A post on Lee Goldberg's blog A Writer's Life got me thinking about mystery writers and series characters. The mystery genre tends toward same character books, I guess because they make readers comfortable, there's name recognition and a built in marketing device. All good for the publishers but what about the writers?
Mr. Goldberg was discussing Robert B. Parker's newest book, "Rough Weather" and he was totally unimpressed. Now I've always loved Parker's books and always scanned for his name on the spine of the books at the library. But I have to admit that the last few years I've stopped reading his books. Spenser has become the same old, same old. The Jesse Stone novels were wonderful at first but Jesse's obsession with his ex-wife is just the most stupid thing I've ever read. Every time I read the books I want to reach in and smack that man and tell him she's a slut, get past it. And Sunny Randall is just Spenser in drag, dog and all. I quit reading her after two books.
There are several series that I've read and finally just tossed them against the wall mentally. Patterson's Alec Cross, Sue Grafton's Kinsey Millhone and Patricia Cornwell's Kay Scarpetta. In all of these series I felt the writer didn't play fair with me.
Cornwell killed off a major character, gave us a full book of grieving, then brought him back to life without a hint that he might be alive. I'm not stupid, readers were pissed, weren't they? So the writer is forced to bring back the dead. She should have stood her ground and kept him dead rather than cave. It was her story to tell, wasn't it? Or are the readers telling writers what they have to write these days?
Patterson had a bad guy on the fringes of his Cross books who Alex was always trying to catch. Damn, it was the guy who was hiring him to solve cases. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Perhaps Patterson couldn't figure out who the bad guy was and just tossed us someone to get rid of him? Might have worked better if it had been Samson and he was jealous of Cross's fame. That would have made more sense.
As for Grafton I quit reading her when she went off on a rant about people picking their noses in their cars and three chapters in I already knew who the killer was. So why do writers keep writing these series characters when they're just phoning the story in?
There are series that I still read like Tess Gerritsen's Rizzoli/Isles books. She manages to keep them fresh and also her writing by doing stand alone books in between the series so when she comes back to her characters she's looking at them with fresh eyes. Something I wish more writers would do.
So what is the purpose of this post? I'd like to write a novel, but I know that if I choose to write in the mystery genre, the agents and publishers are going to want a series character, something they can count on year after year. A popular series is money in the bank for them, but will it kill my love of writing if I succeed (and that's a really big if, folks! )? Will I start phoning it in just to put another check in the bank? Are there series out there that keep getting better or do they just level off to the point that the writer is so bored they just don't care anymore?
And are there new writers out there who aren't required to come up with a series to stay published? I know there are a few like Alexandra Sokoloff, Duane Swierczynski, Dave Zeltserman and Louise Ure. But are these the rare birds or will the business change to allow for more of these books. Will writers be allowed to explore new characters and take their writing to a new level every time out? And can readers learn to follow authors instead of series characters?
And a quote from Andre Gide:
"The most beautiful things are those that madness prompts and reason writes."
7 comments:
My answer to the series character question is to do what Ed McBain did: feature a squad of cops, any one of which can star in a book and then fade into the background as another cop stands in the spotlight. Another alternative is to write different books using different pen names. Then, of course, there is the Lehane method: write five outstanding books, say all that needs to be said, and then stop.
To answer your question, these books, like shows on TV, are comfort food. My mom reads all of Sue Grafton and rarely has a bad thing to say about the books. There's certainly an audience for that. As a writer, if I'm fortunate enough to sell a book with a character that readers like, I'll hope to do the Gerritsen method: stand-alones between series books. Or there is the Connelly's method: different characters (Bosch, Terry, the Poet) in the same universe.
Megan's books are all standalones. I think she'd sooner give up writing than have to write a series.
Scott, I understand as a reader about "comfort food" books. For me, that's romance novels or books like Iris Johannson's Eve Duncan series. She's like McBain and Connelly in that she features different characters in the same world so the books always seem fresh.
I just wonder, as a writer, if I can be satisfied writing in the same world year after year. With short stories I can go anywhere and explore any topic I choose. I'm not sure that a mystery novelist has that same freedom.
I find with many series, the character's personal lives begin to take center stage instead of the mystery portion of the story. That tends to make them relationship books instead of the crime book I'd like to read. Maybe I'm just too fussy.
I'd forgotten about Megan's books, Patti. I guess there are quite a few authors who write standalones but I wonder if they're asked to write series when they first submit the books. I read an article once where an author submitted her standalone, had it accepted then was told they wanted two more books with that character to create a series. I remember that it frustrated her because she'd given the woman a child and then had to always make sure there were babysitters around to take the kid while she was off solving cases. Her advise was to be careful what you put in a book because it could come back to bite you.
I've still been thinking about the question and my first response. Here's the other, pragmatic side to the dilemma and I'm going to use music as an example. Chicago records "Hard to Say I'm Sorry" and its score huge. However, as a band, they'd rather play an uptempo album cut. But if they don't play HTSIS, fans will complain.
The huge hit/book/movie/actor role is a double edged sword. You strive to get that hit but then feel boxed in when the public only wants the same thing over and over. Take David Caruso. Hit it big with NYPD Blue, left, suffered, returns with CSI: Miami and makes the most of saying the same type lines over and over again. My wife and I joke about the actors who have left that show and wonder if the producers forgot to send Caruso to talk with them.
As a writer, the book that finally makes it big might not be my favorite one (although it will at the time) but if a publisher wants 15 more just the same way, I'm going to deliver. I'll find other outlets to keep me from being boxed in but I don't have a problem repeating what works. Granted, I *don't* have that book and I'm not in your situation but, from this side, that's what I'd do.
I prefer standalone novels. However, since 1984 I've read every Robert B. novel and I understand the criticism but it's (corny line coming) like visiting an old friend. A good series character I'm reading right now is Maigret, the French detective.
Nobody told me how therpeutic blogging would be. It suddenly struck me while I was thinking about this topic why I'm so scared of writing a series.
For years my husband I owned and operated our own dairy farm. Every morning, every night, milk the cows. No matter what else you wanted to do, the cows had to be milked. For almost thirty years there was no freedom from the same everyday pattern of our life.
I think perhaps I've been afraid of being trapped in that same pattern with my writing. The same characters, the same place, the almost same crimes. Just writing the same story over and over.
Thank you, guys, for all your suggestions and ideas that made me put this into perspective.
Post a Comment