David Bratman wrote:
> At 01:08 PM 8/1/2005 -0700, Matthew Winslow wrote:
> >We may agree here, David, so maybe clarification is needed, but when
> >you write 'allowing uncontrolled sequelitis', it sounds like you're
> >claiming that she didn't plan the entire series (to some degree) up
> It's one thing to decide in an advance that you're going to write seven
> books and have some vague idea of major plot points; it's another to plan
> them out in detail. Since Rowling didn't actually write all seven before
> publishing the first, it doesn't really matter how much detail she planned
> them out in. Sequelitis can clearly still strike an author who knew she
> was going to write sequels.
I think the question is whether they can be properly termed
"sequels" when there's an overall plot structure being pieced
together from beginning to end. Stopping after Book II might not
have been quite as drastic as stopping after THE FELLOWSHIP OF
THE RING, but it still would have left the story arc unfinished.
The Harry Potter series isn't as continuous as THE LORD OF THE
RINGS, but it's more so than, say, the Chronicles of Narnia.
(Where, obviously, Lewis =had= to stop after THE LAST BATTLE, but
IMO =could= have stopped after any of the earlier books without
having readers scream "You =can't= end it THERE!")