Bad sequels that shouldn't be allowed

[Kathyis6incheshigh]

Cod's DuMaurier thread is reminding me how much better Rebecca is than either of the 2 sequels (there's a Susan Hill one and one by some feminist writer called The First Mrs DeWinter or something like that).

Which reminded me of the utter, drivelling can of tripe that is 'Scarlett - the official sequel to Gone With the Wind' (Scarlett goes to Ireland and gets all Celtic and New Age).

Never read any of the Jane Austen ones.

Can anyone think of any others?

(actually when I say they shouldn't be allowed, I'm not really suggesting banning them. I just hate it when they are 'official'.)

There's a sequel to Lolita called "Lo's Diary" by someone called Pia Pero (I think I've remembered that right). It's even worse than the original, if that's possible

OMG Greensleeves.
Maybe that one actually shouldn't have been allowed.

I have read the Emma Tennant sequels to Pride and Prejudice - called like Pemberley, and something else. They were fairly dire. but sometimes I can't stop myself reading crappy sequels to books I've liked. I've also read the Scarlett Sequel, which was most unlikely.

What about Heidi grows up and Heidi's children? They were official but I never thought they were as good as the original.

there's a new sequel to Peter Pan which I haven't read but it got good reviews. Peter pan in Scarlett.

Oh yes, those Heidi ones - weren't they by her translator?
Have read them and have got them somewhere but can't remember anything about them I suppose she marries Peter and they keep goats.

Sadly, I can remember them quite well. But they were pale shadows of the original. Heidi married Peter, grandfather turned out to be her new best friend's grandfather too. Peter became Respectable. Heidi had twins. Everyone became boring.

or something like that.

Emma Tennant's "Pemberley" is the only book I have ever felt compelled to ritually burn.. I just couldn't stand the idea of anybody else having to read it as it is so utterly, astonishingly bad. How it ever got published is beyond me.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Oh yes Dior, that was it. I did read it but never really got it.

Agree about Jane Austen's intentions. Exactly.

The authorial intentions thing was my problem with Scarlett. Margaret Mitchell thought she was writing serious historical fiction in GWTW - she would never have brought magic into it and the search for Celtic roots was very ahistorical for a character of that period.

Coming at a story from a different angle (as in Rebecca's Tale) is a different kettle of fish.

Of course J.M. Coetzee did a Robinson Crusoe one, too, which was quite good (there was a woman there with him but she got written out of the story).

Message withdrawn

I thought she wouldn't get Rhett back, Dior - I thought she blew it but is quite self-deceiving (which is her weakness and her strength)

Dior - I liked scarlett too for that reason... although does make me think of ultimate comfort reading - gone with the wind has to be up there.

What about wide sargasso sea (jean rhys)? - prequel I think to jane ayre

I've never managed to finish 'Wide Sargasso Sea' though it's meant to be good, isn't it?
I like the idea though.

Message withdrawn

Peter Pan in Scarlet is actually really good (8 year old DS loved it) but feel in the case of the goddess that was Jane Austin - HOW DARE THEY .

Heidi had twins?????

There is a book I've just read based loosely on Little Women but told from the side of Mr March as he went off to war, and covers how he met and married Mrs March. Good idea for a book though.

That's interesting MadLabOwner! Any good?

Wide Sargasso Sea is the only sequel by another writer that is worthy of the original IMO. Although there may be ones I've never read, of course.

Pemberley was dire. In terms of low-brow, some bloke called Charles something tried to finish off some Agatha Christie plots she'd left behind. AWFUL.

The Little Women based book is called March and is written by Geraldine Brooks (wrote Year of Wonder which I loved, about the village who got infected with the plague and voluntarily cut themselves off). March is OK to read, althoughMr March isn't a character I felt anything for, and there is lots of slavery stuff a la Roots as well, doesn't do much for me I'm afraid. Interesting to see how it ties in with Little Women though, with lots of references to the history of their marriage, how he lost the family money and of course Mrs March rushing off to tend to his fevered brow in hospital at the end.

Oh I loved "Year Of Wonder" - I hadn't realised that this was the same writer. I looked at "March" when it came out and suggested it for my reading group but was out-voted. Must try it.