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?
Me continuing to read a series is entirely dependent on 1) how well the author did in book 1 and 2) how well the second one has done with other readers.
The older I get, the less patience I have with some writers’ habits, such as over-describing things that don’t matter, poor editing before publication, repeating facts I’m having no trouble remembering in the first place, one or more characters reading as uninteresting, stupid actions by supposedly smart characters, and so on. I can’t remember which it was, by I eventually finished the not-great book one of a loooong series, then perused reviews of following books, read a sample here and there–and this author had not gotten any better, over years. That’s just tragic.
The older I get, the less patience I have with some writers’ habits
I’m the same, it’s got to be good (suit me) and keep me entertained or I’m gone. Next book please 🤪
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’ve read The Wheel of Time 4 times and never read the prequel book, if that counts.
Honestly, not to beat a dead horse, but the A Song of Ice and Fire debacle kind of soured me on reading books that don’t have sequels out yet. I wait until all the books are published, then I read the complete series.
I wait until all the books are published, then I read the complete series.
Yeah, that’s my favourite way
There are WAY too many current and still ongoing series out that I love that I still wouldn’t have read if I waited for everything to be done. I mean, Dresden Files still has a half dozen books or something left in the series, and it’s been going on for around 16 years. Plus the Laundry Files, Monster Hunters International, Joe Ledger/Rogue Team International, the Rivers of London, and I’m sure more I haven’t thought of. I’m not waiting (in some cases) literally decades to start to read a series that interests me.
That’s a good point, I don’t tend to read series that take more than 3-4 books.
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.
I really only read one-offs and classics now, simply because sequels are so time-consuming and I have no self-control. Lmao.
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.
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.
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 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.