Another topic (was Re: Identifying with characters)

Sally Odgers sodgers at tassie.net.au
Mon Dec 1 20:38:27 EST 2003


> How about:  Book Sequels.
>
> Are they uniformly terrible, like movie sequels supposedly are?

No.

> Why are terrible sequels so bad?

Usually, they're not so much bad as weak. The problem is almost always that
the initial problem or conflict was resolved in the first book, and it's
difficult to come up with a stronger one. Look at Pamela Sykes' two "Lucy"
books.

> What makes a sequel good?

A new situation that builds on characters and their development in the
previous book.

> Is it still a sequel if it's intended to be part of a long series?

That depends. Some books (amateur detective ones, for example) have a
character ***who might grow older and remember what s/he has learned, but
they are still static in a way. Each mystery is approached almost as if it
were a single title, and the books can be read out of order.

*** BTW, how do you feel about using "who" with "character"? It probably
should be "that"... but that sounds stilted.

Sallyo.


--
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/



More information about the Dwj mailing list