Seconds.

Why is it almost invariable that the second in a trilogy sucks so hard? (P.S. While doing research for this post on Wikipedia, I found so many I didn't even know had sequels. Wow. "Angels in the Outfield"? "Starship Troopers"?)








I am just beginning New Moon, and only 72 pages in I had to face the very real possibility that this could be a book with no Edward Cullen. A short summary on the verso told me this would focus on Jacob and some culty thing. I'm not really looking forward to it.





I just feel like the second in a trilogy is a space-waster. An excuse for the author to put in those stories he didn't have room for in the first, and the third installment is too exciting and denouement-y to include them either. So the crappy middle child gets it.






And we, the loyal readers who were hooked by the invariably engaging #1, fall for it every time. No one skips Anne of Avonlea on their way to Anne of the Island (nor should they; this is a definite exception to my rule). I couldn't bear to Netflix "Ocean's Thirteen" until Neil and I slogged through "12" (not actually as bad as people say, but maybe because we were expecting it to be terrible).





I'm spending the remainder of my evening finishing up "The 1940s House" and then continuing on with New Moon. I'm hoping I don't have to add another image to this post when I finish.