The inherent point in a sequel is to build upon every aspect to its predecessor. It is never to make it “different” in any way possible. If an author wants to make something be different for the sequel, then they should write an entirely new novel. For the former, to the next, in the row of books that create a “series” are not meant to be different stories. Even if the tales are different, though retaining the same characters, everything from the author’s skill in their craft, to the structure of the tale, to all other elements, must be improved upon. The only relevance for a sequel, is improvement, not change. All this does is elevate expectations to the point where the author is expected to be the “god of writers” for them to improve upon the last one.
My point against sequels is that they never end. An author’s susceptibility to be siphoned into creating a sequel, rather than forming a new idea, is as toxic as it sounds to the craft of writing.
So long as the money is good, then the name towards the storytelling no longer holds any quality to it. The focus, soon as a sequel is made, becomes more about quantity than anything else.
Call my opinion “biased”, if you will, though don’t you believe there’s a reason why Les Miserables received no sequel, nor Moby Dick? What about Anna Karenina, or Gone with the Wind? Quality material, receiving no sequels, inherently keep that qualitative being. It never loses its share of quality from where it began, because it won’t end with another number.
Foolish authors who extend their tales into a sequel, will find that the book title has become a brand. That brand and the author’s name, becomes a celebrated notion, when a reader can lift the sequel to their faces, knowing what they’ve waited for. A continuation. A mere continuation, and that is all. To infinity and beyond, that is the essence of a sequel. A never-ending share of quantitative extension, that only ever gains speed when it rolls downhill.
As an author, were I to become famous, I would never write a sequel. I’d not make a sequel, simply to remove myself from that temptation, altogether. For I desire the quality in the literary world, not the quantities.
A conclusion should be the end to a legend, because no hero wants to continue their tragedies. They do not do it for glory’s sake, because they want their rest. For a book is like a beast, deserving that rest, needing that ending. When the book ends, it should only ever end, and not receive a revival.