Another topic (was Re: Identifying with characters)

Charles Butler hannibal at
Tue Dec 2 04:53:54 EST 2003

> What makes a sequel good is evidence that the author has questioned the
> original and thought about where it might go. This is why DWJ sequels are
> always interesting. Even if you don't like the direction she goes in, you
> can't deny that she thinks about her previous writing from different
> angles.

A good - if quite extreme - of this kind of revisionary sequel would be Le
Guin's *Tehanu*.

In interview, btw, DWJ spoke about how she felt as if the characters from
one book were getting on with their lives when she wasn't writing about them
('they go away and do things in the meantime'), and that when they came back
in a sequel they could surprise her by behaving quite differently from
before (this was esp. in relation to the Dalemark books).

Do you think prequels tend to be more successful than sequels, btw?


To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at

More information about the Dwj mailing list