It was recommended that I do this post by a Twitter user, +Valeryinblack. Thank you!
So it's been all over Twitter recently- unhappy readers, all complaining about the release of 'Go Set a Watchman'
It seems that Go Set A Watchman has been affected by the first book. It is probably an excellently written book with a good plotline. But there's one crucial difference. It seems that good, loveable, honest Atticus Finch is racist in this new novel. This change to a favourite protagonist has obviously unsettled the readers, especially considering how Atticus had fought biased prosecution due to racism.
Both To Kill a Mockingbird and Go Set A Watchman are probably both excellent stand-alone novels. But it seems that when you put them together as a sequel, well, people don't like it.
So this begs the question; can a sequel really ruin books?
Well, the answer is yes, they can. But they shouldn't.
If you've read Go Set a Watchman, or any sequel you didn't like, do you still remember how you felt about the original when it was a stand-alone?
Thought not.
You forgot, didn't you? The sequel(s) coloured your opinion of the original. That's the last thing an author or publisher wants. They want you to remember each book individually, as well as the whole series.
I agree that books should fit together as sequels, and interact with eachother as a series. Series are the same story, told over a longer time, right?
But does that mean that readers should compare books? Should they determine that one book is not as good as the others?
I think personally, whether a book is in a series or stand-alone, it should be thought of as an individual novel. If there's something you dislike in one novel, don't put the bad feeling onto another. That's unfair and it's prejudice. Book prejudice, I guess? I don't know
So appreciate every book as it is.
Bye!
No comments :
Post a Comment