You don’t for every piece of fiction, right? You didn’t need to know who Scout married, or whether Jem went into the army, or whatever, after you read “To Kill A Mockingbird”. Did you really need to know how Scarlet tried to get Rhett back? Most of us didn’t need to know what sexual positions Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy preferred after they married at the end of “Pride and Prejudice”. As for me, “Star Wars” and “Indiana Jones” and “Harry Potter” could have ended after the first episodes, but I realize I’m extreme here. Any thoughts?
I tend to look for a sequel when there are character issues left dangling. I’m not so concerned about plot issues.
Let’s see if I can make that sound sensible: I love Tim Powers novels. And with most of his books the novel will end with the characters still in jeopardy. (That is when he doesn’t end the book with an epilog where the characters die. Fortunately, I can only think of twice where he did that with his main characters.) One knows that the characters still face troubles, challenges, and often some of the goals that they’d begun the story with are still unresolved - not abandoned, just still there in the background.
But, in general, I don’t give a crap - because the transformation of the character is what a Tim Powers novel is about, in my mind. Sometimes in the process of undergoing that transformation the character will stop some world-spanning conspiracy. Or even just a small group of villains. But, while there’s a definite series of actions going on - it’s the way that the character changes that is the focus of the story.
And once the character has undergone that change, what happens next just isn’t as interesting.
Which, to my mind, is one reason why Star Wars would have been an excellent single movie. The characters involved had been transformed and so the fight against the Empire, while a compelling backdrop for drama, just wasn’t as interesting. Now, I’ve seen it argued that The Empire Strikes Back is the better film, for a number of compelling reasons - but while the fate of Han Solo is in the balance at the end of the film, it’s the interrupted transformation of Luke that makes the third film necessary in my eyes. Rescued, or dead, or eternally frozen, Han just isn’t that interesting - because once he did change in Star Wars, he remained a constant figure. But leaving Luke balanced on the edge between the light side and the dark side of the Force at the end of that movie, I felt had to be explored further.
Now, it is possible for a character to be continually changing as he or she ages through their adventures. One of the best examples of this is Lois McMaster Bujold’s Vokosigan books. The ones focusing on Miles Vorkosigan are wonderfully unpredictable, because he has been put through the wringer so many times, and had to transform himself so profoundly. The most recent book in the series, while still enjoyable, just wasn’t the same level of fun, because for all that happened, Miles remained whom he had been when the book opened. Where, perhaps the best book in the whole series, Memory, takes everything that Miles had built himself to be, and shatters it down to bedrock. And builds him back up again.
I want to read more of Miles Vorkosigan, but I can’t say that I need a sequel. Even though the political, social and military milieu of Vorkosigan’s world is in a great deal of upheaval, and a plot revolving around any of those issues could be easily imagined.
I hope this rambling makes some sense to you.
Seriously? Harry Potter? A first book which basically served to introduce the world, introduce the main characters, and reveal that the big evil is once again at work in the world… and that’s it?
OtakuLoki - thanks for the thoughtful response; hope I get some more.
Max - yeah, I know I’m in the minority with Harry Potter. I just didn’t get intrigued by the Hogwarts world, or Voldemorts, or wands or whatever. The only part I really liked was the Dickensenian mistreat of Harry by his Aunt & Uncle in the first book. I thought it was hilarious. sorry. Working in a library and a bookstore, I did try to read the next two, but skimming they just seemed liked more of the same. Boy wizard saves dopey adults, yawn.
I just thought of a sequel I’m conflicted about - Mary Doria Russell’s “The Sparrow” had one that worked pretty well. Showed other aspects of the society presented in the first book,developed other dilemmas for the main characters, etc. Still wouldn’t consider it really necessary though.
Huh. To each his own and all, but it sounds more to me like you never liked Harry Potter at all than that you found the first book to be a totally self contained and satisfying experience which stood well on its own and needed no followup.
After I finished reading The Princess Bride in the late 1970s, I was champing at the bit for a sequel (whose quality was equal). There were so many wonderfully described adventures and vivid, quirky characters in this book that surely it could have been the beginning of a long and successful series. Billy Goldman, if you’re reading this, I still yearn for that sequel and/or series, and I bet millions of other folks do, too.
When the characters are so well drawn as to wonder “whatever happened to them”, or when there’s money to be made with one.
Actually TKAMB probably could support one. It’d be interesting to see Scout grown up and in the Rosa Parks/MLK era of Alabama, but only if Harper Lee wrote it of course- none of this authorized bastardy stuff. I think Harper Lee would have known how to write the sequel in such a way that Scout and Calpurnia and other black/liberal characters aren’t all saintly and the bad guys aren’t evil cartoon Nazis (though admittedly Ewell was, but then Ewell type people exist).
PS- GWTW can have no sequels while Margaret Mitchell remains dead. The first one was horrifying, especially when the writer moved the action to Ireland saying that the south in that time frame was too boring (yeah, Reconstruction and the Klan and the rebuilding of a devastated land was boring, and it’s not like Rhett’s home in Charleston was site of one of the nation’s largest earthquakes during that time frame or anything [oh wait, it was, but who wants to see that when you can have an exhilirating romp through potato fields and nasty English Danielle Steele villains]). I haven’t read Rhett Butler’s People and don’t intend to, but it got mixed reviews.
Whenever a rogue cop is left alive at the end of episode 1.
See Dirty Harry, Die Hard, Lethal Weapons, et al.
SSG Schwartz
I also feel Memory is the best, for that reason. Though I think A Civil Campaign is my sentimental favorite.
Lois has hinted at a possible Ivan adventure in the future. That could be fun.
Good grief, yes! Ivan needs to be shaken up that badly. Even though he got some of that treatment in A Civil Campaign. He still needs more. Much more.
And ISTR that she contracted for a “Vorkosigan book” with Baen after Jim died - so if it’s Ivan… woohooo!
I’m not sure I agree with this–at least not to exclusion of sometimes wanting a sequel for other reasons*-- and I’m not acquainted with Tim Powers-- but I like your development of this premise. And I especially enjoyed your comments on the Vorkosigan Saga, because I agree with them. The latest novel about Miles is nice because it’s fun to see some of the characters again, but it’s just not as meaningful as some of the earlier ones.
*I read a not insignificant amount of romance novels. In general, if I want a sequel, I don’t want to see Our Hero and Our Heroine fighting, or plunged into a new dangerous situation. Rather, I’d like to see Our Hero’s Best Friend (who just inherited a title) and Our Heroine’s Baby Sister (now all grown-up) as they fall in love and have adventures of their own. There are plot strings which can be drawn over multiple novels, but in general, I like the plot strings of the suspense/adventure part of the book to be the sort which can be dealt with over the course of a single novel.
Speaking of which, while I enjoyed The Stranger’s Game by Joan Johnston, I was annoyed by her habit of setting up the events of each next Blackthorne novel as she writes the present one. Just how many reunions of past lovers with surprise babies (now half-grown children) and additional complications–like assassination attempts-- does one extended family need?
The important thing is not whether the original work calls for a sequel, but whether the sequel is good. Also, how it respects the original work. The merit of a sequel is the sequel’s, rather than chiefly a function of the preceding work.
Eureka, you bring up good points. As does foolsguinea.
I was answering the question “When do you require a sequel?” I’m just as willing as most other readers to enjoy a sequel or follow-up book, without the character issues I’d mentioned. It’s only when I’m left feeling that a character has been stuck in what I’d call an “interrupted state” that I require a sequel.
Even if I know I won’t likely to get one. Jane Lindskold started a series a few years ago with a publisher that has since been bought out by someone else. Because of this orphan situation with the publishing (most publishers don’t care to publish sequels to books brought out by other publishers) I don’t believe I’ll ever see the sequels that I feel are necessary for the characters of The Changer, Sharazad, and Vera. But I still will say, that on the artistic level, at least one further book seems necessary.
As a sometime romance reader, myself, I enjoy the times that an author or group of them will take a small group of people and follow their mixed adventures through several books, while keeping the focus on one couple at a time. But there, while I enjoy, and look forward to the next book in the group, I can’t say I require it.
Now, foolsguinea, a sequel may be required in my eyes, yet end up not working. Or a sequel can work very well as a story on its own, without being required by the original work. I think that the merits of further volumes in a series of books must be evaluated on their own. But it’s still valid to talk about whether a book, or film, requires some completion that the plot didn’t supply.
OK, I think I agree with you here. It was the example well he’s back supplied that elicited my earlier response.
There is something about a book that leaves something unfinished & demands a sequel to be complete, but I think this may actually qualify as a flaw of that “original work.”
In the absence of such a flaw; I can desire a sequel, but be sorely disappointed if it appears & is underwhelming.
OtakuLoki,
You’re right–the word “require” is pretty limiting–a lot of sequels exist that weren’t required in any reasonable sense of the word. Enjoyed, yes, required, not so much. Many first books of series take a character on a more or less complete story arc. Many second books of series–especially trilogies–do require sequels because the character arc is incomplete.
I don’t actually think that it is unreasonable to hold up Harry Potter as an example of this tendency. Arc for the first book–orphan wizard Harry raised by unpleasant Muggle relations goes to Wizarding School, learns magic, makes friends, and saves the world from What’s His Name*.
Yes, especially knowing what happens in the rest of the series, Harry’s heroics aren’t worth all the Boy Who Lived fuss, But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that book one could have stood on it’s own. The later books in the series? Not so much, too much stuff is interwoven between books, too many beloved characters, too much a world people would like to spend more time in . . .
But I don’t think it’s absurd to suggest that the first Harry Potter book could have been enjoyed in a vacuum, not needing a sequel, just like millions of other First Books, some of which do in fact stand alone and some of which start series. Incomplete series are the most frustrating in many ways, not short series or single-title books.
*Voldemort.
The obvious answer is when there’s money to be made. End of story. If a studio sees the potential to make money from a sequel, then there will be a sequel.
When do you require a squirrel?
Only in the unlikely event of a nut surplus.