Writing About Sequels and Prequels

[Deleted member 29316]

Well I just wanted to ask your opinion about using the Prequel and Sequel feature of ScribbleHub. See, I brought out a new series, which was obviously a sequel of the previous work I had in the site (and was already completed), and it was rained with 1*. While I do understand that some might not like my work, the said title was only 4 chapters in (when that happened), and I'm suspecting it was so because some might've mistaken my story for a confusing, incomplete novel with no start and 'introduction' for characters. Also, recently, someone reviewed my work raising the same issue that one has to read the prequel before getting on the sequel (which what I really intended).

Now my question is, should I just merge the titles into one single series? Or I should continue with my current format (with different arcs having slightly different titles, which was my intention at the start). I apologize beforehand for those who'd be triggered by my question; I'm just a hobbyist author, see?

 

[Valmond]

Not necessarily, you don’t have to read the prequel to read the sequel. It all depends on how you write it, and how much information is given. For instance, this is the order of my books.

Book 2

Book 3

Book 1

The first book is the ending, the second is the prequel, the third is the sequel to the prequel. At the end of the first book, it is left open ended. This is critical, since at the end of book 3. It fasts forward after the events of Book 1 to conclude the series. The prequel now, the point of this is to show the beginning of the story. What leads to the main becoming an abomination, why they are an enemy, their despair, rage, greed, etc. It shows their life in the darkest days. Book 3 follows up, connecting these points, being the final phase in what has the main becoming the true enemy. Take note, all books are connected, they constantly connect in a massive web.

While the first book gives a solid idea, it leaves enough open to do a trilogy. So long as you effectively link the information, you are good. Book 2 for instance, will leave others confused unless they read book 1. Since necessary information is in the first book, which leads to the prequel for expansion. Book 3 will leave confusion on those scenes, unless they read Book 1. If they do that, they will see the full picture. I do quite a lot of scene expansion in Book 3, which are past events in Book 1.

So long as you write effectively, you can keep it in the current order.

I do expansion plot wise, character wise, etc. In Book 2 and 3, however, to fully grasp the connection, they will have to read the first book. Connecting the known information, to the newer one. Going in blind will leave more confusion than anything. So while the prequel is the beginning of the story, the first book is of requirement to establish the connection, the theme, conflict, emotional weight, reason, etc.

 

[ForestDweller]

I would just combine them to be honest. If it's still about the same narrative, then it shouldn't be a sequel.

 

[Deleted member 29316]

Not necessarily, you don’t have to read the prequel to read the sequel. It all depends on how you write it, and how much information is given. For instance, this is the order of my books.

Book 2

Book 3

Book 1

The first book is the ending, the second is the prequel, the third is the sequel to the prequel. At the end of the first book, it is left open ended. This is critical, since at the end of book 3. It fasts forward after the events of Book 1 to conclude the series. The prequel now, the point of this is to show the beginning of the story. What leads to the main becoming an abomination, why they are an enemy, their despair, rage, greed, etc. It shows their life in the darkest days. Book 3 follows up, connecting these points, being the final phase in what has the main becoming the true enemy. Take note, all books are connected, they constantly connect in a massive web.

While the first book gives a solid idea, it leaves enough open to do a trilogy. So long as you effectively link the information, you are good. Book 2 for instance, will leave others confused unless they read book 1. Since necessary information is in the first book, which leads to the prequel for expansion. Book 3 will leave confusion on those scenes, unless they read Book 1. If they do that, they will see the full picture. I do quite a lot of scene expansion in Book 3, which are past events in Book 1.

So long as you write effectively, you can keep it in the current order.

I do expansion plot wise, character wise, etc. In Book 2 and 3, however, to fully grasp the connection, they will have to read the first book. Connecting the known information, to the newer one. Going in blind will leave more confusion than anything. So while the prequel is the beginning of the story, the first book is of requirement to establish the connection, the theme, conflict, emotional weight, reason, etc.

Hmm...I did leave links as well as notes that the story is in second arc though, and the first arc is open-ended.

In any case, thanks for answering! This one gave me an idea.

 

[Deleted member 29316]

I would just combine them to be honest. If it's still about the same narrative, then it shouldn't be a sequel.

More like 'another story' in one story. But in any case, thanks for the answer. I'm weighing my options for this one.

 

[Valmond]

Hmm...I did leave links as well as notes that the story is in second arc though, and the first arc is open-ended.

In any case, thanks for answering! This one gave me an idea.

Also, don’t forget. Each book, if you’re doing a massive timeline. It can keep consistent with the main conflict. However, there can be differing requirements, and or current conflicts of that specific time that plays into the overall theme. So, it can be one long chain of events, broken off into differing segments, with their own smaller conflicts. Which remains in line with the overall one. More often than not, these stories are so large, that it is often better to break it off into several books. This helps to avoid confusion, it helps to keep consistency, as well as it helps to get a much better feel of the story as a whole. It does not matter the way you wish to tell it, the order that is. It matters how you choose to explain it, how much detail you give, and how well you establish this.

 

[Deleted member 29316]

Also, don’t forget. Each book, if you’re doing a massive timeline. It can keep consistent with the main conflict. However, there can be differing requirements, and or current conflicts of that specific time that plays into the overall theme. So, it can be one long chain of events, broken off into differing segments, with their own smaller conflicts. Which remains in line with the overall one. More often than not, these stories are so large, that it is often better to break it off into several books. This helps to avoid confusion, it helps to keep consistency, as well as it helps to get a much better feel of the story as a whole.

I see...well, you see, my story's a one long narrative that consists of different 'sub-events' leading to main goal of the main character, so I had to break it off to five arcs with three to five volumes each. That's why I uploaded it under a slightly-different title, for the readers to know that it's a 'different' yet 'the same' work, and to avoid confusion (it was set on a different place, with an additional cast of new characters).

However, I guess it ended confusing them more?

 

[ForestDweller]

I see...well, you see, my story's a one long narrative that consists of different 'sub-events' leading to main goal of the main character, so I had to break it off to five arcs with three to five volumes each. That's why I uploaded it under a slightly-different title, for the readers to know that it's a 'different' yet 'the same' work, and to avoid confusion (it was set on a different place, with an additional cast of new characters).

However, I guess it ended confusing them more?

Yeah, I still think you should just combine them. My story also has a subplot going on that's separate from the main MC's plot, but I don't split that off into its own story.

 

[Deleted member 29316]

Yeah, I still think you should just combine them. My story also has a subplot going on that's separate from the main MC's plot, but I don't split that off into its own story.

I see. Thanks for the tip! Maybe I should do just that, but first, I'll leave a note to my readers.

 

[EternalSunset0]

Well I just wanted to ask your opinion about using the Prequel and Sequel feature of ScribbleHub. See, I brought out a new series, which was obviously a sequel of the previous work I had in the site (and was already completed), and it was rained with 1*. While I do understand that some might not like my work, the said title was only 4 chapters in (when that happened), and I'm suspecting it was so because some might've mistaken my story for a confusing, incomplete novel with no start and 'introduction' for characters. Also, recently, someone reviewed my work raising the same issue that one has to read the prequel before getting on the sequel (which what I really intended).

Now my question is, should I just merge the titles into one single series? Or I should continue with my current format (with different arcs having slightly different titles, which was my intention at the start). I apologize beforehand for those who'd be triggered by my question; I'm just a hobbyist author, see?

Personally, I would have it stay as is. It's just a personal opinion and all, but I prefer separate arcs being separate books. If I'm planning to read something long, then I would prefer to have more "concrete" bookmarks. In this case, a second book/title/cover. Then again, maybe it's also an influence of my background which is why I would have that preference.

As for the 1* ratings, I personally don't think it's the confusing timeline or what. It's very clear that your work is a sequel, and if I were to guess, the 1* ratings were probably just from people who hate Isekai, your characters, and/or the premise/setting you're working with for some reason and just hit the 1* button out of spite or something. Or maybe the story just wasn't to their taste after reading four chapters, and people all react differently to not liking something. I doubt someone who's just confused with the timeline would hit the 1* button that quickly.

On a side note, I read the review to your sequel, and I didn't get the same vibes as you did. The guy said that he would recommend reading the prequel because it gives more background, but it certainly did not feel like "him pointing out an issue" to me. Or at least I don't see it as him talking like it's an issue.

 

[Valmond]

I see...well, you see, my story's a one long narrative that consists of different 'sub-events' leading to main goal of the main character, so I had to break it off to five arcs with three to five volumes each. That's why I uploaded it under a slightly-different title, for the readers to know that it's a 'different' yet 'the same' work, and to avoid confusion (it was set on a different place, with an additional cast of new characters).

However, I guess it ended confusing them more?

Similar case with my own. One long narrative, broken off into three books with differing titles. All you really have to do is keep the tone in check. Increasing it when need be, but not decreasing it too much. There is a certain level of balance to maintain. For instance, my work involves multiple worlds. Norse based with combinations of other mythologies as well. The first book takes place in the World of Midgard. However, also shows Asgard, as well as hinting the NetherWorld. Which is the main’s home world.

The second book is naturally in the NetherWorld. Also showing the World of Altheim, Midgard, and Asgard. Alfheim from a past scene, Midgard from a past scene, and Asgard both current and past. The final book setting is in Asgard, while also showing Helheim, Ginnungagap, hinting Muspelheim, hinting Utgard. Showing Vanaheim, as well as Yggdrasil. Amongst other additions.

So as you can see, each book expands on the overall story more and more. The second book title establishes the main theme which is supposed to be the darkest days in the lead’s life. The third book establishes the theme of that book, which is the Twilight of the Gods. Ultimately showing what leads to the main becoming the true enemy. The first book does not have a subtitle to it, just the base name. Which establishes the tone, that there is something that the main wishes to return towards.

All follows the same line of consistency, just in differing times. The main conflict overall is the same, which one may think is the antagonist, but, the main conflict is more internal, it resides in the past. Which brings way to countless possibilities. The story cones together from differing parts, differing books. All being made clear the further it goes along.

So, ensure to have the base name of the story, then put a subtitle to differentiate it. Similarly to the Harry Potter series. It follows the same long story. However, each book has a different subtitle to show that it is a continuation. One more thing I would recommend, is at the end of the title, ensure to list, (Book 1), (Book 2), (Book 3), etc. This will help readers to further understand the order to read it in.

 

[Deleted member 29316]

Personally, I would have it stay as is. It's just a personal opinion and all, but I prefer separate arcs being separate books. If I'm planning to read something long, then I would prefer to have more "concrete" bookmarks. In this case, a second book/title/cover. Then again, maybe it's also an influence of my background which is why I would have that preference.

As for the 1* ratings, I personally don't think it's the confusing timeline or what. It's very clear that your work is a sequel, and if I were to guess, the 1* ratings were probably just from people who hate Isekai, your characters, and/or the premise/setting you're working with for some reason and just hit the 1* button out of spite or something. Or maybe the story just wasn't to their taste after reading four chapters, and people all react differently to not liking something. I doubt someone who's just confused with the timeline would hit the 1* button that quickly.

On a side note, I read the review to your sequel, and I didn't get the same vibes as you did. The guy said that he would recommend reading the prequel because it gives more background, but it certainly did not feel like "him pointing out an issue" to me. Or at least I don't see it as him talking like it's an issue.

Nah, I meant, I'm kind of worried I got the readers confused. A view of mine which was supported (seemingly) by the review. In any case, his feedback is cool to me; maybe I just used the word 'issue' wrong (I can't think of any other word closer to what I'm trying to say)

In any case, thanks for confirming the otherwise. I'm kind of bothered by it for sometime.

 

[Valmond]

Nah, I meant, I'm kind of worried I got the readers confused. A view of mine which was supported (seemingly) by the review. In any case, his feedback is cool to me; maybe I just used the word 'issue' wrong (I can't think of any other word closer to what I'm trying to say)

In any case, thanks for confirming the otherwise. I'm kind of bothered by it for sometime.

Ah, hmm, well, you can’t win with everyone ya know.

Do what you feel like doing. So long as you write effectively, and take the necessary measures, you are fine. I have had a few readers that became confused, when the information is literally there. Remember, you are the one writing the story, not them. However, at the same time, gotta find the balance between information. If something comes later down in the story, but the reader is confused currently. More often than not, they are impatient. In a case like this, do not reveal the information, just tell them to keep reading.

In a case of the book titles, all you can really do is keep the base title, with the subtitle added on to clarify. You won’t please everyone, so do not fret over it. Someone once took the time to tell me my book isn’t for them. Even though I never asked for a review. Some people just try to get under your skin. Just keep going, doing it the best you can.

 

[lehur]

Separation pre, seq, etc
For most was to show reader that eaxh one of them have different main story e.g. btth (xiao yan main story catching fire) different than btth prequel (yao lao with his fire).
If your books just slightly different not whole main story and mc different, it would do good to make it as one

 

[Deleted member 29316]

Ah, hmm, well, you can’t win with everyone ya know.

Do what you feel like doing. So long as you write effectively, and take the necessary measures, you are fine. I have had a few readers that became confused, when the information is literally there. Remember, you are the one writing the story, not them. However, at the same time, gotta find the balance between information. If something comes later down in the story, but the reader is confused currently. More often than not, they are impatient. In a case like this, do not reveal the information, just tell them to keep reading.

In a case of the book titles, all you can really do is keep the base title, with the subtitle added on to clarify. You won’t please everyone, so do not fret over it. Someone once took the time to tell me my book isn’t for them. Even though I never asked for a review. Some people just try to get under your skin. Just keep going, doing it the best you can.

Separation pre, seq, etc
For most was to show reader that eaxh one of them have different main story e.g. btth (xiao yan main story catching fire) different than btth prequel (yao lao with his fire).
If your books just slightly different not whole main story and mc different, it would do good to make it as one

Thanks for the answers guys! Helps me with considering my next steps.

 

[Ral]

There might also be structural problems with your story. This:

Also, recently, someone reviewed my work raising the same issue that one has to read the prequel before getting on the sequel (which what I really intended).

is a red flag.

Though it is a sequel, that doesn't mean you don't have to introduce your characters, establish anything and just take everything for granted. A sequel should still be accessible even if they haven't read its prequel.

After all, it is this book that captured their interest not the prequel. If they have to read the prequel to read this, then they would be reluctant to.

Now I don't mean that you have to summarize the prequel or something but to establish the baseline so that they could understand a large part of the story. Your readers should want to check to prequel once they are invested but not before.

 

[Deleted member 29316]

There might also be structural problems with your story. This:

is a red flag.

Though it is a sequel, that doesn't mean you don't have to introduce your characters, establish anything and just take everything for granted. A sequel should still be accessible even if they haven't read its prequel.

After all, it is this book that captured their interest not the prequel. If they have to read the prequel to read this, then they would be reluctant to.

Now I don't mean that you have to summarize the prequel or something but to establish the baseline so that they could understand a large part of the story. Your readers should want to check to prequel once they are invested but not before.

Oooh...thanks for this view. Maybe I should rewrite the first parts then.

 

[yansusustories]

A sequel should still be accessible even if they haven't read its prequel.

I absolutely agree with this viewpoint. I think that you can expect readers to read the volumes of one series in the right sequence (some actually don't but in that case, I feel it's their problem) but not a prequel and sequel. Those should be separated to a degree where everything stays understandable and readers at most lack details if they haven't read something. This also means that if there's something very important in the prequel that is being used in the sequel, that background should be explained.
My go-to example for this would be The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit: You don't need to have read the latter to understand the former. It doesn't matter in lotr how they actually ended up with the ring. Fact is, it's there and it needs to go. Also, the fact that 'things happened' can really be paraphrased in a paragraph or two so that readers will know the gist of the backstory without having to actually read the whole book.

 

[Deleted member 29316]

I absolutely agree with this viewpoint. I think that you can expect readers to read the volumes of one series in the right sequence (some actually don't but in that case, I feel it's their problem) but not a prequel and sequel. Those should be separated to a degree where everything stays understandable and readers at most lack details if they haven't read something. This also means that if there's something very important in the prequel that is being used in the sequel, that background should be explained.
My go-to example for this would be The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit: You don't need to have read the latter to understand the former. It doesn't matter in lotr how they actually ended up with the ring. Fact is, it's there and it needs to go. Also, the fact that 'things happened' can really be paraphrased in a paragraph or two so that readers will know the gist of the backstory without having to actually read the whole book.

So it's more like I'll just rewrite the first parts than to actually merge the entire title with the first one? Sounds plausible and better to me.

 

[yansusustories]

So it's more like I'll just rewrite the first parts than to actually merge the entire title with the first one? Sounds plausible and better to me.

Yes, I would just make sure you introduce the characters and most important plot points that everyone needs to know. It doesn't even need to be much. Readers can usually piece quite a lot of stuff together, so painting a general view of 'that happened' is mostly enough.
If you're unsure, maybe have a look at those series where they go 'Previously on xyz' at the beginning of an episode. They often include details in the first few episodes but when they're on season 3, they'll just give the most important storyline and show you the main characters. That season 3 summary is basically what you should go for