Should there be a recap of events on the first chapter of the 2nd book?
I don't want it sounding too much like an information dump.
But do you assume that the reader would have read book 1 and knows what's going on?
Where's the balance?
Debbie x
Should there be a recap of events on the first chapter of the 2nd book?
I don't want it sounding too much like an information dump.
But do you assume that the reader would have read book 1 and knows what's going on?
Where's the balance?
Debbie x
You can add a bit, but just a tiny reminder.. BCoz if you tend to add more of the first book, then the interest dies down....
I can't say I've ever started a series with the last book before. Not on purpose anyway!
But it's an interesting take.
(Now that I say that, I've read all of Kathy Reichs novels in a random order, but those are pretty much stand alone books).
I wonder what I'd have thought to read The Hunger Games from book 3 backwards. I don't think it would have worked in that case.
Nevertheless, I think drip feeding it is the best bet. Who wants a wall of text anyway? :P
I agree with the drip-feed thing.
What Adrian said about having to have read earlier books drives me nuts too - it's pretty straightforward to insert bits of vital information into the narrative, as long as you think about it. It strikes me as just lazy not to do it.
The tough part for me is not putting in so much that it bores those who have read from the beginning of the series.
But first chapter info-dumps are a definite no-no, I'd say.