planned for After Supper, but I lost the train of thought and left it alone for too long. When I looked back at it and tried to add more, it just wouldn't work.

Breakdown Alley was the prequel to The Complex Kids [which I know is in desperate need of an update]. I don't see anything wrong with it. I wanted it to be a standalone because I felt it was more of a story than a chapter. And I think that the author's presentation of material is their choice, particularly if they have reasoning or feel strongly about it.

I think I like stories and books that are interconnected without them being sequels/prequels. Just different characters who witness the same events but react differently to them.

I find it harder to make sequels interesting. I always have this thought that the second must be better than the first, and that makes me think too much and in the end I'll have nothing to write about.

Sometimes you need to have a sequel, because it would be stupid to have the same content in the same story. Like, if you need to skip five years or something.

Sequels need to have some kind of alternative plotline. I see a lot of authors on here create sequels that really are just a continuation of the first story - me included earlier on, though I've only written a sequel once because I never finish my stories in the first place.

If the story is good and you don't want it to end, sequels are good even if the stories are long. That's my opinion.

The majority of the time, I dislike them.

Especially when the author basically splits a story in half, for the sake of having two titles, rather than actually needing a sequel. If you get what I mean.

For example. The prequel doesn't actually have any sort of conclusion so it leads straight on until the next story. There's no point. Why wouldn't you just stick them together instead of making two half-stories!?

Sequelsare OK, as long as:
They're different from the original in some way and
They're written AFTER the original story is done.

I've read so many sequels written while the origional is still being written. :XP

venomous.:

The majority of the time, I dislike them.

Especially when the author basically splits a story in half, for the sake of having two titles, rather than actually needing a sequel. If you get what I mean.

For example. The prequel doesn't actually have any sort of conclusion so it leads straight on until the next story. There's no point. Why wouldn't you just stick them together instead of making two half-stories!?

I totally agree! I just finished reading a 'story' today that ended with an impending attack....which would lead to the sequel. I just didn't understand why it couldn't all be one story. She could have pulled off the sequel had she ended the chapter before because there was a sense of wrapping the story up...and then started the sequel with the attack. But the way it's structured, it's just as if it were a cliffhanger to the next chapter.

As The City Lights Fade is a sequel of A Kiss Goodnight and there, both different yet the same story, just the sequel goes further into the story. And I finsihed the original before I started on the sequel like two or three months after, and I like sequels that are like that. Stories that don't give you enough information not because it's bad, but the writer knows there's going to be a part two.