Today, she blogged about series and sequels versus standalones, and it really got me thinking.
I am in no way, shape, or form cut out to write sequels to anything I write.
I've tried. When I was younger, I wrote a couple sequels to other novels I'd written. That was back when I was still just writing for fun. Now that I write more seriously, I find it impossible to dwell in the same fictional world for too long.
It's not that I don't love the characters. I do. But a lot of the time I want to do something new instead of write about the same old people. And, in a weird way, it feels like I'm trying to involve myself too much in my characters' lives if I try to write sequels. Almost like I'm a mom trying to cling to her adult children. They don't need me anymore. They're independent. They can handle themselves just fine without me, thankyouverymuch.
Personally, I think YA needs more great standalone novels. Is it just me, or does it feel like every new book you pick up is the first in a trilogy? And how many times have you read a sequel to something and thought, "Wow, that was unnecessary"? I know I've done that. I would much rather read one solid, amazing book that packs a real punch than read three separate, but weaker books.
(Although I do like the idea of companion novels -- sequels-but-not-really, like Anna and the French Kiss and Lola and the Boy Next Door. But maybe I just think that because Stephanie Perkins can do no wrong!)
What do YOU think? As a reader, do you prefer series or standalones? How about as a writer?