Sci-Fi, fantasy and speculative Indie Authors Review discussion

I am currently working on two books.

One is a sequel to the first book, "Robots Like Blue."

This book is intended to run partly across the same time period as the first book and will revisit a few of the scenes from a different characters viewpoint. It will then extend beyond the first book.

(For the few group members who have read my book. The story is about Alice. There is something wrong with Alice, this is hinted at in the first book.)

I immediately hit a problem when I started writing Chapter 1 and realised that I don’t know how much to re-tell the reader.

The natural start to me, which would mirror, “Robots Like Blue,” is Alice’ startup. I have already described this in “Robots Like Blue.” Do I add detail? Will readers be annoyed to be dragged through familiar parts of the story again? Can I jump to a scene that is in the first book, without explaining the development to that point?
Can I assume that all the characters are familiar to the reader? Do I need to re-introduce the Characters? Do I need to explain some of the background to the scene?

Forgive me if this is a bit of a Rookie question. I am a bit of a Rookie and this is not obvious to me. I am finding it harder than I thought I would.
All thoughts on this are welcome.

I think this is a very valid question. I've read sequels that go to both extremes. Some will repeat so much that they almost feel condescending to the reader who obviously isn't smart enough to remember the first book. Others just plow on into the next bit of action and forget that it may have been months or even years since the first book was read.
I think by repeating some scenes, or rewriting them from a different perspective is a great way to smoothly incorporate some reminders. Also, giving small reminders throughout rather than a giant info dump helps readers remember without breaking the action.

I've also read it both ways. What I did in mine was to sketch out the first chapter of the next book in the last two or three paragraphs of the book before. Then, when I start up, I had a framework to go from.

If you've got a scene like that, you might be able to pull it off.

I've also seen the use of prologues to summarize the first book, so if it's been a while or the reader's just finding the series, they can be brought up to speed.

I'm also working on my sequel, so I'm no expert. I tried to ask myself, "What is the absolute minimum the reader needs to know if they didn't read the first book?" If you start with a scene that is unique to your 2nd book, you can ease the essential backstory into the tale as you go. If that doesn't work for you, I would suggest keeping any prologue as short as you can just to provide enough to allow a new reader to get into the story. I've seen too many books that had so much prequel information at the beginning that I lost interest in reading the book. If the story in the 2nd book is strong and stands on its own, I should be able to enjoy it even if I didn't read the first book.

I'd forgo any prologue. If it's truly a sequel, not intended to be read without having read the first book, then any rehash of her story can be kept to brief mentions in situ, as it were.

Make the assumption that readers already know the background, and only remind them when it seems essential to understanding what's going on.

As with most things, it's a balancing act and there's no one-size-fits-all answer.

With my first two, I did a prologue and an epilogue with each, though both are intended to be stand-alone stories set in the same reality.

With the first story the prologue served to set up what followed, and the epilogue contained a scene related to the second book but not actually in the second book.

With the second book the prologue did some set up for the story while the epilogue hinted at the third book (currently WIP).

I actually had to go back and write the zeroth installment (series prequel) to answer reader questions as someone wanted to know more about that version of reality. I need to edit and register the copyright but it's close to be ready to go.

As Micah says there is no one-size-fits-all answer.

I have a similar situation, and what you said here is key to the way I'm approaching it.

"...revisit a few of the scenes from a different characters viewpoint.."

I'm not revisiting the scenes directly, but my book 1 is part of my book 2's backstory and when it gets introduced, it's always from a new angle which wasn't in the previous book.

My goal is to create a book 2 which is complete in itself, but for readers who read book 1, it will shed new light on elements they're familiar with.

This doesn't necessarily happen in the first pages. You know how it is with backstory. You really don't have to bring it in all at once.

Let us know what you decide, won't you?

Very good questions for which I wished I had the answers. It's one of those things that bring the proverbial phrase: damn if you do and damn if you don't.

While a little is fine, I don't like when there's too much rehashing. It's the sole reason I stopped reading Wheels of Time by Robert Jordan. He had pages after pages of telling us the same thing. I'm afraid he had less memory for what he had written than his fans had. Thinking about this series made me nervous about doing the same to my readers...but that's another story here. :p

I like your idea of re-writing scenes from a different angle because while it's old stuff, it still can be refreshing if well done. It can jolt people's memory in a fun way (like cameos in movies or books) People say, "Oh geez, I remember that!" It's kind of like telling vs showing. Show your readers what they need to know (or remember) instead of telling them and they shouldn't mind.

I've also seen it done in the same book when there was a change of POVs and it was so differently told that instead of feeling as if I was reading the same thing, it added to the fun of reading the story. I believe the key is moderation.

While what you're writing is part of a series, I'm not sure I'd call it a sequel. I'm inclined to think that a sequel starts around the time the first book stopped or months/years after. Yours will be parallel. I could see it be two stand-alone in a series. If it's the way you want to go about, then yes, some introduction would be nice. The hardest part might be to do in in an original way.

Oh one more thing... starting the same way isn't bad in itself, but if it's too much alike, people might think they have already read the book, which would be a bad thing.

On a side note, I'm looking forward to read Alice's story! :)

I agree with GG, I'm looking forward to read Alice's story.

I don't think there is any one right answer to your question. It all depends on how it is done I suppose. If it is a sequel I would expect the reader to have read the first one, so I don't think that you would have to explain everything. Maybe just remind the reader of what happened before.

But I think the idea of going through some of the same scenes from different angle is very interesting. It could give the reader an new understanding into what happened in the first book, but like GG said before, it would probably not be good idea to have it too similar.

I liked what R Scott Bakker did in his Prince of Nothing (trad pub) series. He had a section at the beginning of the 2nd/3rd book for "The Story So Far". It's a really epic fantasy, so he gives you that refresher/catchup, but you really should read the previous book first.

Of course I didn't do that in my book. And I strongly dislike much rehash myself.

I have started writing a sequel to my light-hearted science fiction story, Klubbe the Turkle and the Golden Star Coracle, which will be published soon. At the moment the sequel is called Assinarc. As mine is not a serious story, I am thinking of beginning the sequel with A Note To The Reader, explaining that as Assinarc is Book Two of the biography of Klubbe, it would be wise to read Book One first. Such A Note To The Reader may not work in a serious science fiction novel, however. In Chapter One of the sequel, I intend to continue the biography of Klubbe not long after the end of the first book. In the series of books by Arthur C. Clarke beginning with 2001: A Space Odyssey, he always assumed, it seemed to me, that the reader had read each one in the order in which they were published. It seems only logical, as Mr Spock might say. I would never read 2010: Odyssey Two, for example, before 2001: A Space Odyssey. I think perhaps it is best to assume that the reader of your sequel has first read the book it is a sequel to, and not recap too much what happened in your first book. Anyone who has read your first book will say: I know that already, I want to know what happens now, if you refer back to your first book too much.

As has been already pointed out, the bad news is that there is (in general) no right answer to this question. The good news is that means there is (in general) no wrong answer. Readers differ on this point, and feedback goes all over the lot. So all I can say may not be very helpful:

If you add in the back story and don't do it well (slow down the pace, veer out of the narrative, go into too much detail) readers will probably complain, but they are more likely to be complaining about how it was done, not the fact that it was done.

Next: what percentage of readers read your first book? My impression is that eBook readers (for sci-fi, at least) tend to read a whole series, so including back story is less important. What I think I'm seeing is that more and more authors are skimping on the back story these days.

For our part, in our devotion to everything possible "wrong", we tend to include a lot of back story. We try to make it entertaining, though, by presenting it in different ways (including, at one point, lampooning our own story).

So it’s finding that balance and using it in some way to enhance the current story, not just bring the new reader up to speed. Telling the back story through different characters that have a perspective which wasn’t presented before is a good idea. This can introduce new characters and get them up to speed (along with new readers), while presenting new info (or things they don’t know, which could be important) to further the plot, introduce new conflicts, whatever.

The message I'm getting is - if you feel you gotta do it(I kinda do) do it well!(I'll try). It's about "horses for courses" and balance. Get it right and it can add to the pleasure for the informed reader and fill in the gaps for the new reader. If possible "thread it" in naturally, avoiding info dumps. Make sure the sequel isn't retelling the same story!

Yes, GG, I am not sure if it is a sequel. It is not a prequel, I don't know if it has a name maybe a "parallquel." ;)


Thanks all, for your input and the encouraging sidenotes.

Tony (Anthony is my "Sunday" name.)
:)