Submitted by Mr_niceguy0 t3_z12oyj in books
I recently read the giver and personally I think it’s pretty good however I tried to start reading gathering blue and I thought it wasn’t great, furthermore my friend read all of them and said all the books after the first one are bad and ruin the story, so I was just wondering what books have you read with terrible sequels that ruin the books legacy?
The big "reveal" at the end was just so so so bad.
I loved the first book as a teenager, but couldn't get through the second one. I DNFd it because I was just bored out of my mind.
The Sword of Truth series comes to mind. Books 1-2 were enjoyable, the rest just text-filler level tedious and downright cringeworthy. The price of success, I guess.
Inkheart
A rather fun fantasy story with a neat premise, someone can literally bring stories to life by reading them.
Won’t say it was amazing but was enjoyable. Sequels didn’t know what to do and eventually turned into characters going into stories they read, and it basically becomes discount Alice in wonderland from there imo.
Interesting, should I check out the first book?
I would recommend it and maybe the second book. It did well enough to get a bad movie made
Rendezvous with Rama by Arthur C. Clarke.
I want to say 'what sequels?' to block out the pain of reading them.
Actually I recall the third one (Garden of Rama) was a big improvement, and made me think maybe Rama 2 was just an awkward mis-step. Then the last one came along and I still don't want to think about it lest it ruin the wonder of the first even further.
[removed]
Super weird how the third book will most likely never see the light of day.
I was looking for this and was going to comment it as well, controversial but so true imo.
The only one that comes to mind at the moment is To Kill A Mockingbird. I was highly disappointed in Go Set A Watchman by comparison (maybe I'm missing something in my perspective?). I just felt the writing wasn't as good as the first book.
It was written first, then abandoned and lost. There's a lot of room to argue Lee never intended to finesse and release it. There are lots of reasons it doesn't compare.
There was a rumor that Harper Lee didn't write most of the book, as though someone else finished it unbeknownst to her.
That's what I heard as well.
I genuinely liked the book.
Good for you, have your own opinion!
Thank you for reminding me. I almost forgot the point of it all.
Yeah, some writers i think just make new books to ride off the fame of the last book to make extra cash, I don’t know if that’s why they made go set a watchman but I feel like that’s the reason for most of these disappointing sequels, that or the author got lucky and his first book blew up despite them not being the best author
Go Set a Watchman was published 55 years after To Kill a Mockingbird." It certainly wasn't a fame riding situation. It's release is actually quite controversial.
>It certainly wasn't a fame riding situation.
Well arguably it was, but by her publisher/agent/family. It seems like Lee was taken advantage of so that other people could make money.
A lot of people I think realize this, hence it being a controversial release as you pointed out, but a lot of other people just came away with "Atticus is a racist" and that's it.
I do think the manuscript is an interesting insight into her creative process, but it should have been published as such and not as "the never-before-seen prequel to To Kill a Mockingbird!" It also should not have been published until after her death. The audience should have been primarily other writers and academics—not everyone who read TKAM in high school and has little or no understanding of what the manuscript is (and, more importantly, is not).
Good point
Sorry to be that person, but it was actually written by a woman! Harper Lee. She died about a year after it came out, the rumours I heard were that they took advantage of the fact she was dying. I never heard the rumours about someone else ghost writing it until today.
If the author is good at their job, they'd know when to pull the plug on their story. Story's have a beginning, middle, and end. Some books make take 5 or more books, some may only need to tell their story in one book, but every book has an end. Some writers just don't know when that is, or don't care, which disappoints everyone in the end.
The Gate Thief by Orson Scott Card was amazing, loved the world and story.
The second book, as far as I can tell, was about how teenagers shouldn't have sex.
He can't help it, he's a Mormon.
Rosemary's baby
Ready Player One was a fun, nostalgia trip. Ready Player Two was an abomination.
Dune
Hard disagree. I felt Dune Messiah really concluded the story told in Dune. Children of Dune was pretty good, not as good as the first 2 though, but set up God Emperor which is fantastic. A lot of mixed feelings for Heretics and Chapter-House, but books 1-4 are great.
What’s the reason behind the disappointment?
Came here to see if anyone would mention Dune.
I absolutely loved the first part. I do actually like the other parts, but imo they're nothing like the first one.
I re-read Messiah and Children recently probably for the last time. I’ll certainly re-read Dune again. IMO, they aren’t as good but it’s not as bad as some of the horrible sequels mentioned here. Ready Player Two tops my list.
Interview with the Vampire. One could argue its greatness, but it does have some import. ....and a host of absolutely awful sequels.
Interview with the Vampire is great, but The Vampire Lestat is the peak of the series, in my opinion. It's a much more interesting protagonist, and much more fun that the depths of despair dredged in the first book.
I agree. TVL is the peak. It went downhill from there.
I was so obsessed with Anne Rice’s works as a teenager and then I felt obligated to keep reading her newer works even though I didn’t enjoy them anymore. Interview was definitely the best of the vampire novels.
That’s an interesting one because I know a ton of people like the sequels more than the first
Catch 22
Lies of Locke Lamora
I liked the 3rd one
I really liked the sequels. They were different, and I don't think they're quite as innovative as The Giver, but they were entertaining and explored meaningful themes. Especially Gathering Blue with how it handles disability.
Lois Lowry did an AMA here in /r/books you might want to check it out :) . Here's a full list of our upcoming AMAs
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
The Witching Hour from Anne Rice! Then Lasher and Taltos were good but... Definitely subpar.
True. The second and third book were acceptable, but nowhere near the caliber of Witching Hour.
C. Kepnes' "You" was really good, but could've done without the 2nd and 3rd books Hidden Bodies and You Love Me. Same with J. Moyes "Me Before You".
[deleted]
THIS!!!! I was going to post the same so thank you.
Really, I thought I'd read the You sequels sometime, are they bad? are they just copy paste from the first book or are there things wrong with them?
I don't think I'd call them bad as such. They're just not as good as the first one and don't add much to Joe's story.
Thank you I might not read them then
You'd get a shorter response list by asking "what series that starts with a great book doesn't go steadily downhill the longer the series gets?"
Edited to add: I'm a fan of the 50-odd volume "In Death" mystery series by JD Robb/Nora Roberts. In my opinion, that one holds steady throughout. Started as a good absorbing comfort read, still is. Never Great but still good.
But mysteries benefit from their structure in that way. Each book naturally has its own internal complete story: crime committed, crime investigated, crime solved. But there's also room for the established characters, normally the investigators and their social circle to grow and develop. The In Death books are police procedurals, which also helps. You don't risk the "How many people near Jessica Fletcher get murdered every year? Is she doing it herself?" problem.
I kind of agree with the sentiment regarding the following books after The Giver itself because the stories were not as tied as anyone would expect sequels to be. But I do have to mention the third book - Messenger - because I love that part of the whole quartet series -- and it was closely tied to The Giver as compared to Gathering Blue (the second book) -- since it gave justice to the main character, and it has the arc that I did not expect the series would actually touch on. Also, like The Giver, Messenger can be a stand-alone book :)
Other than The Giver quartet, I haven't really read many book series that ruin the book's legacy. Everyday series by David Levithan was really good, and The Secrets of the Immortal Nicolas Flamel was such a fantastic read.
Oh! I remember one. If I Stay!!! This first book really got me on a rollercoaster ride of emotions, but the sequel did not exactly grasp my love for the story plot. I believe it would have been better if it was just stand-alone.
Enders Game Dune The Passage by Justin Cronin To Your Scattered Bodies Go by Farmer
Second the passage. Third book made me so angry.
The Fabulous Riverboat was good, but the rest of the series was not great. And the last books took a hard turn that was pretty odd.
I re-read the series a few years ago. It definitely falls off.
It's really too bad that it did. The first book has one of the most fascinating concepts in sci-fi.
Wolf of Wall Street
Rosemary's Baby !
Yeah, Rosemary's Toddler sucked.
Outlander for me was a great book, never finished the series they just drag on.
The hunger games, the proper ending was katniss and Petra killing themselves causing the rebellion in the epilogue, but of course they have to franchise everything
I hope nobody says Remembrance of Earth's Past (AKA The Three Body Problem series) because I really want to read Dark Forest and Death's End. But if they suck, I won't bother.
Honestly Harry Potter books, they just started to run out of ideas. KILL ME HARRY POTTER FANS
[removed]
I loved, loved, loved "Dragons of Autumn Twilight" by Weis and Hickman when I was younger and really struggled getting through "Winter Night" and "Spring Dawning"
Divergent-1st great, 2nd ok, 3rd terrible
[removed]
The sequel to 101 Dalmatians is insane like you wouldn’t believe.
Annhilation
The Bible. Quran and BOM just aren't inspired
Neither of those are sequels to the Bible
Amen
They don’t even claim to be in
Well... that's where you're wrong.
Where in either book does it claim that
The title of the BOM. Several surah call the quran as from God
The title is “The Book of Mormon, Another testament (meaning witness) of Jesus Christ” doesn’t say sequel 😂
But empire strikes back also doesn't say sequel
Yes it does 😂😂 it says Episode VI of STAR WARS, 5 comes after 4 last i checked. The Quran doesn’t say “Bible 2” multiple religious texts from different religions doesn’t meant sequels that’s so stupid 😂
Sorry that you haven't really done your hw. Must be hard. Thinking two towers isn't a sequel
The title is Lord of the rings: the two towers which comes from all one book called The Lord of The Rings once again another obvious example of a sequel 😂
If it was old testament -- bible -- book of Mormon, Maybe
Nah. We got the Canon right
The Golden Compass.
Lyra was such a great, strong character in the first book.
Arrow_from_Artemis t1_ix8uynw wrote
Maze Runner. I wasn't head over heels for the first book, but I enjoyed it for what it was. The sequels were terrible.