Wondering how everyone approaches a series or books that go on to get a sequel? For the longest time I would automatically reach for any sequels that followed books I loved but now…eh. Sometimes I just like how a story has wrapped up and am not looking for more of the characters even if I enjoyed them the first time around. Anyone else do something similar and/or what are your reading habits when it comes to sequels?
I’m very bad at finishing series. Even if I love the first book I’m not good at continuing. I did finish the Beartown series and felt so accomplished and would consider them some of my favorite books! I did partake in the Fourth Wing hype and preordered Iron Flame and was so disappointed and my brain will probably remember that next time I think of picking up a sequel. 😂
No, and that’s why I’m not opposed to reading unfinished series the way a lot of people are these days. It’s not remotely uncommon for me to read a book (or even multiple in a series) and like it, but not like it enough to continue the series.
I talk about it a lot….but when I found out Flowers in the Attic had a sequel, I got that book so fucking quickly, I gave myself whiplash
I really only read one-offs and classics now, simply because sequels are so time-consuming and I have no self-control. Lmao.
I’ve read The Wheel of Time 4 times and never read the prequel book, if that counts.
I get really tired of reading series very quickly and have a bad habit of starting series and taking forever (or never) getting back to them. I stopped reading the stormlight archive because I couldn’t take any more of the writing style. I stopped a song of ice and fire at a feast for crows because George won’t ever finish the series at this rate. Most recently I finished McCarthy’s final duology The Passenger and Stella Maris.
If I want to, I do. If I don’t want to, I don’t. Sometimes I’ll get through the second book and decide that I’m not interested in the third. Or I’ll try out the sequel and it’s a DNF. All those are options.
It’s no different from choosing to read the first book, really.
If I liked the book, yes! If not, no.
Sometimes. I read mostly fantasy, so trilogies are almost a must (no idea why). This year I discovered “The Tide Child” trilogy and binge read all three. I couldn’t stop until I knew what happened in the end. I’m reading “The Poppy War” at the moment and I don’t think I’m going to read the sequel right away. I’m used to grimdark fantasy, but this book goes beyond that.
I find sequels/series are generally worse books, just based on the nature of what sequels/series are: primarily that the sequel/series structure means the story is less self-contained and less satisfying. I think a new book also requires more ideas and time and polish to get finished by the author/bought by a publisher. There’s also just basic “regression to the mean”: most books are average; if the first book in a series is exceptional, statistically any other book that follows is more likely to be relatively worse.
I think it’s also what leads to a sequel effect with reviews- if you get a number of people reading the first book, your second book’s audience is essentially limited to the biggest fans of the first pool of readers. So you tend to get a second book that’s worse, but with more enthusiastic reviews.
All that being said, I’m not against the concept of sequels/series- they’re just fighting an uphill battle.
Nah. If you read fantasy/sci-fi, sequels are a given and integral to the whole story. And usually there’s as good if not better.
I agree. I’ve read a bunch of stand-alone novels, as well as series, and the series tend to be more enjoyable to me. Characters and story tend to get fleshed out more in series than they do in stand-alone books, at least for the ones I’ve read.
I typically do if I liked the one I just finished. But I learned a few years that one of my favorite books actually has a sequel and I’m afraid to read it because I came to terms with how the first one ended. Th sequel was on my “to read” list, and I just never put together that it was a sequel because this is the only book of hers to have a sequel. It’s “Pigs in Heaven” which is the sequel to “Th Bean Trees” by Barbara Kingsolver
Nope. Sometimes I am okay with just reading the first one.
No, not always. Even if I did enjoy the first one and mean to read the second and however many afterwards, I just tend to move on.
No. If a book sucked I won’t read the sequel. If a book felt complete, I won’t automatically read the sequel. It really depends upon the series.
I have this morbid urge to read the sequel to a book I love, just to see if the author fucks it up.