Post by shaxper on May 29, 2002 9:19:12 GMT -5
Sequels are difficult to write. Whether in books (Marion Zimmer Bradley's "Mists of Avalon" series, C.S. Lewis' "Out of the Silent Planet" series), films (The Never Ending Story, the new Star Wars films, Ghostbusters) etc., sequels often fall short of the originals, even when written by the same author.
Then I think of Shakespeare. I won't dispute that the man is a genius, but look at his Histories sequels. Richard III is far better loved than Henry VI. Henry IV and V carefully play upon the themes set down in Richard II, and most would argue that they also outdo the original. Was Shakespeare simply that good with sequels, or did he plan them in advance? Did he write Richard II knowing that he's culminate with Henry V? Maybe he wanted to write Henry V all along and simply back-tracked to Richard II so as to lay more thematic groundwork? After all, if he was simply that good with sequels, how come no one ever speaks highly of The Merry Wives of Windsor?
Then I think of Shakespeare. I won't dispute that the man is a genius, but look at his Histories sequels. Richard III is far better loved than Henry VI. Henry IV and V carefully play upon the themes set down in Richard II, and most would argue that they also outdo the original. Was Shakespeare simply that good with sequels, or did he plan them in advance? Did he write Richard II knowing that he's culminate with Henry V? Maybe he wanted to write Henry V all along and simply back-tracked to Richard II so as to lay more thematic groundwork? After all, if he was simply that good with sequels, how come no one ever speaks highly of The Merry Wives of Windsor?
