Sequels or extra chapters?

[Middleson]

Just curious reader with question for authors or writers.
I have read lots of stories on this site and i have to say there are some excellent stories across the various categories. Now as authors i assume you go into the story with a pre determined path for your characters.

What determines or changes your mind about adding a sequel? Is it you feel its unfinished? Is it fans feed back and basically them begging you to continue? Have you ever been persuaded to change your mind?

Cause i have to say i have come across plenty of stories ive read and i find myself posting ratings and public comments or at times private feed back hoping for continuations.

On a side note i recently read a story where the author at end of story puts note" this story is fantasy don't get attached to characters or story"
One commenter said what i was thinking. Thats utterly ridiculous cause as authors if you have done your job as a writer much like a good movie you leave the fan thinking of your story long after they have finished reading it and it should be probably one of the highest compliments a reader can pay you by asking for more from you.

Before it stated im well aware the stories are free and you all have lives. But doesnt change the fact there is some excellent talent on here writing and it does go appreciated what you guys offer for free to the readers with the exception of some rude dick heads who are only happy when pissing on someones parade..

 

[rescatooor]

I have written a sequel to one story, and I may write sequels for others. I don't do chaptered stories because I want to put it out there when it's done. Chapters for me would lead to inconsistancies.

Also, with sequels I do think that a story arch is finished. If someone doesn't want to read the first part it's no problem. That shouldn't keep you from enjoying the second story.

I don't mind it when people ask for sequels. Doesn't mean I will write one. Maybe I do because I can milk out a good new story from the same characters. But if I think another setting with other characters would help deliver a story better, I will always pick that instead.

 

[KeithD]

My muse decides whether I want to extend a story or character after I'd thought it was finished. Sometimes a commenter will jog my muse. Sometimes the muse does it's own thing. I usually just let my muse decide where I'll go with anything. This has, from time to time, led me into follow-up series reaching a million words or more and multiple works.

 

[SimonDoom]

I am appreciative of readers who leave nice comments (or even critical ones, if the criticism is sound) and I do not take them for granted. When someone writes that they'd like to see the story continued in a sequel, I take it as a high compliment.

I would never add a line at the end of my story that tells readers not to get attached, because getting attached to a character is part of the pleasure of reading a story. I feel like characters in well-loved stories are almost like old friends who are part of my life.

All that being said, my policy is not to write a sequel in response to reader requests to do so. I don't write sequels, generally, unless I feel like there's a good artistic reason to do so, unless I planned to do so before I began the first story, and unless I feel like there's something new to say in the sequel. I don't want to repeat myself just because readers want me to.

I should add that one more reason I don't do sequels is I have a huge backload of unfinished stories, and I'd much rather finish and publish an unfinished wholly new story than write a sequel. It's not a hard and fast rule, but it's my general approach.

 

[windar]

I'm new to this site, but on the sites where I regularly post stories, the answer is "Hell, yes!". If a story is very successful, I'm happy to do a sequel or several. Sometimes they are requested explicitly by readers, sometimes it's more implicit.

In at least a few cases, some of the sequels have exceeded the original, either in reader reaction, my own estimation, or both.

I've never added to an existing story. Since the sites I work on make ebooks once the story is done that would require a second edition and I've never been motivated to do that.

If anyone gives you a hard time about a sequel, you can point out that about of 80% of movies these days are sequels and a good fraction of TV as well. So you're in good company.

 

[rescatooor]

If anyone gives you a hard time about a sequel, you can point out that about of 80% of movies these days are sequels and a good fraction of TV as well. So you're in good company.

I do not think this is a very good argument. Just because a practice is popular does not mean it results in good media. While I do not think much of the Oscars, I think it says something that very few of the nominations, and even fewer winners, are sequels.

Same is true of most film festivals. They do not celebrate a film's profitability. Why would they? It would just mean that the best marketing wins. And what is better marketing but a successful original film with popular characters. It will sell, even if it the sequel is a shadow of the original.

 

[SimonDoom]

If anyone gives you a hard time about a sequel, you can point out that about of 80% of movies these days are sequels and a good fraction of TV as well. So you're in good company.

Does anybody give anybody a hard time about writing a sequel at Literotica? Not that I know of. It's not my customary practice to write sequels, but if you want to do it, do it. If as an author you enjoy knowing that you are making readers happy by writing sequels, then by all means do it, guilt-free.

 

[gunhilltrain]

I am appreciative of readers who leave nice comments (or even critical ones, if the criticism is sound) and I do not take them for granted. When someone writes that they'd like to see the story continued in a sequel, I take it as a high compliment.

I would never add a line at the end of my story that tells readers not to get attached, because getting attached to a character is part of the pleasure of reading a story. I feel like characters in well-loved stories are almost like old friends who are part of my life.

All that being said, my policy is not to write a sequel in response to reader requests to do so. I don't write sequels, generally, unless I feel like there's a good artistic reason to do so, unless I planned to do so before I began the first story, and unless I feel like there's something new to say in the sequel. I don't want to repeat myself just because readers want me to.

I should add that one more reason I don't do sequels is I have a huge backload of unfinished stories, and I'd much rather finish and publish an unfinished wholly new story than write a sequel. It's not a hard and fast rule, but it's my general approach.

My take on this is that adding sequels can be done as ideas for one appear; thus they can be somewhat more informal and ad hoc than in a full series. They can be more open-ended, in other words.

Reaching a conclusion in a series, I've found, can be challenging. If one has a couple meeting at the beginning of a series (not the only way it can be done, for sure) then there are certain ways it can go. Do they eventually break-up or do they stay together? The how and why of the break-up have more dramatic possibilities, but it can be somewhat downbeat if the couple showed some promise in the beginning.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Just curious reader with question for authors or writers.
I have read lots of stories on this site and i have to say there are some excellent stories across the various categories. Now as authors i assume you go into the story with a pre determined path for your characters.

What determines or changes your mind about adding a sequel? Is it you feel its unfinished? Is it fans feed back and basically them begging you to continue? Have you ever been persuaded to change your mind?

When I was a kid, I read a fantasy series where the hero was a farm boy and his bride-to-be was a spoiled princess who looked down her nose at him. They grew, they worked through their shit, by the end of the series they'd reached a point where I could see them having a functional marriage.

And then the authors wrote a sequel series, and it felt like they'd just hit reset on that character growth so they could write the same stage of the relationship all over again, rather than writing the next stage of that relationship.

When readers ask for a sequel, I think a lot of them are really saying "tell me that story again". But I don't want to hit that reset button; I think that undermines what I've already written. I need to have some idea of where I want to go next with that story, and if I had that idea I'd probably be working on it already. And there'd be no guarantee that the readers who asked for a sequel would enjoy it, because it's not going to be the same story.

Some of those requests... apologies to the old-timers who've heard me say this several times before, but I wrote one story where the protagonist dies at the end, "found frozen in a glacier 70 years later" level of dead, and I still got sequel requests. What can I do with that?

(Still not as bad as the one who yelled at me because I didn't understand my own characters and Sarah ended up with the wrong person and I needed to write another chapter to fix it. Yeah nah.)

What changes my mind about writing a sequel is mostly "having a good idea for a sequel", and that's something anonymous readers are unlikely to be able to supply. If I already had an idea but was unsure whether anybody wanted it, feedback might encourage me to think there's an audience for it, but that's about it.

The only time I've changed my plans in response to feedback was my first story here. I posted what was meant to be a one-shot, somebody asked for a sequel, and I thought it would be interesting to follow up the consequences of that brief encounter. That was good luck: I'd written a short story that also happened to work as the opening chapter to a novel-length piece. But most of my short stories wouldn't work that way, and I've never tried to repeat it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

If anyone gives you a hard time about a sequel, you can point out that about of 80% of movies these days are sequels and a good fraction of TV as well. So you're in good company.

Sequels, or remakes, or adaptations of things that were already successful. But I think this says more about the timidity of Hollywood than about the intrinsic merits of sequels. We're not film execs who risk being fired if we take a gamble on an unknown.

 

[windar]

Some of those requests... apologies to the old-timers who've heard me say this several times before, but I wrote one story where the protagonist dies at the end, "found frozen in a glacier 70 years later" level of dead, and I still got sequel requests. What can I do with that?

A prequel. Back in time before the original story. That can work depending on the circumstances.

 

[LAHomedog]

Just to clarify terms: In my world a "sequel" is when you have told a story, the story is completed, and now you are going to tell another story -- completely different -- with the same characters.

Multiple parts is different. I have written many stories with multiple chapters or parts. (Parts is probably a better term since I use chapters within my stories all of the time.) A continuation of the same story.

A few were planned that way, but usually the story that my characters are telling dictates the extra ones.

I am currently writing my first sequel. It is for my Downtown Tony Brown character who I conceived for the Mickey Spillane event. The character and the story were always conceived like a detective series and I'm planning on writing a number of DTB "books."

 

[Thefireflies]

I’ve written one series when I returned to writing, but generally I’m not a fan of them. Earlier this year I published a stand-alone sequel to an earlier story. I called it a companion piece because it didn’t follow directly on from the events of the first story, and was simply another story in the lives of the characters from the first story. I just published two closely related stories where the events of the second story follows the events of the first story. I wrote them together, one after the other, but kept them as separate stories where each can be read on their own. This was a decision I made early on, partly because of my personal aversion to series.

 

[windar]

I am currently writing my first sequel. It is for my Downtown Tony Brown character who I conceived for the Mickey Spillane event. The character and the story were always conceived like a detective series and I'm planning on writing a number of DTB "books."

Detective stories almost always have sequels. It's hard to think of very many that don't. There's always another crime being committed somewhere. I have a series (not on this site) starring Stan Goldman of the NYPD and his partner, the beautiful but kinky Barbara Moore.

I may post one here sometime if people are well behaved. Or if you PM me, I'll send you links...

 

[Middleson]

I may have used the wrong term when i said sequel. What i am referring to is when a story is written but left without a definitive conclusion for the characters paths or interactions. Sort of left up in the air. So when i say sequel i am referring to fans asking authors to pick up where story was left off even with small time jump to give readers an idea what happens into the future. So i guess an epilog!

Have you guys as authors i guess at any point taken suggestions in direction , plot, or ideas from readers you hadn't considered and decide to roll with it?
I know some authors treat their stories or characters like children and therfore dont want outside influences.

But i often read public comments on stories and honestly some of the suggestions are good and fit the story perfectly.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Detective stories almost always have sequels. It's hard to think of very many that don't. There's always another crime being committed somewhere.

Detective stories are sequel-friendly because the genre doesn't require the detective to change. Somebody walks into Sherlock Holmes' office with a case, he does his thing, solves the crime, and then goes home to his violin and his cocaine until next time. He's pretty much the same person at the end of the last story as he was in the first, just a bit older.

It's harder to sustain that with stories where the characters grow and change. Romance usually resolves the problem by switching protagonists: each book will focus on a different member of the family, and so on.

 

[PennameWombat]

I may have used the wrong term when i said sequel. What i am referring to is when a story is written but left without a definitive conclusion for the characters paths or interactions. Sort of left up in the air. So when i say sequel i am referring to fans asking authors to pick up where story was left off even with small time jump to give readers an idea what happens into the future. So i guess an epilog!

Have you guys as authors i guess at any point taken suggestions in direction , plot, or ideas from readers you hadn't considered and decide to roll with it?
I know some authors treat their stories or characters like children and therfore dont want outside influences.

But i often read public comments on stories and honestly some of the suggestions are good and fit the story perfectly.

All of my stories are open-ended in that none have finished with the heat death of the Universe, when entropy has achieved its total victory and chemical reactions have dwindled to nothing and time’s arrow is therefore meaningless. So there is always the possibility of ‘tomorrow’ in my stories but I want there to be completion of whatever the story was about.

But, I mostly try to avoid ‘cliffhangers.’ I view my stories as ‘slices’ of time in the lives of my characters. I have a number of ‘serials’ which follow a core cast of characters through different adventures, but written to be read in isolation if you want, as well as some chaptered works (read from chapter 01). For these I have long arcs in mind.

I do have stories that I write totally as one-offs. Those are ideas that hit me and I have no broad arc in mind. As a rule, I don’t plan to revisit these. I can’t say I’ve had significant requests to revisit those, a few here and there, but unless I have an idea in mind I won’t do it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I may have used the wrong term when i said sequel. What i am referring to is when a story is written but left without a definitive conclusion for the characters paths or interactions. Sort of left up in the air. So when i say sequel i am referring to fans asking authors to pick up where story was left off even with small time jump to give readers an idea what happens into the future. So i guess an epilog!

Have you guys as authors i guess at any point taken suggestions in direction , plot, or ideas from readers you hadn't considered and decide to roll with it?

When I'm writing, I get feedback from a few beta readers who are familiar with my work and have a feel for what I'm trying to do with it. I will often take their suggestions on board. Once it's posted, though, I'm very unlikely to take suggestions from commenters, though sometimes they'll suggest something I was already planning to do.

...Oh, there was one reader who groaned at a character's puns, so I made a thing of putting a pun in every chapter from then on. But that's sort of an anti-suggestion.

I know some authors treat their stories or characters like children and therfore dont want outside influences.

But i often read public comments on stories and honestly some of the suggestions are good and fit the story perfectly.

What fits the story perfectly, from another reader's perspective, may not be what fits from the author's perspective.

I've had times where readers have commented "these two should get together and live happily ever after", and to somebody who only sees what I've posted to Literotica, that might look like a plausible outcome. But what they see on the page is only the tip of the iceberg. In my head, one of those characters is aromantic, although she hasn't worked it out yet; her HEA involves living alone with a telescope and maybe some pets. To write a romantic ending I'd need to completely trash my mental model of that character and start over. Somebody else who's read the story to date without seeing her as aro might be able to write that ending easier than I could.

It's a tip-of-the-iceberg thing.

 

[windar]

I may have used the wrong term when i said sequel. What i am referring to is when a story is written but left without a definitive conclusion for the characters paths or interactions. Sort of left up in the air. So when i say sequel i am referring to fans asking authors to pick up where story was left off even with small time jump to give readers an idea what happens into the future. So i guess an epilog!

Have you guys as authors i guess at any point taken suggestions in direction , plot, or ideas from readers you hadn't considered and decide to roll with it?
I know some authors treat their stories or characters like children and therfore dont want outside influences.

But i often read public comments on stories and honestly some of the suggestions are good and fit the story perfectly.

I've done a couple of stories that were requests, but they weren't linked to previous stories I had done. I don't see any reason not to consider an idea from any source.

 

[LAHomedog]

Detective stories are sequel-friendly because the genre doesn't require the detective to change. Somebody walks into Sherlock Holmes' office with a case, he does his thing, solves the crime, and then goes home to his violin and his cocaine until next time. He's pretty much the same person at the end of the last story as he was in the first, just a bit older.

It's harder to sustain that with stories where the characters grow and change. Romance usually resolves the problem by switching protagonists: each book will focus on a different member of the family, and so on.

Yes, I think there are really three genres like that: Cops/detectives. New crime or case, new storiy; Lawyers, same reason and doctors. Everytime a doctor opens up the door to an exam room, hospital room, or curtain in an ER, it is a new story.

 

[KeithD]

In my Clint Folsom stories, the NYPD detective did change over time--not radically, but enough for me to take him off the stage. I don't think there's any impediment to a detective to change, even radically, over a series.

 

[Bramblethorn]

In my Clint Folsom stories, the NYPD detective did change over time--not radically, but enough for me to take him off the stage. I don't think there's any impediment to a detective to change, even radically, over a series.

I agree. Detectives don't have to be static. But the genre is friendly to authors who do want to write a static character, or one who only changes very gradually.

Yes, I think there are really three genres like that: Cops/detectives. New crime or case, new storiy; Lawyers, same reason and doctors. Everytime a doctor opens up the door to an exam room, hospital room, or curtain in an ER, it is a new story.

Yes, and also with some sitcoms: you have a bunch of characters who have established relationships and personalities, something new happens, they react to that, and then by the end of the episode the new thing goes away and life's back to normal.

 

[LAHomedog]

I agree. Detectives don't have to be static. But the genre is friendly to authors who do want to write a static character, or one who only changes very gradually.



Yes, and also with some sitcoms: you have a bunch of characters who have established relationships and personalities, something new happens, they react to that, and then by the end of the episode the new thing goes away and life's back to normal.

Sorry, I am not looking to pick a fight with you, but what you are describing is episodic television. No different than a soap opera. Yes, the next episode has a different situation, a different conflict, but it's still always the same situation. That's why they are "sitcoms."

As compared to "ER" where, yes, you are following a group of doctors and healthcare workers, but they bounce from case to case. Each case is new.

These meets in the middle in the sitcom "Beeker" starring Ted Danson. It was created by my friend Dave Hackel and the reason why he created it was because every time Beeker opened up the exam room door, it became a new situation for comedy.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Sorry, I am not looking to pick a fight with you, but what you are describing is episodic television. No different than a soap opera. Yes, the next episode has a different situation, a different conflict, but it's still always the same situation. That's why they are "sitcoms."

Soapies and sitcoms are both episodic, but I'd argue they're very different in terms of story structure.

In a sitcom structure, it's common that things change but then go back to the way they were at the start of the episode. Somebody who watched the first season of The Simpsons back in 1989 and then took a thirty-year break from the series could have tuned back in in 2019, and almost everything would have been instantly recognisable. Some minor aspects of the Simpsons' world have undergone lasting change but mostly the story of an episode is "something changes, and then it changes back", something they've occasionally lampshaded - like the time the family's cat dies, and they replace it with an identical cat with the same name.

Soapies are a bit more willing to make lasting changes.

As compared to "ER" where, yes, you are following a group of doctors and healthcare workers, but they bounce from case to case. Each case is new.

ER was a bit of both - in terms of structure, that is, not that it was trying to be a comedy.

Each episode had its own cases, and usually they'd be resolved within that episode. But the major characters had their own multi-episode stories, and they did undergo lasting changes. In season 1 the main characters were Greene, Ross, Lewis, Carter, and Benton; by the end of season 12 I think all of them were gone from the story, aside from occasional flashbacks and reunions. Greene, originally the main character, was killed off halfway through the series.

My partner watched it more than I did. I'd come back now and then, and she'd need to catch me up on who was in the show now and what had changed since last time. That's not an issue I've ever had with something like The Simpsons. That's the kind of difference I'm talking about.

 

[LAHomedog]

I'm going to embed my comments below.

Soapies and sitcoms are both episodic, but I'd argue they're very different in terms of story structure.

In a sitcom structure, it's common that things change but then go back to the way they were at the start of the episode. Somebody who watched the first season of The Simpsons back in 1989 and then took a thirty-year break from the series could have tuned back in in 2019, and almost everything would have been instantly recognisable. Some minor aspects of the Simpsons' world have undergone lasting change but mostly the story of an episode is "something changes, and then it changes back", something they've occasionally lampshaded - like the time the family's cat dies, and they replace it with an identical cat with the same name.

I don't know your background. You seem knowledgeable. I have worked in network and syndicated television for 45 years. Yes, I understand that the story structure of a soap and a sitcom are different. I started my career on "Days of our Lives" and worked on many of the popular sitcoms you have watched over the years from "Welcome Back Kotter" to "Webster." I understand the differences. (And I know most of the producers of "The Simpsons.")

And yes, you are right about a sitcom staying the same. That is why they are called situational comedies. Which was my point from the very beginning.

Soapies are a bit more willing to make lasting changes.

That is a yes and a no. It depends upon if you are talking a daytime soap or a primetime soap. It's all about where does the story conflict come from. In a daytime soap, the story conflicts are internal. They come from with the on going characters. In primetime, the conflict comes from the outside. So in daytime, when the writers have run out of conflicts within the existing characters or storylines, they have to mix it up and new characters and stories come in.



ER was a bit of both - in terms of structure, that is, not that it was trying to be a comedy.

Each episode had its own cases, and usually they'd be resolved within that episode. But the major characters had their own multi-episode stories, and they did undergo lasting changes. In season 1 the main characters were Greene, Ross, Lewis, Carter, and Benton; by the end of season 12 I think all of them were gone from the story, aside from occasional flashbacks and reunions. Greene, originally the main character, was killed off halfway through the series.


Well, John Wells and I went to grad school together and I've know him for 40+ years. You are again, semi-correct. Most of the changes in cast for "ER" occurred because the actors became big stars and there were different opportunities presented. And you are repeating my point about "ER." Every episode had new case that were presented in that episode and then resolved. I believe that is exactly what I was talking about. Dr. Greene left the series when he did because Anthony Edwards would not renew his contract and asked out of the series. So they wrote him out.

Ross, as you called him, was played by George Clooney. I wonder what happened to him? Sherry Springfield, Dr. Lewis also moved on. Noah Wyle, Dr. Carter stayed on to become the star of the show. Etc., etc. etc. Stars move on. They get bored. They feel handcuffed. The want to do other things. Erick La Salle, Dr. Benton wanted to get behind the camera and become a director so he quit. There is a reason is called show "business."

My partner watched it more than I did. I'd come back now and then, and she'd need to catch me up on who was in the show now and what had changed since last time. That's not an issue I've ever had with something like The Simpsons. That's the kind of difference I'm talking about.