I just finished a story where the main character was blown up in the last scene. Has anyone else ever considered something that drastic to ensure no sequel requests?
Granted, "Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970)" ends with all life on Earth being killed, but that didn't prevent what ended up as three sequels to that movie (the second in the original Planet of the Apes series.)
As stated, killing off all the characters should do the job, but if you don't wish to do that, then just simply write badly, as that will also have the same effect.
If personal pride does not allow you to write like a four year old, then simply make any male characters gay and who also hate the Marine Corps. Oh, and make them support, Kamala is it? Anyway that side of American politics.
The problem will always be, the better you write, the more content readers will want from you.
Then again, my best-received story was one where I did just that. It was an apocalyptic story, where each character died one at a time. Yet rather than just doing it in one fell blow, I instead spend extra time on each and every characters, so when they did perish, they would be truly mourned by the readers, rather than just tertiary characters that no one gives a damn about, one way or the other.
And once more, having done that, 1/3rd LOVED the story, 1/3rd couldn't finish it, and another third were unhappy, yet still rated it highly. Thus when the post-apocalyptic sequent was introduced, revealing that the two protagonists who'd did during the conclusion, had actually recovered, with a natural immunity to the plague, which they worked to create a potential cure, if they could convince others to trust them in an devastated world where everyone was morning their tragic losses.
The whole series proved to be one of my post-popular series.
I've also long preferred the tragic, sacrificial hero story trope, and while you can't use it often, it is incredibly powerful of a conclusion, as the hero then sacrifices themselves, in order for their overall mission to continue, without them (i.e. more accidental than tragic, so it's more of a celebration of their sacrifice than it is a depression conclusion).
In one, the protagonists was rescuing children in a school bus accident, catching the children as the lighter, more nimble women would toss them down to him. When the bus suddenly tumbled, and he managed to stabilize it long enough for everyone else to get out, before it collapsed atop him—leaving just enough time for a dramatic goodbye.
Those stories are quite a challenge to write, yet those are the stories which most challenge me to try new things (i.e. more experimental works).
Yet, generally, it's better to announce either "Part 1 of X books" OR "a single, standalone story", so you set reader expectations early, so they know what to expect. But then, I also preannounce just how many chapters the story is, also to help establish my readers' expectations. As that's less guesswork and more advanced planning.
Which is not always appreciated by most, still comes in handy to readers to properly prepare themselves for what's to come.
Obviously a typo of "MOST popular", as it was finally revealed that M$ Word often inserts random typos in already accepted, correct stories.
It's been a long-standing story, yet was only indirectly addressed, as usual, they really have no clue how to correct it, so they're hoping a new fix might somehow address it.
I just read about it this morning.
I just finished a story where the main character was blown up in the last scene. Has anyone else ever considered something that drastic to ensure no sequel requests?
In the novel "First Blood," both Rambo and the sheriff die at the end. That was the impact the author was looking for. Both the Korean War veteran and the Vietnam War veteran lose — no winners.
David Morrell addressed that in his book on writing. When he sold the rights to Hollywood, they insisted on not killing off Rambo. He objected but gave in. He said he made a lot of money by giving in. I think there are 5 Rambo movies.
But back to your OP. I wouldn't kill off a character just to prevent sequel requests. Who knows, someone might request a prequel. Or even worse, a sequel that learns the death was staged and the character is really alive. Or the reader might want a sequel about another character in the story. Think spin-offs of TV shows.
Just do what's right for the story. If a reader requests a sequel, politely say no.
Or even worse, a sequel that learns the death was staged and the character is really alive.
Not a new trope. It was used by Arthur Conan Doyle 125 years ago, after Sherlock Holmes "died" at Reichenbach Falls.
You could make the story circular, so it ends exactly where it started.
I remember a crime drama TV series like that. The professor assisting the police detective had a mental illness making him an unreliable narrator.
Stop Press: Bugger me sideways, Google just found it for me: 'Perception'.
AJ
Killing off a character (or all of them) still allows you a do-over sequel or a time-loop sequel, at minimum.
The most reliable way of ensuring there are no requests for a sequel? Write a story no one wants more of.
Or a dream sequence terminating. Who shot J.R.?
That was actually season 3.
You are thinking of the entirety of season 9, after Bobby was killed so Patrick Duffy could leave at the end of season 8, then his returning in season 10. Where all of Season 9 was a bad dream of his wife.
Or a "Prequel", where the sequel actually takes place before the early book. As this is popular if the initial story proves more popular than you first anticipated (i.e. readers start demanding a sequel, despite there being no living protagonist.
As prequels are an industry staple.
Or, in the opposite direction, give the protagonist a happily ever after such that there's no need for a sequel.
Then there is abandon the pen name. I'm fairly sure one of the SOL authors most requested to continue his work has moved through three pen names and has abandoned all three.
I'm missing something. Why are sequel requests a bad thing?
One can simply say, "No, I'm not going to write one."
I'm missing something. Why are sequel requests a bad thing?
It largely depends on the story.
I have written sequels myself. But many stories I have written also simply stand on there own and there will be no sequels.
Why are sequel requests a bad thing?
I don't understand why this question hasn't prompted a discussion about whether sequels can ever be as good as the original work ;-)
AJ
Getting a request for a sequel is one of the biggest compliments an author can receive. Whatever the author did, the story was compelling.
I don't write sequels although I receive many requests. By the time a story posts on SOL, I'm already deep into another project.
I don't write sequels
Looking at https://storiesonline.net/universe/362/family-volentin I'd say you did a few years ago.
@Fick Suck
I don't write sequels
Looking at https://storiesonline.net/universe/362/family-volentin I'd say you did a few years ago.
🔥🔥🔥
To be pedantic, that's a universe rather than a series.
One pedantic to another — a sequel is different than a series, although a sequel could be part of a series.
A sequel is a "what happens next." It's a continuation of the book it's a sequel to.
Now if we're talking SOL, SOL has nuances. For example, the ordered sequel where you read the stories in sequence. Is one story a sequel of the previous one? Or is it really one story broken up into parts? Like an ordered 3-story series. Is that really a trilogy that has one over-arching story?
I stopped writing sequels when requested. They never came out good because there really wasn't a new story there. At least not one I wanted to write. But I'd be thrilled for people to request a new book in my Lincoln Steele series. A new story with the same character(s).
I just finished a story where the main character was blown up in the last scene. Has anyone else ever considered something that drastic to ensure no sequel requests?
I think one of the funniest stories I had requests for a sequel for had it end with the main character dying.
Now granted, that was a "do over", but having the main character die next to his girlfriend who was already dead I thought was a clear sign the story was done and there would be no more.
having the main character die next to his girlfriend who was already dead
That sounds familiar. I think Shakespeare wrote a play that ended like that.
Of course, he wrote two sequels for Falstaff, but none for Romeo. Maybe:
"The poison Romeo took wasn't strong enough to kill him, so the friar was able to save him with the help of another teenager. In this sequel, Romeo falls in love with the new kid, whose family objects to him, so ..."
That could lead either to Romeo and Ashley or to Romeo and Julius.