When I watched season 2 of Rome, I expected great things.  Just like in season one.

But the character arch had literary died off in act 3 of season one.

The acting was flat, the drama and tension not there, repetition of theme had soaked into the blood, and bone of the series it was not a wonder Rome Season 3 did not occur.

Which leaves us with a quorum?

How do you sustain yourself season after season on television?  I can name a few series that maintained their level of originality (M.A.S.H, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Carol Burnett Show, Archie Bunker, Hill Street Blues, E.R. and so on).

Most series fall down flat after a view seasons.  It used to be if a series had potential (the X-files it was allowed to develop an audience.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_X-Files_(season_1)

The same applies to novels.  The late suicide author John Kennedy Toole earned the Pulitzer Prize.  His novel  A Confederacy of Dunces is supposed to be a comedic masterpiece.  Yet the style is difficult for me to read.  He warms up the reader putting his protagonist in an absurd scenario, then comments on that scenario via the protagonist.

One has to wonder what would have happened if he had, wrote a sequel?

With the lack of sales, I am still proud of my book Siolam, but without sales, I doubt there will be sequel.  The public is fickle, they want what they want and I write what I choose too unless paid to do otherwise.

http://www.amazon.com/Darrell-J-Banks/e/B00I33S10C/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1