Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!crash!bnw@SDCSVAX.ARPA
From: bnw@SDCSVAX.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Sequels
Message-ID: <2188@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 4-Jun-85 05:10:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.2188
Posted: Tue Jun  4 05:10:22 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 05:15:21 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 20

From: crash!bnw@SDCSVAX.ARPA

>A readership that wants a sequel to every novel. . .

     There is an implication here that there is something automatically wrong
with series, trilogies, series, and so on.  If a series of whatever length is
desired and enjoyed, it is because the writer has created a character,  a
society or a concept that has captured the imagination of readers.  If the
point of interest is not covered in detail from beginning to end, there may
very well be an interest in more.  The fact that the author may have intended
this from the beginning does not change the validity of the concept.  The
market will decide if the writer is correct or not.
     Sometimes a series should have stopped at one.  Sometimes not.  I've 
never heard anyone suggest that Asimov should have stopped with _Foundation_.
I'm glad that Steven Brust gave us more than one novel on the life and times
of Vladimir Taltos.  (On the other hand, many people have said that Herbert
*should* have quit after _Dune_.)
                                                         /Bruce N. Wheelock/
                                arpanet: crash!bnw@ucsd
                                   uucp: {ihnp4, sdcsvax, noscvax}!crash!bnw