So I’m at the Berlin Peck Memorial Library ongoing book sale, scouring the hardcover fiction section for treasures. And on the shelf under the L’s is Rae Lawrence’s Jacqueline Susann’s Shadow of the Dolls in pristine condition for $1.00. And I snatched it off the shelf and raced over to add it to the towering stack of treasure right on top of Stephen King and Peter Straub’s Black House. And it wasn’t until I was stuck in traffic on the way home I wondered why I bought those things. And realized it was only because they were sequels to books I truly adored.

The question I really should have asked myself standing in the hardcover fiction section is this. Are sequels necessary?

I can remember too many books that seemed to be nothing more than money grabs from a deceased author’s estate (Rae Lawrence’s Jacqueline Susann’s Shadow of the Dolls, Alexandra Ripley’s Scarlett, the V.C. Andrews ghostwritten series, etc). Now I fully admit to being one of those people who bought into the hype back in 1991 and begged my parents to buy Scarlett for my nineteenth birthday even though I knew they had already bought me Stephen King’s Needful Things. And I doubt my parents had even left campus before I was curled up on my bed tearing into Scarlett. Yes, I had a brand new Stephen King novel and decided Scarlett was the must read. But by the time Scarlett hits Ireland I was wondering if I had wasted my parents hard earned money. And was certain I had when I finished Scarlett at 1 am and went to sleep.

Perhaps the reading public felt the same way because I can’t seem to go to a book sale or visit the book section at Savers without seeing at least one copy of Scarlett lurking. Need a book or two to raise your computer monitor? For some crazy craft project like the book pumpkin atrocity I saw displayed at a library this week? Scarlett or any of the above will do just nicely.

And what about sequels that are amazing in theory, because your favorite author is revisiting Character X or Universe 123 and “ZOMG how can I get my hands on this” and the utter letdown when you start reading and you wonder why you were so excited in the first place (I’m looking at you MaddAddam). I’ve read Stephen King’s The Talisman so many times I could have flipped over to the Territories myself but the followup Black House lost me before Tyler Marshall got taken. Buying my own copy at the library sale? I’m only going to revisit Black House due to one of my patented Gwen’s Crazy Literary Theories. But for every Black House and MaddAddam, there are sequels so good you keep re-reading them over and over.

I think there are some books which need sequels. These are the books that leave you asking questions when you close the covers. Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake is an excellent example. Finishing it for the first time, I could not wait to plunge back in that world and it seemed an eternity until The Year of the Flood was in my hands and some of my questions could be answered. Another type of book that demands a sequel? The ongoing series which reveals one more part of an expanded universe with each new book. Sure I could read just one of Lauren Willig’s Napoleonic-era spy books since the spy story is usually girl becomes part of spy plot/has amazing sex/marries the hunk but the modern story being spooned out in each book keeps me coming back for more.

Other books? Well, a book that wraps up a theme or story completely doesn’t need a sequel. I’ve never been tempted to reads the bazillions of Jane Austen “sequels” that spring up like mushrooms (I’m looking at you Pride and Prejudice sequels) cluttering the new fiction shelves at the library because Jane Austen has summed up those characters in their little worlds enough that I’m perfectly content leaving Lizzie and Darcy to their unseen future. As much as I puzzle over Barbara Vine’s A Dark-Adapted Eye, changing my mind over who is Jamie’s mother with each reading, I would recoil in horror if Ruth Rendell put on her Barbara Vine hat and cranked out a sequel. The little world of Vera and Eden ending with their deaths is self-contained.

Another point to consider is this. Is your character fascinating enough to warrant another entire book? Take a character like Helen Fielding’s Bridget Jones. Her bumbling adventures and quirky little diary of her trials and tribulations was great fun in Bridget Jones’s Diary. And then along came Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason. Our Bridget wasn’t as charming and the story felt forced and flat. I wanted to keep in touch with Bridget but more “friends on Facebook” versus the full book treatment. Maybe Wendy Holden has the best solution. Her first book, Simply Divine, introduces Champagne D’Vyne, the IT girl with the tits who goes through more men than Blacklight goes through Kleenex pocket packs during an allergy flare-up. Champagne is rather a cartoon but she does capture your attention. She pops up in later books wrecking havoc on rock stars and A list movie actors and just when you’re sick of seeing her (i.e. Gossip Hound), Wendy Holden is clever enough to stop using Champagne as a supporting villian/plot twist in each book. The next time we here about Ms D’Vyne is look quick or you’ll miss it  gossip item and then nothing more is seen.

Will I give up reading sequels? No. Because there are stories that need to be continued. And those? I will read to pieces.