can a sequel have a different feel

[springs]

Firstly, to state; I did want my trilogy to have a journey of, not just one person, but several. Quite personal, but action-y, easy to read.

The first book has a YA feel to it for about 75% and then there is a pretty extreme set of events which affects the main protagonist primarily, but the secondary protagonists are all caught up, either in the events, or the fall out after. But, an easy read, description flitters along, the story is quick, without massive depth until the life changing event. (there is some depth, though.)

the second book happens ten years on, and in this case there's loads more description, depth of emotion. But, they are ten years older, the life changing event is still dominating, and I think it's right it has a different feel. The story of my life now would be different than when I was a twenty year old and had no clue what it might throw at me....

Do you, when you read a sequel, expect it to be the same in terms of things like character depth, or is it okay for them to have a different feel?

(I thought, at one stage, it was that my writing had deepened, which it has, but most of the first book has been rewritten to reflect that, so I don't think it is that which is giving the different feel, it's that the books are different in terms of where the characters are/ what's happened.)

Would you accept that as a reader?

[Warren_Paul]

It's been discussed before that it's bad to change your target audience halfway through the story, but I'm not entirely convinced you are.

I wouldn't have a problem with it, as I don't read books because I expect them to be YA. I would hope that over time, the characters did get deeper and deeper, otherwise what point is there in reading a series of books following the same character?

The depth is a progression thing to me, the more you get to know the characters, the deeper they will seem. There is only so much background you can fit in one book, so I'd expect something more to develop in the later books. I don't consider it is a change in style of writing, and I very much doubt it will be such a huge difference of feel to the first book. Yes writing will get better, but it will still be written by you, so there will still be similarities to the first book.

The big issue is their age, not the depth, isn't it? Hmm, just because the protagonist is a teenager in the first book, doesn't mean it's YA - I know that's not what you want to hear. I don't know what changes you made to the first book to get that impression about it though, so maybe it is...

[springs]

To be fair, the first book wasn't written as a YA book, but the ages fit with the upper end, and the journey fits. And it was tweaked a bit to fit some submission guidelines, mostly in terms of tightening the timescale, bringing the prot. age down. (there is a second generation I can play around with in terms of keeping the 2nd YA if needed.)

I think the main thing YA about the first is the simplicity of the language. In terms of difference of feel, that's where I'm worried, mostly. And it seems a natural progression, but definitely has a different feel to it.

Any other trilogies/ series spring to mind that change their feel as they go on?

[dragomort]

The two obvious examples for me would be at least in certain ways (probably not in the ways you're thinking, but they're applicable for analysis to it, imo) Asimov's Foundation series and Rowling's Potter series. I haven't read them yet, (they mock me on the shelf with dozens of their brethren, confident in my lack of time to deal with them!) but doesn't Simmons' Hyperion/Endymion set do it, too? And iirc Card does it in the Maker series at some point.

It can be done and is something I would whole-heartedly approve of, but there's a fine line to walk in not alienating your audience in one fashion or another

[Warren_Paul]

Terry Brooks comes to mind. His first books start off quite shallow. By the time you get to Voyage of the Jerle Shannara, it's much deeper. The Genesis of Shannara books are definitely far deeper than his other books. Although I will note that to this day, I still consider his second book his best, but that's more for the sake of story than anything else. Jerle Shannara and Genesis of Shannara were brilliant.

hmm, yeah younger people are going to talk and think simpler, that's true, although I'd hardly call Tad Williams Shadowmarch series YA, even though the protagonists are teenagers, and talk like teenagers. But Tad Williams started off Shadowmarch very deep anyway, it wasn't a progression thing.

I think to a certain extent, it's something you cannot avoid. The more books you write in the series, the deeper it's going to become, because your writing is improving. Part of that improvement is the ability to write deeper scenes and it will show through. I'd be happy book two is deeper.

[springs]

@drogomort; actually Card is a really good eg, and a writer I emulate; in Ender the protoagonist was a child, by the end of his, admittedly very dodgy sequels, he's an adult and the feel changes. Now, I certainly wouldn't want to do an Ender trilogy on this, but it has echoes in terms of how a character develops from the events of the first into the later.

@WP; book one is already much deeper, but maybe needs revisited to deepen further. Brooks, I hadn't thought of. (have to admit to not having read Tad; the sheer size makes me run away... too little time, sadly.)

[David Evil Overlord]

Something to be careful of, Springs -- I read the Abhorsen trilogy by Garth Nix, and I was very disappointed when I got to the second book. In order to keep the YA feel, he jumped twenty years into the future and used the next generation of teenagers as the main characters. After reading all about the struggles of the two main protagonists to survive being hunted by the living dead, I wanted to read about their struggle to reclaim their lands from the living dead. I didn't want to read "it's all done, apart from a few isolated pockets of dead still alive, and now let's move on swiftly to the problems of Generation Next..."

[springs]

Good point, DEO; the main protagonists are still central in the second, although the second generation are throwing a few spikes. If I'm honest, I want to follow that arc, but I do worry if the market woudl allow it, if the first was tagged YA. But you're right, the buy in is the first book's characters, and I need to remember that... ty.

[Warren_Paul]

Originally Posted by springs1971

have to admit to not having read Tad; the sheer size makes me run away... too little time, sadly.

That makes me sad, he is a brilliant writer, and Shadowmarch was a great quadrilogy.

Originally Posted by David Evil Overlord

In order to keep the YA feel, he jumped twenty years into the future and used the next generation of teenagers as the main characters.

Terry Brooks does this for his first few books as well, and that is half the reason why they are shallow; we don't get to know the characters. By The Voyage of the Jerle Shannara he stopped doing this, which is great, because we got to see so deep into the characters as they lasted over several stories. I think his next book will be a generation skip though, because the main protagonist's story was well an truly finished by the end of the High Druid of Shannara story.

[Venusian Broon]

Originally Posted by springs1971

Any other trilogies/ series spring to mind that change their feel as they go on?

Your question has sparked quite a few interesting thoughts Springs,

To be honest, I'm struggling a bit to come up with any clear examples. Dune is probably the closest that does change a bit as you work through the books.

But I think in practice I find that most trilogies are really just one big story cut into three books, so style and feel just remain the same (and usually the authors energy starts to ebb in the last half of book 3 )

It does spur me to think if there could be a way to write a series of books, connected narrative wise, but each book has even a different style, never mind a different feel. Might be self-defeating, in that no-one would want to touch it!, and also may be far too difficult to really pull off.

Anyway has got me thinking.

[Warren_Paul]

Originally Posted by Venusian Broon

But I think in practice I find that most trilogies are really just one big story cut into three books, so style and feel just remain the same (and usually the authors energy starts to ebb in the last half of book 3 )

Yes, I think many trilogies aren't even published until all three are written? Which could help, because they'd go back and redraft the earlier books to suit, or as you said, they started as one big book.

The examples come from when an author tries to continue the story on by writing more books after the trilogy is complete.

[hopewrites]

you would be in fine enough company if your stroy grew with your characters, loads of series I've read have had that happen. lets pick on everyone's fav fantasy author JRRT and ask him if he should have written what was originally commissioned as a sequel to the Hobbit in the same style.
No?

Ok well then, by and large you should be ok.

Honestly I would be more inclined to keep reading a series that grows with the characters than one that stifles them to keep them in a stagnant pool of expectation. because of the way I feel I expect others to feel the same way (please dont disillusion me on this, I'd like to keep my faith in humanity as long as possible and its starting to hang by threads these days) and I would say that if you start in a YA setting (though you have said that it was upper YAish at most) than it would be better NOT WORSE if the story was told in such a way as to stretch the mind and imagination so that eventually one could graduate out of YA materiel. I was under the impression (stupid disillusionment) that YA was originally intended as a "gateway drug" to the "harder stuff" like Homer, Chaucer, Dickens and the like. That being the case (though I'm told it isnt) one would want YA that brings one up to a reading level where one can easily enjoy the classics that are everywhere alluded to.

or if i'm so far off on this that you are looking at me thinking WTF, blame it on the cold medicine and the fever dream I just woke up from where I was taking tea with Jane Austen and flirting glibly with Chaucer before my grandmother gave an address to congress on the importance of cleaning one's bathroom.

[Anne Lyle]

Originally Posted by Warren_Paul

Yes, I think many trilogies aren't even published until all three are written? Which could help, because they'd go back and redraft the earlier books to suit, or as you said, they started as one big book.

I think it depends. Many debut trilogies might have been completed before the first one is acquired by a publisher, but once you've got books out there, you don't have the leisure to write three books and then look for a contract - you have to put out a book (or more) a year to keep the fans keen.

I had one finished manuscript when I got signed, plus one rough draft that needed rewriting from scratch to match the tone and content of the first. The third book in the trilogy is still just a vague outline...

Back on topic, I think a change of tone is OK as long as it isn't so drastic as to upset readers who loved the first one. I'm thinking of Laurel K Hamilton's infamous series that turned from straightforward UF into soft porn, and lost her a bunch of readers as a result (though some kept buying in the hope that it was just a phase).

Just write what moves you, and if the first one is picked up, you and your agent/editor will have to decide if the sequel works as-is or needs a rewrite. Don't put the cart before the horse

[Montero]

Comment on simplicity or otherwise of writing style.

Philip Pullman is usually classified as YA - I wouldn't call his writing simple. Not super complex either, but doesn't leap out as the next step on from Janet and John (as an exaggerated example of simplicity for young people writing).

[Boneman]

Springs, ask yourself this: is there anything in those ten years that would add to the story? Because if not, then you're doing exactly the write (!) thing. If you wrote those ten years with: fred did this and then amber did that and then their father did the opposite, and they went on a picnic but had to be carefull, and then they learnt to fly a ship and so on and so on... you'll lose all the readers who enjoyed the first book - they'd be shouting "get on with the story!"

If anything in those ten years is relevant to the story (we don't need to see Kare being instructed in flying a ship, we automatically accept it, as soon as he steps up to the controls) then bring it in in back story, or conversations. If we've accepted the premise of your story and the characters, then a ten-year gap will (and does!) work very well. It plunges us back into the action without any potentially distracting sidelines, or unnecessary detail, and grips our attention again.