Unplanned sequels are pointless and irrelevant to the original novel

I don’t know about you, but it seems a little bit suspicious that Margaret Atwood has suddenly decided to make a sequel for The Handmaid’s Tale following the success of its recent TV adaptation. Since the book is yet to be released, I can’t comment on the quality of its content or whether it’s a worthwhile sequel. However, what I will say is that, honestly, I don’t think it’s necessary.

Generally, I enjoy Atwood’s writing with its excellence in creating and sustaining a narrative voice – as seen in her Alias Grace (also now a TV series). But a common theme within her novels is to leave the ending mostly open-ended. So why would she then release a sequel which, in her words, will explain “everything you’ve ever asked me about Gilead and its inner workings” which she says “is the inspiration for this book.”

In my opinion, one of the most beautiful things about The Handmaid’s Tale is the reader’s lack of knowledge – we know only what Offred knows and the final chapter helps to link it all back to the modern day. Will a sequel ruin this secrecy and oppressive atmosphere created through the narration? It’s hard to say without reading it. However, I am a firm believer that sequels are, when unplanned in the original text, a bad idea.

There is s a reason why Go Set a Watchman was transformed into To Kill a Mockingbird

Take To Kill a Mockingbird for example – a classic which tackles heavy themes: racism, growing up, poverty. There is a reason why Go Set a Watchman was transformed into To Kill a Mockingbird. I will call it a sequel for lack of a better word, although really it is the original story of which To Kill a Mockingbird became the prequel for and having been published and read, opinion on the story tends to be united.

It’s not all that positive. With the transformation of Atticus into a racist, the whole underlying ideas of the novel change and the structure and writing is generally all over the place. For me this is the perfect example of when something should just be left alone. In fact, its transformation into To Kill a Mockingbird is quite frankly astonishing. It is better to view these two novels separately and when I say separately, I mean completely disregard Go Set a Watchman. I would argue that it is not in any way related to the tale of To Kill a Mockingbird and honestly that it ought not to be.

It’s important to bring in another issue here: trilogies. I’m not saying I dislike trilogies, because I don’t. Here’s the problem: many trilogies nowadays simply do not have enough content to stretch over three books and are only trilogies because that seems a trendy and cool thing to do.

The first books are mostly good – in terms of the plot anyway – but slowly they descend into a boring mass of predictability

This is mainly true of Young Adult fiction, where trilogies like The Hunger Games and Divergent instantly spring to mind. The premise of these two trilogies are pretty similar and fairly entertaining, but are their storylines really enough for three books? I would say no. The first books are mostly good – in terms of the plot anyway – but slowly they descend into a boring mass of predictability. Perhaps that’s a problem that transcends trilogies into Young Adult fiction itself?

I believe the problem with sequels lies in one clear point: authors only write them once their original book was successful, or they haven’t planned far enough ahead to develop a decent and consistent storyline that makes sense. Many sequels work incredibly well – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Lord of the Rings to name a couple. One of the greatest compliments of George R.R Martin’s Game of Thrones is that everything was meticulously planned in advance, so that the plot twists make realistic sense and each storyline and character has a sense of development.

Sequels can work well when books are written with sequels in mind, because a sequel is effectively an extension of the original book. With no consistency or link – unless deliberately so – the sequel becomes irrelevant and usually cannot stand alone as a good book because it is too heavily reliant on its predecessor or the plot is patchy and lacks cohesion. Sequels aren’t inherently bad, but a lack of planning or structure often makes them that way.