Some novels are never meant to have sequels. These I call the stand alone novels.
Very recently I finished reading "Go set A Watchman" by Harper Lee. Like millions of readers I had waited eagerly to read the sequel to "To Kill a Mocking bird" written years ago. But I have to confess Harper's Lee's sequel fails to evoke the same emotions her first novel does. Scout Finch returns home from New York to a vastly changed home town; worse, her much idolized father seems to have feet of clay. The Atticus Finch she has looked up to her entire life disappoints her. "Watchman" deals with the same theme of racial prejudice, of white against black but for some reason it fails to have the same impact as "Mockingbird. "The tone of narrative is shriller, strident and at times it borders on didactic. It could be that the narrative of an innocent nine year is vastly different from that of an adult. The love angle between an adult Scout and Hank is touched upon in passing as is the death of Scout's brother Jem. Jem, a central character in the first book, dies in this one. But his death is glossed over. I found that to be a deficiency. Jem and Scout seemed inseparable but in this sequel Jem appears only in a flashback cameo. After the emotional impact of "Mocking bird" "Watchman" is oddly flat. Perhaps racial prejudice has more impact when seen through the eyes of a nine year old. Much of the humor that leavens the narrative in the first book is absent in the second. The vision is darker, the didactism pronounced though humor does make its appearance in brief flashes. All in all a sequel which fails to stir the heart as the first did. "Mocking bird" is ludicrously simple yet unbelievably profound. As truth always is. However the sequel does not achieve the greatness of the first.
Another sequel which should not have been written is the sequel to Gone With the Wind. It is a great book. Those who call it a love story are doing it an injustice. It is so much more. A picture of a world gone by, a way of life, an epic portrayal of the Southern culture. There are layers within layers. Even if Margaret Mitchell had attempted the sequel herself I doubt that she could have lived up to the breadth and scope of the first. Sometimes a creation becomes greater than the creator. And to attempt to match the matchless is a futile attempt. But I've to applaud the courage of one who dared to do so. Just as the attempt to write a Poirot novel after Christie's death. Poirot is one of the greatest creations in detective fiction and no matter how one tries to resurrect him after Christie's death I don't think the effect is the same. Which brings me to the question of ghosting novels. Is it really possible? Can ghost writers achieve the same effect long after the author has abandoned the post- either due to death or lack of inspiration? What about this idea of co-writing novels? I find extremely difficult to comprehend it. But I can see for myself it is successful. Lars Kepler is a husband and wife team writing together. I've read their work. I must say it does seem to work for them. But I'm old fashioned. I still think writing is a hugely private affair. And it has very little to do with talk shows, tours and publicity. In fact I think the best thing about it is the anonymity it affords. But in today's world of internet it's next to impossible. And anonymity probably won't spell success.
What do you think? Is it a private thing? Or nothing so sacrosanct? Do you think a creation can surpass the creator? I think it does. And has. In a few standalone novels.
