I have this thing where even if I didn't like the first book in a series, I still end up the sequel as "maybe read". Granted, I only do this for books I gave a 2.5 to 3 star rating that I feel maybe, juuuust maybe, the sequel would be so much better. These also include books I actually own the sequel of and think it's premature to write the series off because let's be real, it hurts knowing I spent money on these books early on and now I could have saved myself the money by just being a sensible shopper and only buying the first book first. Ofcourse I don't add every single sequel of a disappointing book in the maybe read pile. So there are actually not that many but I want to show you them and the comments will be the last try at persuading me to keep them as maybe read and not remove them out of my reading life completely.
The two dystopian books, In The After and Mila, were quite opposite in the way I felt about them. For In the After, the first half was addicting, but the second half took a nosedive, as for Mila, the first half was very boring and the second half picked up. However both of their better halves weren't good enough for me to give them above a 3 star rating. So the main question is, are the sequels better?
Pretty Crooked was supposed to be a mystery or something but I totally forgot anything to do with it.. i think I thought in the end it was pretty childish and even with the first book, none of the mystery got solved and that annoyed me. As for The Iron King, oh man I thought that book was so very childish and cliche and cheesy. The romance killed the whole book for me. Lastly, I know this is a crowd favourite and I apologise ahead of time, but I really disliked City of Bones. It was so boring and too detailed in its descriptive paragraphs. I did enjoy the movie (I know! many people didn't), and I'm planning on tuning in for the show.. but I think to myself... why go through the torture of reading the series when I can just watch it?