Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/31339
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I have a story I'm writing which envisions some sequels. However, although the timeline and world are the same, such sequels are so different from each other that I feel I'm causing too many deep permanent changes in the stories.

As far as I know, and based on what happens in the market I study and what its audience says, a sequel is, generally, similar to the previous work, being kind of a "The New Adventures of X", keeping the world/universe, feeling and atmosphere, but putting the same characters (or most of them) in new events, and such audience like it that way, because that way they can have again the experience they had in the previous work but now with a new story with the characters they love and some new things, very usually [keeping the status quo](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StatusQuoIsGod).

However, in my story, if there is a very special and rare race, it's sure that they will be extincted; if there is a bloodline that inherits a powerful ability, it's sure that such line will be broken; if there is a group of very likeable characters, it's sure that the protagonist will be unable to be with them again; if the protagonist goes to the future, it's sure he can't return; if there's a powerful artifact, it's sure that it will be destroyed; if the protagonist has special powers, it's sure he will lose them, etc.

As if it's not enough, there's also changes in the content and genre of each story: the first is a fantasy, one of the sequels is a sci-fi, another one is close to horror, etc.

So, the reader is likely to not expect the sequel to be so different from the previous and end up disappointed. And with that, I lose opportunities to create more sequels with these things that got removed.

Should I be more careful with the status quo of my stories?

Original score: 3