There are lots of authorized and unauthorized sequels and prequels out there, but I’ve yet to read one that I really thought was on par.
Examples:
GONE WITH THE WIND has two authorized sequels:
SCARLETT by Alexandra Ripley- a trashy romance novel that barely even tried to capture anything from the original. (Ripley didn’t seem to grasp that Georgia’s as much a character as any of the people, and killing Mammy right off the bat- excuse me?)
RHETT BUTLER’S PEOPLE- a little closer to the mark, but still unmistakeably an unloved stepchild, and in the end he went off the tracks.
THE GODFATHER- has two authorized sequels as well- GODFATHER RETURNS AND GODFATHER’S REVENGE. I’ve only read the first, but while it had its moments you never really felt you were reading about Michael or the other characters from the original but rather like you were reading an inferior knockoff.
I’ve read prequels and sequels to Les Miserables (Cosette), Scarlet Letter, Treasure Island, none came anywhere near (though the Treasure Island prequel was at least well researched). I’ve read that the J.K. Toole estate is in negotiations to authorize a sequel to CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES which I don’t have high hopes for either.
Stoppard’s play Rosenkrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead is good, but not a novel of course, and is more parody than companion.
Has there ever been a worthy “same characters/different author” sequel/prequel/companion novel?
I just finished reading Star trek Voyager’s String theory series. It’s a three part series. The first book wasn’t bad but it was good either. 2nd book was great. The third book was even better.
I’m pretty sure each book was written by different authors. (I’m too lazy to look it up right now)
As a general rule, I think that novels are too personal and too specific to the author for another writer to be able to successfully capture the voice and the tone and the characters. I think the Gone With the Wind sequels are abortions and I don’t even want to think about somebody else having his or her way with Inatius J. Reilly.
I do think that it’s occassionally possible to take a broad or iconic character and do somethimg entertaining with it (as has been done, for instance with Sherlock Holmes, or Grendel or Frank Baum’s Oz characters), but a true sequel to a great novel that’s worthy of the original – I don’t think it’s ever been done.
Psst… I’ve already secretly sprinkled vinegar in your roux!
Okay, so tastes vary. I thought Goldsborough was a BETTER plotter than Rex Stout (the central mystery was almost always the weakest element of any Stout story), and did a creditable job capturing Archie Goodwin’s voice (which was the BEST part of most Stout stories).
Worthy of the original? Nah- BUT Fred Saberhagen’s THE DRACULA TAPES and Tim Lucas’ THE BOOK OF RENFIELD give the POV of the only two main characters whose POV is omitted by Stoker (assuming that Seward speaks for Holmwood & Morris.)
Also, Jeffrey Sackett’s BLOOD OF THE IMPALER is pretty competent in telling how Voivode Vlad became Count Dracula, AND what became of the Harker family & pals.
I like Goldsborough’s books, too, but I don’t think they’re quite up to Stout’s. I think Goldsborough maybe thought so too – the last book in the series involved a guy who continued a series after the original author had died. (Also, it’s always bothered me that Robert Goldsborough has the same name as sappy songwriter Bobby Goldsborough.)
Most sequels aren’t as good as the originals, but I still love reading them. I’ve got a shelf of Sherlock Holmes pastiches. None of them realy captures the originals, although I think the Exploits of Sherlock Holmes, by Doyle’s son Adrian in collaboration with John Dickson Carr (actually, about half are by Carr alone) comes the closest.
It’s not a book, but I thought the script for Airplane II: The Sequel was up to the standards of Zucker, Zucker, and Abraham’s original. It wasn’t until well after I saw it that I learned that it had nothing to do with them. Of all filmmmakers, I would have thought that their zany, joke-a-minute style would be hardest to imitate*, but Ken Finkleman (who also directed) really pulled it off.
*Don’t say that it’s easy to do – all you have to do is keep throwing jokes in the hope that something will work. It’s a great deal more complicated than that – he captured the ZZA style. Moreover, he managed to take their characters and retain their qualities, and to build on them to make a satire consistent in tone and quality. Many original artists can’t manage to do that with their own original creations. Doing it with someone else’s is much harder.
William Goldman abridged The Princess Bride so savagely one could argue it is now entirely different than the original. As noted in the prologue the original was meant to be more of a heavy handed satire on royal excess instead of adventure and in the end it just dragged the book to snoozeville (granted, I’m taking Bill’s word for it).
Me too. I actually found it superior to Piper’s Fuzzies and other People, the long-lost then found manuscript published long after Piper’s death. Piper was a bit schmaltzy, IMHO, in that one.
Sherlock has surely been hard to kill; escaping from that waterfall was only his first return.
I’m quite fond of Lori R King’s Mary Russell books–beginning with The Beekeeper’s Apprentice. She has made many believe that the great detective married after his retirement; Mary Russell is no uncommon woman. Perhaps my favorite in the series is The Great Game–set out in Inja, of course. (Guess who shows up?)
I prefer the ones written by Ruth Plumly Thomson. She was by far the most prolific of the Oz authors, writing 19 sequels and using Baum’s original illustrator.
