I was thinking about this when taking a bookstagram picture of Holes (by Louis Sachar) and it’s sequel Small Steps.
I enjoyed Holes, and don’t get me wrong, Small Steps isn’t bad. But it just isn’t as good as Holes. And it got me thinking about the other modern classics that have gotten sequels in recent years that didn’t quite live up to the original for me.
One example is Go Set a Watchman by Harper Lee (the sequel to To Kill a Mockingbird) which whilst still having a good technical quality to the writing style was just so much less enjoyable than the first book.
Another example is The Testaments by Margaret Atwood (sequel to The Handmaid’s Tale) which controversially co-won the Booker Prize purely due to Atwood’s name. The book itself? Well I enjoyed this one more than Go Set a Watchman. And I did like the details that were added to the world, although this very much had more of a feel of a modern novel rather than a timeless piece. And. And. The ending ruined it all. Without that ending I could’ve given it 4 stars for enjoyment alone, but no. Nope. Had to be ruined.
Have you read any good sequels to modern classics that actually lived up to (or improved!) the original series? I’d love to know about any authors which managed this!!