This week’s Top Ten Tuesday prompt is Standalone Books That Need a Sequel. I actually prefer standlone books and don’t think every book needs a sequel. So instead, I’m going to list books that should have been a standalone and didn’t need a sequel.

Wintersong by S. Jae-Jones: Wintersong was hit-or-miss for me. There were aspects I enjoyed and others that felt messy. I debated about reading the sequel, and I wish I hadn’t because it was completely pointless and nothing happened for ages. Shadowsong is the reason I don’t read sequels of books I’m so-so about.

Starflight by Melissa Landers: While Starfall focuses on side characters of Starflight, I didn’t think it added a lot of the world and story. It’s not necessarily bad and I did enjoy reading it, but I don’t think it was necessary to publish.

Divergent by Veronica Roth: This one is tricky to explain because Divergent didn’t wrap up all the issues presented in this dystopian society. But Insurgent, and worse Allegiant, did nothing to add to Divergent. I’ve read Insurgent twice and can’t tell you one thing that happened in that book, and Allegiant was just a trainwreck. This series could easily have been one, maybe two books, instead of a three.

The Maze Runner by James Dashner: If we had received actual answers in The Maze Runner, it would have made this book so much better. Because neither The Scorch Trials nor The Death Cure gave us any more answers to what the frick frack is happening in this world. (Do you sense a trend with YA dystopians not needing to be a trilogy?)

The Archived by Victoria Schwab: Now, don’t get me wrong, I love The Unbound. This duology is my favorite of Schwab’s works, but The Unbound wasn’t necessary. The Archived wrapped up the plot quite well and it felt like another book was written to write another book.

East by Edith Pattou: Again, like The Archived, East didn’t need a sequel. Am I glad Edith Pattou wrote one and I read it? Yes, I am. I like how West stretches Rose’s characters further and gives us more about Charles, but it wasn’t needed.

A Darker Shade of Magic by V.E. Schwab: I like A Gathering of Shadows better than A Darker Shade of Magic, but I also think it felt odd because, aside from the characters, it barely connects to the plot of the first book until the end. Did A Darker Shade of Magic need a sequel? No, but I like it still.

The Mortal Instruments by Cassandra Clare: This one is a little different because I think the first three books of the series are okay books, but books 4-6 were completely unnecessary and felt like they were written for the purpose of selling more books. Books 1-3 wrapped up the Valentine plot perfectly and inserting an evil brother plot was annoying.

Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter doesn’t need The Cursed Child. I understand why it happened—to bring Harry Potter to the stage—but the plot is completely ridiculous and pointless and doesn’t fit at all with the rest of the series. It would have been better to just adapt the first book into a stage play.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies by Seth Grahame-Smith: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is one of those books I should hate on principle but I love it because it’s over the top and ridiculous and it works. But it definitely didn’t need a prequel or a sequel as those were kind of weird and connected to each other more than they connected to the main book. The only thing the sequel does right is give Mary and Kitty more time in the spotlight.

What sequels do you think were unnecessary to publish? Don’t forget to join the link-up!