FIRTH@TL-20B.ARPA (08/09/84)
A rousing Hurrah! to Jeff Duntemann's diatribe against sequels. Yes, even "2010"; even "Foundation's Edge"; even "Gods of Riverworld"; even "Vice-Presidential Candidate of Dune"; ... -------
bnw@SDCSVAX.ARPA (06/04/85)
From: crash!bnw@SDCSVAX.ARPA
>A readership that wants a sequel to every novel. . .
There is an implication here that there is something automatically wrong
with series, trilogies, series, and so on. If a series of whatever length is
desired and enjoyed, it is because the writer has created a character, a
society or a concept that has captured the imagination of readers. If the
point of interest is not covered in detail from beginning to end, there may
very well be an interest in more. The fact that the author may have intended
this from the beginning does not change the validity of the concept. The
market will decide if the writer is correct or not.
Sometimes a series should have stopped at one. Sometimes not. I've
never heard anyone suggest that Asimov should have stopped with _Foundation_.
I'm glad that Steven Brust gave us more than one novel on the life and times
of Vladimir Taltos. (On the other hand, many people have said that Herbert
*should* have quit after _Dune_.)
/Bruce N. Wheelock/
arpanet: crash!bnw@ucsd
uucp: {ihnp4, sdcsvax, noscvax}!crash!bnwjoel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch) (06/06/85)
Speaking of sequels did Alexis Panshin ever get around to writing 'The Galactic Pantograph'? This was supposed to the last of a quartet of novels. Am I never going find out why Robert Villiers is trying to kill his brother Anthony? Is Tony going to make it to Nashua for the weddings? Arghhhh!!! When a writer sets out to write a set of novels, as opposed to a continuing series, to only exceptable excuse for not finishing it is death. And even then he should leave a plot outline with the executor of his estate. :-)
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (06/07/85)
>Sometimes a series should have stopped at one. Sometimes >not. I've never heard anyone suggest that Asimov should >have stopped with _Foundation_. Slight correction: Asimov wrote a series, all right, but it didn't start with FOUNDATION, at least not as a novel. He wrote a series of short pieces for magazines that were collected together into the three books, FOUNDATION, FOUNDATION AND EMPIRE, and SECOND FOUNDATION. He didn't even know, probably, when he went from FOUNDATION to FOUNDATION AND EMPIRE. He wouldn't have known where FOUNDATION ended so it is less likely he would have stopped there. Anybody know if it was even Asimov who did the dividing of his stories into the books. I get the impression it wasn't Asimov from things he has said at conventions and in print. I know he says that he did not like the title I, ROBOT when it was chosen for the book of his robot stories. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (06/09/85)
> From: crash!bnw@SDCSVAX.ARPA > > >A readership that wants a sequel to every novel. . . > > There is an implication here that there is something automatically wrong > with series, trilogies, series, and so on. If a series of whatever length is > desired and enjoyed, it is because the writer has created a character, a > society or a concept that has captured the imagination of readers. If the > point of interest is not covered in detail from beginning to end, there may > very well be an interest in more. The fact that the author may have intended > this from the beginning does not change the validity of the concept. The > market will decide if the writer is correct or not. I used to be a hot critic of sequels. Mainly because I felt that they destroyed the meaning of the original books that they are trying to mimic. I still feel this (though not for EVERY sequel), but I don't criticise the authors anymore. When I went to the last Boskone, I went to a panel where they discussed sequels and there merit. I came out with one conclusion. That is, if I were an author of a successful book and the publisher came and offered me a nice advance on a sequel, I would find it hard to refuse them. Blame the authors for being weak in not refusing, but consider first what you would do in this situation. You have to get bread on the table somehow. > Sometimes a series should have stopped at one. Sometimes not. I've > never heard anyone suggest that Asimov should have stopped with _Foundation_. Actually, the first three Foundation books are an anthology of short stories written by Asimov several years ago. I don't think I would technicaly call the stories sequels. However, _Foundations_Edge_ is most definately a sequel. > I'm glad that Steven Brust gave us more than one novel on the life and times > of Vladimir Taltos. (On the other hand, many people have said that Herbert > *should* have quit after _Dune_.) Same here. > /Bruce N. Wheelock/ > arpanet: crash!bnw@ucsd > uucp: {ihnp4, sdcsvax, noscvax}!crash!bnw Chris Andersen
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (06/11/85)
[...] Saying sequels are automatically bad is silly...remember that Lord of the Rings is a sequel to the Hobbit (and I refuse to listen to anyone who says the Hobbit is superior, much as it's a nice story). There's an interesting article in the latest issue of Discover about why sequels are often let-downs (amongst other things). It's due to a statistical principle called "Regression toward the mean" which says that average results happen more often than extreme results (either good or bad), so any extreme result is usually followed by an average result. This means that if an author writes a very good book, it is more likely to be followed by a less good book, simply because the average happens more often. Of course, one author's average may be a good deal better than another author's average, but almost no one stays at the peak consistently (sad to say, for example, that Sword of the Lictor is noticeably weaker in my opinion than the other books of the New Sun, even though the four books taken together blow most of the rest of the field out of the water). By the way, the same principle (regression of the mean) has a very interesting effect in education. We know (from many many experiments) that praise and positive reinforcement are better teaching methods in the long run than punishment and negative reinforcement. However, the opposite is frequently perceived to be true by teachers. When a student does something very good, he/she will be praised; but the next time, the student probably won't be as good, simply because average performances usually follow extreme performances. On the other hand, when a student does something really dumb, he/she will probably be punished; and the next time, the student's performance will probably not be as bad, because again, average performances usually follow the extreme. From the teacher's point of view then, the punishment produced a better performance while the praise was followed by a less good performance. The teacher is therefore inclined to believe that punishment is more effective in producing results. The article in Discover is full of all kinds of nifty things like this: faulty reasoning that assumes statistical effects are due to other causes. Worthwhile reading for anyone in a decision-making position. Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
shp@crystal.UUCP (06/14/85)
> [...] > > Saying sequels are automatically bad is silly...remember that > Lord of the Rings is a sequel to the Hobbit (and I refuse to > listen to anyone who says the Hobbit is superior, much as it's > a nice story). "The Lord of the Rings" isn't a sequel to "The Hobbit." Not really, anyway. Kind of like chapter two isn't really a sequel to chapter one, nor is chapter one really a sequel to the preface. Go back and re-read your Tolkien, if you do not understand. Not that this is really relevent; I just didn't want to let it pass as it stands (your point and deleted argument are QUITE valid). =shp
chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (06/18/85)
> > [...] > > > > Saying sequels are automatically bad is silly...remember that > > Lord of the Rings is a sequel to the Hobbit (and I refuse to > > listen to anyone who says the Hobbit is superior, much as it's > > a nice story). > > "The Lord of the Rings" isn't a sequel to "The Hobbit." Not really, > anyway. Kind of like chapter two isn't really a sequel to chapter one, nor > is chapter one really a sequel to the preface. Go back and re-read your > Tolkien, if you do not understand. > Have you ever read Tolkien's Biography. It says there that Tolkien wrote LOTR on the request of the publisher who wanted more stories about hobbits. Tolkien never intended LOTR to be the premiere work on Middle-Earth. That honor was to go to The Silmarillian. Chris Andersen
patrick@ISM780.UUCP (06/20/85)
Call it greed....