The Only Light Left Burning, by Erik J. Brown: DNF

[rachelmanija]

This sequel to one of my favorite books of last year, a young adult post-apocalypse novel with a lovely slow-burn gay romance, fell victim to a trope I basically never like: the sequel to a romance that starts out by breaking up the main couple or pitting them against each other. It may be realistic but I hate it. If the main thing I liked about the first book was the main couple's dynamic - and if I'm reading the sequel, that's definitely the case - then I'm never going to like a sequel where their dynamic is missing or turns negative. I'm not saying they can't have conflict, but they shouldn't have so much conflict that there's nothing left of the relationship I loved in the first place.

This book starts out with Jamison and Andrew semi-broken up and not speaking to each other or walking on eggshells around each other, because Andrew wants to stay in the nice post-apocalyptic community they found and Jamison wants to return to their cabin and live alone there with Andrew. Every character around them remarks on this and how they need to just talk to each other. Eventually they talk to each other, but it resolves nothing and they go on being weird about each other and mourning the loss of their old relationship. ME TOO.

Then half the community's children die in a hurricane, and it's STILL all about them awkwardly not talking to each other and being depressed. I checked Goodreads, saw that they don't make up till the end, and gave up.

The first book is still great! It didn't need a sequel, though I would have enjoyed their further adventures if it had continued the relationship I loved in the first book. I did not sign up for random dead kids and interminable random sulking.

Comments

[slightweasel]

Oof, thanks for the warning. I read the first one after you reviewed it & really liked it! But I also don't like romances in fiction to disintegrate for the sequel. There are other ways to write established relationships, but so many times people don't think to have the main couple work through an issue together throughout the whole thing. Sigh.

[rachelmanija]

You can have issues and conflict in a relationship while still maintaining the positive aspects of the relationship!

[mific]

Yeah, I got a little way into the sequel then abandoned it. Relationship conflict isn't a trope I like either. I mean, it's the apocalypse damn it, there have to be loads of exciting, dangerous adventures they can have while still being there for each other.

[rachelmanija]

I would have eaten that up.

[mrissa]

I have heard from people who read a lot more romance than I do that you can do a series by focusing on different pairings per volume, and this sounds like a solid plan to me and I endorse it.

[rachelmanija]

Yeah, the romance series I write are mostly like that.

[swan_tower]

I will never get why so many sequels to romances seem to think the next logical move is to trash the very thing the audience probably enjoyed about the first installment. By all means show us the challenges inherent in building a lasting relationship -- we need more stories that don't end at "they kiss and live happily ever after" -- but step one of that is rarely "have everyone involved fall out horribly"!

[rachelmanija]

It's SO COMMON and I hate it.

[swan_tower]

"Hey, people loved The Mask of Zorro, with its swashbuckling, sexy romance. Clearly what they want out of the sequel is Alejandro being a bitter drunk who fails at fatherhood and whose wife serves him with divorce papers because he won't quit swashbuckling."

Just. WTF.

[rachelmanija]

I think the main reason for this is the western idea that 1) ALL stories must be driven by conflict, 2) any important story relationships must have conflict, 3) conflict can't be only external. If the conflict in the relationship in the previous story was whatever stopped them from getting together, and they're now together but still need central internal conflict within the relationship, then... you often get this.

[swan_tower]

You're not wrong, I'm sure -- but even with that, I can think of better ways to do it! What if they're both trying too hard to protect each other, in ways that don't grant the other person full autonomy? What if Elena is developing her own vigilante identity and Alejandro's jealous of her popularity drawing attention away from Zorro? What if Elena isn't a masked vigilante, but she's working for change via other channels, and they increasingly disagree about which of them is doing the most good? What if it's like The Incredibles and they've tried to settle down to a normal life but both of them are failing at it in secret? There are so many options that don't require knocking the relationship back to square zero, usually via single or double character assassination. >_<

[rachelmanija]

I know! It's so dumb and obnoxious.

[carbonel]

I hate when authors do that sort of thing. I still resent what Judith Kranz did with the sequel to Scruples, and that was decades ago.