Sequels that really shouldn't have happened

This week's Top Ten Tuesday is based around books you'd like to see a sequel for. I feel like I covered that a little bit in this post, so I'm flipping it today and talking instead about sequels that need to be set alight/buried forever/wiped from my mind. A bad sequel can give a bad taste to a good series and it's beyond annoying. Her are a few that irritate me strongly:

By the way SPOILERS everywhere

Sisterhood Everlasting

Despite all being in their thirties, the sisterhood seemed to have regressed back to their fifteen year old selves. Lena was still pining over Kostos (what?) Bridget had no career and was drifting and cheating again, Carmen still doesn't get a proper romantic story-line and don't even talk to me about Tibby. It was all indescribably sad and depressing and they were all acting out of character. It tore my heart out and the worst part was it was still well written, so despite it being total crap I believed it. DO NOT READ THIS BOOK.

Go Set a Watchman

Okay, so I've not read it. It's probably good. But it's essentially an early draft isn't it? Not really a sequel, so  - Atticus character assassination aside -  why did it have to see the light of day? It would be like J.K Rowling suddenly publishing those early Harry Potter drafts where Dean was more involved and named Gary, and asking us to give them equal weight.

The Cursed Child


Speaking of J.K Rowling, Cursed Child was clearly a moment of madness. So she expects us to swallow the idea that Bellatrix was pregnant with Voldemort's child during those Malfoy manor scenes? And then what, she gave birth before the battle of Hogwarts? That good, noble, brave Cedric Diggory would turn death Eater just because he was humiliated at the Triwizard Tournament? That Hermione would turn into a bitter old crone just because she never married Ron? That Ron would name his child 'Panju'? That Harry has a phobia of pigeons? Was she taking drugs, or is she purposely trying to ruin my childhood?

Scarlett/Rhett Butler's People/The Wind Done Gone

I've tried a couple of these, but they are just bad. Yes, I would like to know whether Scarlett and Rhett got back together. But you can't write a sequel to such a politically incorrect book today, even if you're trying to subvert it. Plus have these authors even read Gone with the Wind? They got so much wrong. And these fan-fictiony sequels always get too weird.

Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy


The first one was very good, the second one was terrible if still enjoyable, the third one I could barely get through the first few pages. Mark dead. Stupid children's names. Fifty-something, annoying Bridget  with a thirty-something boyfriend called Rockster or something similar - and I think one of the kids is technically Daniel's? I'll stick to watching Bridget Jones's Baby, thanks.

The Starlight Barking

Right, she had to be on drugs when she wrote this one. There's no other explanation. The first One Hundred and One Dalmatians has a bit of magical realism, yes. In the second one, the dogs all wake up to find the humans are all in a deep, sleeping beauty style coma. In fact every living creature on earth is, minus the dogs of the world plus three "honourary dogs" (Tibs, the kid from the first one and Cruella's white cat.) The dogs can also fly, or "swoosh" all of a sudden, so they fly off to London to see Cadpig, who is now the Prime Minister's Dog and find out what's going on. SPOILERS It's all because Sirius, the dog star (who has been trying to communicate with them through the TV) wants all the dogs to come and live with him in space. No, this was not a dream I had.

The Last Battle


I hate this more than any other disappointing sequel. It ruins the series for me and I heartily wish it had never been written. It's badly written, it's horrible and dark and boring, there's no real discernible plot, we barely see the kids, Susan is made a pariah because she decided to grow up and dare to wear lipstick and go to parties, and they all die in a bloody train crash. Also it's kind of racist.



The fourth book in the Poldark saga, and the one that - although well written - kind of ruins all the rest for me, because of one event. It would have taken just one scene tweaking to change the way I see this whole series and the characters in it.

Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator

Maybe I need to give this another go, but this is the only Roald Dahl book that's failed to grab my attention. I tried, but it just wasn't... as good as his others? Or, dare I say it, good at all? Everyone needs at least one flop, I suppose.

Princess Diaries: Royal Wedding


I actually quite liked this, it's one here for one reason alone - she killed Mr. G and got Helen and the dad back together. No, no, no, no. I can deal with him loving her still. But she never loved him. Justice for Mr. Giannii (despite the name I never know how to pronounce.) JUSTICE!

What sequels would you like to forget about? And can we ignore them when they're written by the original author?


  1. The Go Set A Watchman seems like it was an ethical issues too; that whole thing infuriates me. She dies, they publish an early draft, seems like, oh, maybe wasn't published with her wishes. Stupid people:"Oh, Atticus is bad." Um, no, that's obviously not canon.

    I'm not even going to consider the Cursed Child, but at this point, I'm really rather over HP period.

    I like aspects of the Last Battle (Jill, Eustace, and Trillian), and other parts weirded me out (most of it); I think the Susan part is misunderstood, I always understood Narnia to be a Christian analogy and Susan is either apostate or backsliding, also, it wasn't her liking of the other things that was the issue (this was her younger sister's comment . . . when are siblings consistently flattering), it was her prioritizing of them (sorry, the whole "poor Susan" question drives me nuts, especially since I liked her least and I think its taken out of context). However, after reading Lewis's space trilogy (The Last Battle has NOTHING on these), I can really see have far into weirdness he can go . . .

    1. It's the way C.S Lewis treats Susan as a character that really bothers me, I understand it's an allegory but it's got to work as a story in itself too (especially as when you're a kid, the allegory goes over your head and even as an adult I prefer to think of it story first anyway.) I see your point about the prioritizing, but the punishment hardly fits the crime. Susan's not a saint, I just think the author's treatment of her is a bit sexist - I can't explain why really, just little comments here and there get my back up.
      Totally agree about Go Set a Watchman though! I can't remember if she was dead but there was definitely something shady about the whole scenario from what I can remember.

  2. I agree with Livia. Go Set a Watchman should never have been published.

    My Top Ten Tuesday post.

    1. Agreed, I've been back and forth over whether I should read it, but either way you can't let it spoil the original!

  3. Great twist on this week's topic! Yup, Go Set a Watchman leaves a bad taste in my mind, too, because we can't be certain Harper Lee was actually happy for it to be published. I also always hate how Susan is treated by the end of the Narnia series and I think she deserved better from C.S. Lewis. Would we all like to visit a magical world? Of course, but not EVERYONE would want to stay there forever and Susan is one such character. I like to think she wore all the lipstick she wanted and became a feminist icon.

    As much as I enjoyed going to see The Cursed Child, I do agree that the story itself is garbage for all the reasons you said, but also because, once again, it tried to turn Snape into some misunderstood hero. Snape is a fantastic character, but that doesn't make him any less of a child-bully who called the woman he claimed to love descriminatory names and then sulked forever because she didn't bang him. Bleh.

    1. I loved the spectacle and the acting in Cursed child but yeah, the story was awwwful. I do see Snape as a bit of a tragic hero though. I can acknowledge he's not a nice person but I don't buy the stalker angle. He put his life on the line repeatedly trying to atone for what he did and Dumbledore massively took advantage. He didn't deserve to die like he did. (I do think he was totally out of character in Cursed Child though.)


Post a Comment

Popular Posts