I've recently read the third volumes in two trilogies. Although years have passed -- in one case, many years -- since I read the respective second books, I've had no trouble following the stories, thanks to the authors' skillful writing. Each catches up readers as much as necessary without resorting to a prefatory "the story so far" synopsis. Tolkien does that in the second and third volumes of LORD OF THE RINGS, but he's Tolkien! Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if the publisher suggested those introductions. LOTR of course, was composed as one continuous novel, divided into three books only for publishing convenience (thus inventing the fantasy trilogy as we know it). Although the synopses are useful for refreshing a reader's memory of the earlier installments, they wouldn't help anyone accidentally picking up a later book first. I know, because I tried to read the middle volume, THE TWO TOWERS, with no knowledge of the first one and soon got bored and lost despite the synopsis. (It didn't help that, as I felt when I eventually read the whole epic in proper order, the first half of THE TWO TOWERS is the least interesting section -- aside from some cool features such as the Ents.)
I don't share the opinion that a reader should always be able to pick up a later book in a series without reading the earlier ones and still understand the plot and characters. If a series (whether trilogy or longer) is one continuous story, the fact that it needs to be read as such isn't a downcheck. Gray areas exist, of course. Mystery series that include the detective's character growth and relationship developments can often be read out of order, although following the chronology of the protagonist's personal life will enrich the reading experience. For instance, J. D. Robb's "In Death" futuristic police procedurals.
The original books of the two trilogies referred to above didn't start out looking like series openers. In each case, the first installment read like a stand-alone. It seems probable that the authors only later decided on sequels to extend and expand the stories. The concluding volumes in question are THE GATES OF MIDNIGHT, by Helene Wecker, following THE GOLEM AND THE JINNI and THE HIDDEN PALACE; and OTHER WORLDS THAN THESE, by Stephen King and the late Peter Straub, concluding the character arc of Jack Sawyer from their earlier collaborations, THE TALISMAN and BLACK HOUSE. In each case, one really needs an acquaintance with the earlier books to enjoy the third and final ones. However, you don't need a detailed memory of events in the middle installments to appreciate the final ones, for the respective authors expertly weave in the necessary backstory information little by little. Characters' memories of important past events rise to the surfaces of the narratives in smooth, plausible ways rather than appearing forced. King also uses the device of a memoir the widowed Jack Sawyer wrote for the benefit of his wife during their marriage, but he rereads selected passages in small doses at plausible moments to jolt his own memory along with the audience's. As for the "Dark Tower" Mid-World setting of the novel, familiarity with the Dark Tower saga isn't absolutely necessary, but readers of OTHER WORLDS THAN THESE who haven't read any of the former books would miss interesting resonances.
Another sort-of sequel I've just read works a bit differently. MAZYWOOD, by Tananarive Due, includes two timelines, the present and the silent film era through Hollywood's golden age, which function as sequel and prequel to a pair of Due's previously published stories, "Incident at Bear Creek Lodge" and "Return to Bear Creek Lodge." To understand and appreciate MAZYWOOD, we needn't have read those two pieces, although knowing about them would enhance the reader's enjoyment. They take place during the childhood of the present-day protagonist, grandson of actress Mazelle Washington, protagonist of the historical timeline. His brief memory-flashbacks to the traumatic events of the two short stories tell us all we need to know. Readers won't feel they're missing a thing.
Opinions? As a reader, how much backstory do you require for appreciation of a sequel if you're unfamiliar with the previous book(s)? Or would you simply not pick it up without reading the prior material first?
Margaret L. Carter
Please explore love among the monsters at Carter's Crypt.<.p>
Posts
