Q&A with M.L. Hamilton discussion

To celebrate the launch of my next novel, The Heirs of Eldon, I thought I'd see what readers look for in a sequel.

Good:
1. Cohesive with the previous book(s) - Either makes sense with connecting with plot arcs, or gives reasons why there are new developments

2. Characters are either more developed, or new characters that differ from previous characters are introduced / group dynamics change.

3. If stereotypes are used for newly introduced characters, they are accepted (and somewhat expected) stereotypes for the target audience, and still contain some points that makes them unique (exception for characters that exist for parody, such as Joe Buckley being killed http://jiltanith.thefifthimperium.com...-
)

Bad:
1. Very similar repetition of plot points / style... Predictable in execution.

2. Contains Jar Jar Binks. Yes, that's a prequel, and arguably a movie more than a book, but really... He's just that terrible.

3. Has one of these names connected with it somehow: Disney, Paris Hilton, or Uwe Boll. Theoretically a good book could be related to one of these three, but given all their products so far, unlikely.

4. No real plot development(s), or more arcs are added without actually completing or advancing any previous arcs.

Great response. Love your answer to Bad #2. I completely agree with the good points. I either want new characters that are related in some way to the previous book or characters that have a new depth.

ML

I don't like sequels that have a new MC. I've read some sequels that will take place in a different characters point of view, whether they are a new character, or they are from the first one.

And I rarely like it when a sequel has multiple points of views when the first one didn't, or a singular point of view when the first one had multiple ones. Sometimes an author can pull it off, but more oft than not, it bothers me.

I think it's hard to make sequels meaningful. Too often they are done poorly and don't live up to the original.

I really like when characters and plot points are expanded on. I like finding out new things about the people and places you were introduced to in the first book even when the answers lead to more questions.

My major dislike is when it seems like every book has to end with some sort of major cliff hanger. I don't mind a couple in a series, but some authors seem to feel like they have to end every book in the middle of the action to keep you reading, and it seems like sort of a cheap tactic to me. It ends up frustrating me, and I have put down most every series that made me feel this way.

I agree. I think a sequel should probably be a stand alone with maybe an epilogue to hook you into the next books, so the reader can decide whether to read on or not.

I agree with M.L.: a sequel (or sequels) which are poorly written, especially when the initial book in the sequence was a winner (good writing, deep characters, clever plotting, etc.) is very disappointing. But it's difficult, I think, for some authors to maintain that excellence across a series of novels. I'm thinking of one series I'm enjoying (recently), the Jo Nesbo series with Inspector Harry Hole. I've not had the pleasure of reading them all yet, but I did read Books 5 and 6: The Snowman; The Leopard-and both were excellent. I'm trying to remember an example in which I was disappointed by a sequel(s). Will post when I do.:)

I like series. I like the character development within a series. The characters become friends to me. I want to know what's going on with them. What I dislike is when the story in the sequel goes too far from what the series began as. Laurel K. Hamilton's Anita Blake series does that so I haven't read the last 4 or 5 of them yet. It started out as a paranormal police procedural and became erotic paranormal romance. Not bad but it strayed from what I enjoyed about the series--police with a smattering of Anita's personal life.

A sequel should advance the story/series but also be able to stand alone without confusing the reader. It should also be consistent throughout. I love the Sookie Stackhouse books but some of the later ones have gotten confusing because of the new characters added and the amount of time that passes between them. Ideally, a sequel should be released no more than a year from the previous book in the series.Easier said than done, I'm sure!

CONSISTENCY***

Only sequel I've liked recently is Bridget Jones Part 2--still contains the fun splashed with a bit more reality. (As much as I was waiting for it I'm glad it took a while for Part 2 to get published because the starting point was a shocker.)