24.8.09

what is the deal?

Of course all of you know that I am the queen of long-windedness but I am starting to have beef with other long-windeders like myself. I just finished a book called The Girl Who Could Fly and it was a cute, easy read that I enjoyed. One thing I did NOT enjoy however was the inevitability of a sequel. I am just so sick of every author and their dog thinking that they have to write a book that will have a sequel! Why?! Why can't anyone tell a story that only lasts for one book and then end it? It wasn't always this way. Think of the classics. They are one book for the most part and then...done.

Although this really bothers me there are a few exceptions. I do believe the Harry Potter series should have been a series. It worked well with Harry getting older and moving year after year through Hogwarts and more adventures. I would, however, like to point out something annoying about Harry Potter. Did any of you wonder why each book got thicker and thicker? Maybe you thought, "it's because there is so much story to tell now that there is so much going on," or something like that. I personally believe it's because once the series is successful the author gains "free reign" from editors and publishers. No one is cutting and slicing and picking through the book because they know all of the fans are lining up to buy the next book in the series anyway. The editors get lazy and we end up reading a book that requires vice grips to keep open it's so thick. I find this annoying!

Even though I think Harry Potter worked as a series, I don't believe that Twilight really needed to be a series. GASP! I know, I know. Don't get me wrong I am a huge, HUGE fan but it would have been just as satisfying to me if she could have tied it all up in the first book and then been done. Think of how long the fourth book dragged out. Remember Jacob telling the story for half the book and how completely un-necessary that seemed? Or how about how long the final "battle" went on with the Volturi? Seriously? Wasn't that just a little bit boring to you? The same stands for me and The Host, The Hunger Games, Confessions of a Shopaholic and others. There do not need to be sequels for every stinkin' novel. It's greedy and obnoxious!

I don't know if it's mostly annoying because I have to buy/borrow more books or because I just want to have a story told and have that be the end of it. Either way, the bottom line is that it's annoying.

Am I the only one this bothers? How do you feel about it?

8 comments:

Heather B said...

It only bothers me when I finish the book, and I don't have the next book right there. I am SO impatient. I actually like having sequels from a good writer, because it seems like good books are hard to come by these days. I just read the most thought provoking (and slightly disturbing) book last week, called the Prince of Tides. Lots of F words. But I couldn't put it down. No sequel there. Try it if you want!

Jana said...

That is funny because I actually do agree. I loved reading the twilight books, but now that I have read them more than once, I really think the first one was the only one I really loved. Unfortunately (for our pocketbooks) we are already so vested in the characters that we read any and all sequels no matter how rediculous.
My friend who read the first two told me she was too busy to read the last two, so she wanted me to just tell her what happened. That way, she wouldn't have to wait for the movies to come out. I was actually a little embarrassed to say it all out loud, because it was so long winded and never ending.

Jill said...

I love your rants. Somehow I feel that I've just gotten something off my chest just by reading them. So thank you for sparing me the effort of ranting myself. (And yes, I do get a little irritated when people try to over capitalize on anything moderately successful...that goes for movies and spin-off T.V. shows, too.)

Jene and Megan said...

I agree on the Twilight thing. I am a big fan of it. I read the first book and was excited for the second book but after reading it I kept asking, "How does she stretch this out? Is there really enough for 2 more books??"
Anyway, and Harry Potter is awesome! haha..I'm a Harry Potter nerd.
P.S. I think the best "book to movie" movies are the ones that only have one book to follow because they don't have to cut out huge chunks from the book.

Bridget said...

I have mixed feelings on this issue. One the one hand, it's great to be able to count on another book that I will (probably) love. On the other hand - you are SO right. Why all the sequels!! I find that I don't mind it so much if the author is up front about it ahead of time. But I was caught off guard with The Hunger Games and it made me mad.

Amy said...

That is why I hate watching TV shows that don't ever end. I miss just watching funny shows like friends that you can just watch and laugh at. It seems like everything these days you have to watch or read from the beginning to know what is going on. Its annoying and frustrating. I hate waiting for sequels of anything TV, Books, Movies. Its annoying. I loose the anticipation and forget why I was so excited to continue on. SO I agree.

I hated the last twilight book, and it seemed like a complete waste of time and it made me hate the series for the most part.

Kory said...

Don't read books, Just watch the movies, and then the investment is minimal. Then it doesn't matter, because the most you're going to waste is 2 hours. Unless it's Harry Potter, then it's 3. To be continued...

Sharisa at Outstanding Occasions said...

It just bothers me because, seriously, I don't know who has time to sit down and read more than one book! I am lucky if I find time to read one or two books a year and so I really need it to be the complete story ya know?