Constant Reader discussion

I have to rethink my position re: sequel mania.
I realized that I loved "The Hours" and quite liked "Wicked". Both of these are spin-offs from previous works. As was "Wide Sargasso Sea", which I loved. Hmmm.
Okay, so I guess I'll have to base my opinion book by book, instead of by huge old generalities, which are just sooo much easier. Damn.

I think the sequels that don't work are the ones that try to inhabit the former author's shoes. Just carrying on the same story with the same characters and new development is rarely successful. In fact, can anyone thing of this kind of a sequel that worked?

R

Spot on, Ruth! And no, I can't think of one which worked in that way.

A sequel type book which I really liked was Jon Clinch's Finn, which tells the story of Huck Finn's father. Best book I read last year.

R

OKAY!!!!!! I hadn't thought of Finn yet, Ruth, thanks. That is one that definitely stands on its own and relates beautifully to the original and doesn't do TAoHF any harm in my opinion.

What about John Gardner's "Grendel"? I haven't read it since high school, though, so I can't vouch for its style, but it was a compassionate take on the epic antagonist.

We read Grendel on CR a few years ago. Of course, I've only read pieces of Beowulf, but I think it was enough to set me up for Grendel.

R

Well -- I'm thinking Grendel and Cunningham's The Hours are not so much extensions of or sequels (or even prequels) to classics as they are somehow tributes or answers to classics. A sub-category?

I loved Grendel -- loved the book and the opera Grendel as well.

No, neither are sequels in the strict sense of the word, but responses to others' work. Using an internet analogy, they're like comments on previous comments and, as such, have merit for maintaining a voice and perspective of their own, unlike actual sequels.

You're right, they're not sequels in the strict sense of the word. I guess its true sequels that we're agreeing are seldom good.

The thread semms to be of sequels by different authors (are they really sequels?) but I'd have more questioned sequels by the same author. I think authors have a very tough time producing follow-on books that match their first outpouring of their best ideas.

Oops, sorry for not noticing the previous two posts. :(

Russ -- this began as a discussion of books written by other authors after the fact but attached in some manner to a classic book/story and has evolved as you find it in this thread.

Some authors can hold a "series" together -- say a trilogy or a trilogy plus one -- sequels in limited numbers. I think one author writing additional books to follow up their own work is different however than either of the types of sequels referenced here.

STILL -- nice to see you around,

Russ,
I'd have to agree with your notion of some of these examples not being sequels according to my idea of sequels. I'd call books like Wide Sargasso Sea more supplemental material rather than "sequels", a sequel implies forward action in my opinion, and WSS was more representative of another angle than forward action. I didn't care for it personally, although I ought to give it another chance I believe, and at least finish it. But Mr. Rochester happens to be a favorite of mine, and his presentation in the book so irritated me I didn't finish.

A highly unsuccessful example of a sequel would be in my opinion Scarlett to Gone With the Wind . Yeech.
I did however recently read the new supplemental material book Rhett's People and while it lacked the fire of the original [natch:], I found it interesting and informative and very believable to the original characters.

I think March/ was fantastic.

I agree with the premise and I tend to not like sequels, or follow-on books. I enjoyed Wicked/ mainly because I thought it "a cute idea," but had not sought out any other books of that genre.

I was doubtful when I started Geraldine Brooks' March/ and truly, I read it only because it had won the Pulitzer. Brooks took the slimmest bit of reference to the classic Little Women/ and wrote a truly stand-alone book that happens to be a follow-on.

Still, I tend to shy away from sequels or follow-ons.

Kathy L

... And I promise to work on my italics. :)

Kathy L

Sometimes an author writes a sequel or follow-up that turns into a series. For example, Patrick O'Brian followed his Master and Commander with Post Captain, and then later with H.M.S. Surprise. At some point the books became a series, always appearing in chronological order, and after nine or ten volumes in effect one long and wonderful novel.

In my comment about sequels that continue the same characters in new plots, I should have said sequels written by different authors. (Such as "Scarlett.")

I have a young male friend who keeps urging me to try the O'Brian stories.

R

Pontalba,
"Supplemental Materials" would be more descriptive of what I was talking about than "Sequels", which are in fact something different.
Your comment about Rochester interested me. While I was reading the book, I felt a bit uncomfortable with the way Jane kept referring to him as "my master"; I also thought he was a bit condescending toward her. That may have been a facet of the era, though, since it's obvious that he's madly in love with her. He is very sympathetic in "Jane", but there is a bit of sympathy for him in WSS as well. I got the feeling that Rhys had a considerable personal ax to grind re: treatment of islanders by the Brits, and that it just overwhelmed the whole work, with Rochester coming to represent the British. I still really really liked it, though.

I do think there is a difference between a sequel such as Wicked and Son of a Witch (the former being excellent, the latter a meer shadow), and books that are variations of the original story, like the recent Lady Macbeth, Wicked of course, and the very interesting collection by Emma Donogue Kissing the Witches Mouth (interesting twists on fairy tales). When I think of sequels btw, I think of books by the same author, not two different authors, which to me fall in the variations (or supplimental) category.

I am not always a fan of sequels by the same author, I am too often disappointed. I do like some series - the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett is a great example, and DH loves the Sharpe series.

But I dearly love the books that twist a story out of recognition. Even tho I didn't like Sargosso Sea, I thought it a fascinating idea of the pre-story. And since this is a dearly loved genre for me, I was very very disappointed in March. Little Women was a top childhood fav of mine, and his character in that book was so out of sync with my idea of him, that I was just thrown out of the book. Yes, he is based on Alcott's father, but that didn't help me with my enjoyment of this peice. I was also appalled that it won the Pulitzer over Doctorow's The March but thats another story.

.. And I promise to work on my italics. :)

Kathy L



don't sweat the italics, they gunk up folks on digest. to be honest the post above that one was pretty much unreadable and skipped when i was reading my daily dose.

Gail,
I do think Rochester's and Jane's attitude was representative of the era, I feel that the words "my master" in this case though were more of a protective nature, than a disciplinary nature. Still I do quite understand how it would rankle one. I wonder if it is because I read it for the first time when I was quite young, around 10[ish] as I recall, that it didn't have the impact that it would have had at a later age.
For me the true and deep love that was demonstrated covered a multitude of irritations. :)

Ruth, as would be immediately obvious from my book lists on this site, I love the O'Brian books. But I am careful about recommending them since they aren't everyone's cup of tea.

Though a New Yorker article in the mid 90s famously called them 'boy books,' the female author admitted loving them herself. My acquaintance of O'Brian fans includes more women than men, and is a remarkably bookish set, including school teachers, college librarians, a newspaper columnist, an author of three published romance novels, art history professors, Latin poetry experts, etc.

Some pluses:

-- wonderfully descriptive writing
-- fascinating, sharply drawn characters
-- scintillating dialogue (authentic to time, place, station)
-- amazing erudition
-- holds up remarkably well to repeated readings

Some minuses (to some readers' tastes):

-- too much description, however wonderful
-- male characters more plausible than the female
-- amount of detail about nautical matters, or use of technical terms for sailing

My technique on the occasionally lengthy descriptions of sailing was to let that stuff wash over me; I was less patient with O'Brian's occasional rhapsodies about one of his character's love of bird watching until my third or fourth time reading through the series.

When I was about 12, I was particularly enamored of sea stories. Haven't read one in years. Now that 2 people I admire have recommended O'Brien to me, I should have a look-see for myself.

R

Ah yes, but where to start? One might begin at the beginning (Master and Commander, 1969), not actually the basis of the movie of that name. It has many delights. But it is the middle and later books where O'Brian truly hits his stride. Some start with the first and never go on. Others are drawn in almost immediately. Your mileage may vary, as young people seem to say on the Web.

Two of my friends happened to read random books from the series that they chanced upon in airport bookshops and later went back to the earlier books. I myself started with The Wine-Dark Sea, perhaps 14 books in, put it down after a dozen or fewer pages, and dashed out to buy the first five that very day. It took me a week to read them before buying another three. Another friend started with the same book, never finished it, and seems never to have regretted his disinclination.

I really enjoyed the O'Brian books, too, though I agree with the criticism re: female characters (wise of the film to leave them out!). I found Jack Aubrey's wife Sophie particularly annoying. Actually, I think in general the books are at their best when Jack & co. are at sea (less bird-watching there, too!).

But the above quibbles didn't deter me from reading all (23 or so) of the books, and feeling sad that there would be no more coming. I began with Master & Commander and read them in order.

Let us know what you think, Ruth, if you give them a try!

Mary Ellen

Would you believe I was at the library this afternoon picking up Howard's End, and thought I'd give a looksee into one of these. Immediately, of course, I had one of those terrible moments of brainfreeze and could remember neither the title nor the author.

Sheesh.

That's when I understand why my mother-in-law had lists lying all over the house. And, I used to sort of giggle about it. Now, I'm paying for that.