When does a “prequel” become a “sequel”?
If the second book written in a series takes place before
the first book, then obviously it’s a “prequel,” right?
But what if the story, though complete in itself and not
dependent on the first book, tells the reader a lot more about the situations
in the first book, the characters, the events?
What if neither book is dependent on each other, but after reading the
second story a reader gets a clearer understanding of things in the first story? So isn’t that the classic definition of a “sequel”?—that
it adds to and clarifies (through an indirect way) what happened in the first
book?
I’m pondering this question because, all during the
writing of In a Suspect Universe, the
second book after The Man Who Loved Alien
Landscapes (the beginning of the “Mykol Ranglen” series) I’ve been telling
people that it’s a prequel. And, true,
the story does take place before the
events of the first novel, and the story is
complete in itself, and the events of The
Man Who Loved Alien Landscapes are not dependent on its events.
But it does take situations and concepts from the first
book and, by showing another side to them, brings new light to aspects of the
first story.
Especially, the second book explains the reactions and
feelings of the main character Mykol Ranglen. Knowing Ranglen’s “backstory”
helps the reader to see why he’s as secretive, quiet, and paranoid as he is in
the first book—suspicious, careful, and very much a loner, not wanting to show much
of himself to anyone, not even to his old “friends” Hatch Banner and Anne
Montgomery (who we see briefly in the second work). I intentionally did not get
too deeply into his character when writing the first book (and by “first” I refer
to the order of how I wrote the books and how they were published) because the
backstory that makes up In a Suspect
Universe I already knew and had well in mind as I was writing the first
book.
The plot of the second novel is actually older (in terms
of being imagined) than the plot of the first novel. It’s a story idea I’ve had for a long time,
whereas the plot for the first book I put together as I was writing it. I didn’t have the details worked out for the
older story, but the basic plot and its consequences I knew long before I wrote
the first book.
So the “prequel,” though it didn’t exist yet, was very
present in my mind, and it influenced the writing of the first book since it
clarifies the reasons for how the protagonist thinks and behaves: why he keeps
to himself, why he’s sensitive about relationships, why he longs to be away
from people and yet at the same time wants to be with them, why he distrusts
authority, why he feels guilty, why he’s so certain about some things and yet so
uncertain about others, why he always feels a profound longing, and why deep
down he knows he can never have what he wants.
When you learn that much from the second book, then it
sounds like a “sequel.”
And the Clips, the great objects of information and power
that everyone is looking for in the first book, we learn more about them
too. And it’s a different kind of
knowledge: it’s not just “more,” it’s
also “other”—it takes a different direction from the assumptions of the first
book. In the second book we’re not so
sure about them, and in many ways we have more questions about them at the end
of the “prequel” than we did in the first book. This second book opens up our
wonder—and fear—about the Clips, the Airafane, the Moyocks, more than did the
later-in-time events of the first book.
So, doesn’t that sound then a bit like a sequel?
And all this gets more complicated because what the
reader learns and keeps from the earlier events are not the same things that
the protagonist gets to keep. Mykol
Ranglen will not be privileged with what readers of his story take away from
the second book—what he gets he’ll most likely lose, keeping only hints of it
while the reader keeps all the
secrets he has to abandon. (Why and how these
things happens are major plot points of the story.)
Several mysteries will haunt Ranglen in vaguely
unconscious and sinister ways for the rest of his life. But only the reader
will know why.
So the question remains: prequel or sequel?
In the end, I guess it has to be called a prequel simply
because of the label’s basic definition—the second book’s story does occur before the first one.
But since these two books will be part of a “series” (two
more books are certain, and one other is possible), then we can just say “Book
2” in the “Mykol Ranglen Series” and leave it at that.
But I’m still debating.
And I think anyone who reads the book will see exactly what I mean.
No comments:
Post a Comment