Today’s topic is standalone books that NEED a sequel. But it’s time we take a trip down memory lane.
I first began buying my own books in high school and college. I know at that point in time I’d started reading a handful of series, but I always tried finding standalones. At the library. At the bookstore. Or online. I’d search for hours to find a standalone I wanted to read. I often successfully found one. I discovered several of my favorite authors this way.
But as time has passed on I’ve had to change up my strategy. Now whenever I happen to be looking for something new I’m searching for the first book in a new series. This isn’t inherently worse, just different.
All this to say that once upon a time I wanted to read as many standalone novels as I could, but now I’m reading a million series at once. I’ve never read a solid standalone I felt needed a sequel. Not once. And some of the best books I’ve ever read have been standalones.
So my answer to today’s topic is simple: A good standalone shouldn’t need a sequel. What do you think!?
Johnny Reads 
Good answer! I’ve always preferred standalones and really appreciate a good ones that stand on their own without the need for sequels. In fact, sometimes–especially in the case of movies–forcing a sequel can diminish the brilliance of the first book/movie.
LikeLike
Yes. I actually just said the same thing about movies in another comment. We should treat books the same way. We don’t nerd a sequel next year just like we don’t need 17 Avatar movies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My favorite book of all time is a stand alone: I Heard the Owl Call My Name by Margaret Craven.
It’s based on true life and there’s no way there could ever be a sequel, not with the way the book ended.
For the longest time To Kill A Mockingbird was a standalone. Then the author found the ‘lost’ manuscript of the prequel and it all went to sh*t. š¦ That was another book that did not, under any circumstances, need a prequel OR a sequel. *double sigh*.
Nope, can’t think of a book that needs a sequel although there are MANY which should never have had one in the first place.
LikeLike
Yes. Exactly. If an author sets out to write a standalone, then it should read exactly as such. And I actually don’t count Go Set a Watchman. I’m still contending that it was nothing short of a crime that caused that book to be released. Books are like movies. WE DON’T NEED A SEQUEL FOR EVERYTHING! ha!
LikeLike
No, we don’t!
Just look at Back To the Future!
First one was awesome. After that, not so much.
LikeLike
Yes! Jurassic Park too!
LikeLike
Most definitely! Need fewer remakes of the classics as well. I heard this morning that they’re going to be redoing The Mummy, Frankenstein and a few others.
For me it’s extremely rare that the remake is better. Look at The Day the Earth Stood Still. We watched both and, even though the special effects are better, the original us better over all.
LikeLike
Oh boy. And don’t get me started on the million Dracula adaptations.
LikeLike
*snort* I’ll try š
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the author has rounded out the story with a satisfying conclusion then, no, a good story does not need a sequel. Occasionally, though I get invested in my relationship with one or more of the characters and would really like to know what happened to them later.
LikeLike
Hmm. That’s fair. Though I don’t think I’ve had that happen to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person