On the fence
I got great news from my editor yesterday--the second Gardella book has passed muster with only some minor things that need to be attended to. Yay!
But one of the things we're discussing is whether to give the details of something that happens in the first book in the second book. (Does that make sense?)
I wrote the second book without giving away exactly what happens to a main character in Book One because I wanted it to be a surprise for someone who reads Book Two first (and then feels compelled to go back and read the first book).
The debate centers around the fact that what happens to the character in Book One deeply affects my heroine, Victoria, in Book Two...and any other subsequent books. It was a sort of defining moment. The question is whether this defining moment, if you will, can be fully appreciated by someone who hasn't read Book One and doesn't know the details.
I hate to give away what happens in Book One, but I also don't want to dangle in front of the new reader the "secret" of what has happened prior. We get the basic idea of what happened--but not how or why.
So what do you think? Would having the broad understanding of something important that happened in Book One be enough for you--or would you feel cheated and excluded if you didn't know it all?
Does anyone have any examples of series where this occurs?
But one of the things we're discussing is whether to give the details of something that happens in the first book in the second book. (Does that make sense?)
I wrote the second book without giving away exactly what happens to a main character in Book One because I wanted it to be a surprise for someone who reads Book Two first (and then feels compelled to go back and read the first book).
The debate centers around the fact that what happens to the character in Book One deeply affects my heroine, Victoria, in Book Two...and any other subsequent books. It was a sort of defining moment. The question is whether this defining moment, if you will, can be fully appreciated by someone who hasn't read Book One and doesn't know the details.
I hate to give away what happens in Book One, but I also don't want to dangle in front of the new reader the "secret" of what has happened prior. We get the basic idea of what happened--but not how or why.
So what do you think? Would having the broad understanding of something important that happened in Book One be enough for you--or would you feel cheated and excluded if you didn't know it all?
Does anyone have any examples of series where this occurs?
Colleen Gleason stepped onstage at 5/31/2006 05:43:00 AM
4 Comments:
Having read Book Two and not Book One, I got a clear enough picture of the event in question. I was glad you didn't go into more detail, because I don't want to be spoiled for Book One.
Which I will buy Day One.
Thanks Mary! You are such a dear friend and supporter.
I think that a reader of both books would feel cheated if they got the impression that you were 'talking around' the issue for the benefit of others.
When I come to a series late, I realize that I'm goign to be spoiled for things when I go back and read the early books, but that doesn't bother me. However, the situation I mentioned above would bother me A LOT.
Of course, it depends on the specifics, which we can talk about when we've got a little time and a couple of martinis. Say, next tuesday?
It's a date, Diana!
Post a Comment
<< Home