Let’s Talk Bookish: What Makes a Good Sequel

Let’s Talk Bookish is a weekly meme hosted by Rukky @ Eternity Books and Dani @ Literary Lion. This week’s topic was suggested by M.T. Wilson @ The Last Book on the Left and is What Makes a Good Sequel.

What do you like to see in sequels?

A good amount of character development is always at the forefront for me. We got to meet the characters in the first book, I want to see them grow and become something more in the second book. I also like to see some actual plot for the second book and its own resolution or development. I want it to have a story arc of its own and not just be a part of the bigger picture of the series.

Are there any sequels you liked more than the first book?

Definitely! I have several sequels that I loved more than the first one. A few of them are:

• Crown of Midnight by Sarah J. Maas (Throne of Glass series)
• A Court of Mist and Fury by Sarah J. Maas (A Court of Thorns and Roses series)
• Cross My Heart and Hope to Spy by Ally Carter (Gallagher Girls series)
• The Wicked King by Holly Black (The Folk of the Air trilogy)
• The Drowned Cities by Paolo Bacigalupi (Shipbreaker trilogy)
• The Runaway King by Jennifer A. Nielsen (Ascendance series)

What makes some sequels disappointing?

When they’re clearly fillers or have “middle book syndrome.” I really dislike when I’ve finished a book and so little happens both in characters and plot that I feel like I could’ve just skipped it entirely and gone to the final book or the next one in the series. It’s amazing how some authors can write so many words with nothing happening. I also dislike when a second book destroys or disrupts what’s been built in the first one. For example, I loved Juliet Immortal by Stacey Jay, but in its sequel, Romeo Redeemed, it completely scraps the ending from the first book and replaces it with a new one. It’s complicated to explain because the book incorporates reincarnation and alternate realities but I hated that the ending I loved from the first book became moot by the events of the second.

Do you feel like most sequels are worse than the original, or is that just an old wives tale? Do you get excited about sequels or do you prefer standalones?

I think it just depends on the reader and if they prefer character-driven books or plot-driven books. If you prefer character-driven, I think you’re more likely to enjoy sequels compared to plot-driven readers. With character-driven, you’ve already fallen in love with the characters and are happy to see where they go and who they become further into the books. You already have a sense of nostalgia about them which almost guarantees a fondness for future installments. If you prefer plot-driven, you’ll likely feel disappointed in the majority of sequels because of the middle book syndrome and how nothing really happens outside of character development in these books’ case. And even character development doesn’t happen sometimes.

I definitely get excited for sequels. I’m likely to read them even if I didn’t love the first book. I wasn’t a huge fan of ACOTAR upon first reading it, but I forged ahead and read ACOMAF and to this day it’s one of my favorite books. This is also the case with An Ember in the Ashes by Sabaa Tahir for me. I thought the first novel was okay but I loved its sequel, A Torch Against the Night. I also almost always have one of the middle books as my ultimate favorite from a series. It’s rare for me to favor the first one because of my character-driven preferences as a reader. I do enjoy standalones and they feel like a breath of fresh air sometimes when I’ve plowed through a bunch of series for a while but if I had to pick just one to read, I’d pick series.

---

Do you prefer character-driven or plot-driven books? Let me know in the comments and happy reading!

Goodreads | Twitter | Storygraph | Bookstagram