Movie Monday probably isn’t happening today because I had a sick little monster on my hands yesterday, so my time was spent with her at 10 pm instead of vegging watching a movie.
So… here’s your question of the week.
“Do you believe that 2nd books in trilogies HAVE to be able to standalone (from an introductory standpoint?)”
Ie: Does the author need to spell out everything that happened in the first book for you, so that you know exactly what is going on? Or should the author just be able to assume you’ve read the first book, and go from there?
Why? Why not?
Points for originality in the answers! I’ll edit the post to include the best answers eventually.
As for myself: No, I don’t think they need to stand alone. I think (like my best friend) that the first book ABSOLUTELY must be a stand-alone, but the 2nd one…not so much. I mean, who picks up the *second* book in a series without reading the first book anyways??
So…. whatcha think?