30 April 2007

Sequel Anyone?

My turn to blog and I have nothing prepared. The reason I have nothing prepared is that I arrived home late last night from Houston and the annual Romantic Times Booklovers Conference. It was my first time at this event and it was a blast! I met a lot of great authors and readers, and had a great time at the book signing on Saturday.

I'm happy (and a little overwhelmed) to report that my paranormal book, Lords of the Were sold out at the book signing! Wow! Thanks to all of you who bought it and all of you who have read it already. There's no better feeling than to know your work is appreciated. I was asked quite a few times about a sequel and yes, there is something in the works.

Which brings me to a good topic for this blog (I knew if I rambled a bit, sooner or later an idea would come to me!)... I tend to differentiate in my mind between a "sequel" and a "follow-on" story. My naming of each of these is probably bad, but in my mind at least, a sequel follows DIRECTLY after the action in the first book. It picks up where the first book leaves off. Now, on the other hand a follow-on or related story (that might be a better word), is one that is related to the first book, but doesn't necessarily follow directly after the action of the first book. Does that make sense?

As an example, Lords of the Were ends and two male characters (Dante and Duncan) have been introduced and played a large part in the action, but are left single. So a direct sequel - at least in my mind - would pick up with one (or both) of them and directly follow the events of that first book in chronology. By contrast, I actually have a book coming out later this year called Sweeter Than Wine, which is related to Lords of the Were, but not a direct sequel. Though it does reference some of the characters and events from Lords of the Were, it introduces new characters and situations. It's set in the same world, but it focuses on two vampires and a werecougar who are separate from Lords of the Were, though they do come in contact with some characters from the first book. So in my mind at least, they're separate-but-related, but not a direct sequel. With me so far?

So my question to you - readers of this blog - how do you view this kind of thing? Would you rather read a direct sequel first or a separate-but-related story? Does it really matter? Do you define those things the same way I've been struggling to define them? I'm really curious!

Bianca D'Arc
Come over to the D'Arc side... www.biancadarc.com
Post a Comment