(The real world intruded and prevented Matt Schwartz from posting an essay today, so I hope you won’t mind this revised piece I wrote a while back for my other column over at www.chizine.com)
By David Niall Wilson
Since my earliest days as a reader I’ve been enamored of books that form a series. I collected the Hardy Boys and Tom Swift, then later moved on to fantasy trilogies, The Destroyer, and The Executioner, and have now “graduated” to detectives, forensic experts, and the occasional bounty hunter. I read audio books voraciously, and if you find a decent series coupled with a good narrator, this is a uniquely pleasant form of entertainment – like having a long, very extended episode of a favorite television show trapped in your car with you. I’m sure that we’ll soon hear more on this from Mr. Hill, who I’ve shared many hours with (he was reading the words of our own Mr. Steinberg, so it was quite the storytellers unplugged party). I have started by stating all of this, not because I I want to write about audio books, but because I want to establish that I am familiar with the ground I’m about to cover — the art of writing about continuing characters.
Stephen King has taken this art to a new level, finding ways to intertwine seemingly unrelated works with one another, dragging characters from his own literary past, answering questions left hanging in old stories and novels and weaving it all into a huge, wonderful tapestry. He’s damned good at it, but it isn’t a task for the faint of heart, or the fuzzy of memory. In fact, part of King’s success in this realm is probably attributable to the fact he has someone helping catalogue, map correspondences, and track inconsistencies. It’s a daunting task.
King’s form of serialization isn’t what I want to talk about, though. I’m interested in discussing the serial character. Kay Scarpetta, Spencer, Anita Blake, the 37th Precinct, Lucas Davenport, Dave Robicheaux, the list is endless. Each book finds our hero or heroine battling the forces of evil, or crime, or terrorists. We are presented with familiar faces, names, character traits and side plots. The familiarity is a good thing, in most cases. It establishes an immediate rapport between the author and the reader that has to be earned when the book is a stand alone project.
The problem lies in keeping the books and the characters that populate them fresh the sub-plots under control, and this is where nearly every series breaks down for me. If you follow the careers of authors famed for their serialized characters, you will notice an almost universal trend. The first book, maybe the first couple of books, receive wide critical acclaim. Readers and reviewers alike love the plot, the twists, and the introduction to these new characters that will grow easy and familiar over time. Then, as book after book is added to the series, an odd transformation takes place. The plots become secondary. The characters grow to fill so much of the book with their lives, their side-plots, and their over-repeated idiosyncrasies, that there isn’t enough story left to bring back the magic of the earlier volumes. Some series characters churn along for years like this, but most sink back and are replaced by new rising stars, until they eventually fade from view.
There are a couple of factors that play into this, I think, and I’ll touch on them briefly. One is that authors seem to tire of characters that don’t need to be invented. They are as familiar with their creations as the readers, and then some – and the tendency is to repeat descriptions and dialogue, to give the characters tics and memories they fall back on again and again. Readers of the series will find entire passages that might have come from any of the books in the series, repeating facts and memories, descriptions and pat phrases that take the place of crisp, new writing. The relationship between writers and their characters is as delicate as that between men and women, parents and children, and close friends. If you don’t work at it, it gets stale, and everyone loses interest. Never take that relationship for granted.
The second of the two major problems I detect in many of the series novels I’ve read is the urge to “one up” the last book. This leads to wilder and wilder flights of implausibility as the characters face harder and more impossible personal and professional challenges, never keeping a relationship and always reaching for some new plot device that is just out of reach. Sometimes the sense a reader gets from these novels is that the author thought of all the personal sub plots carefully, and then patched in a wild hodge-podge of unlikely events just to tie together the next episode in the character’s lives, without considering that the most important part of a dramatic book is the plot.
Every criminal faced is superhumanly strong, cunning, trained in some odd thing that no one else knows about, followed closely by the next criminal, even smarter and more impossibly elusive. It gets old, after a while, and you start to just want to see the character chase something real…have a good period in his or her life with a solid relationship and no “issues” and solve an honest-to-goodness interesting crime with believable components. Real life can’t be ignored or bent to fit a silly plotline without anyone noticing. You can’t just say that a lawyer can’t win his case when you’ve presented more evidence already than ten lawyers would need in the real world and assume that your readers won’t question it. It doesn’t matter that the lawyers trademark character flaw is his overwhelming self-doubt – once you’ve presented facts that don’t fit, you can’t expect people to just let you get away with it.
I find myself about to launch a couple of novels that will, if everything goes as planned, lead to series characters. One is my detective, Tommy Doyle, the Psychos-R-Us cop who will appear in the Maelstrom Books limited signed hardcover “SINS OF THE FLASH” – the other is Donovan DeChance, a magician, occult expert who gets involved in mysteries dealing with a wild array of dark, fantastical characters. The first novel in that series is titled “Vintage Soul,” and is making the rounds of publishers (including one who has specifically requested it) starting with the birth of the New Year. Both of these characters will hopefully develop a readership, and both will demand that I continue to develop the world that each inhabits, while keeping the plots intriguing and fresh. I never want to have a book I write remembered as just another book in a series. I want it to be remembered as “that book where that really cool thing happened,” and then, secondarily, “yeah, isn’t that one of those “so-and-so” novels?”
I realize this is apparently the opposite approach that most series novelists take, but I have little sympathy for them. I hear novelists complain about the work involved in writing a book a year. These are men and women with no day job, but only this one book to write. It boggles the mind. If you already know most of the characters, and already intend to populate half the pages with recycled fluff, how long can writing that book actually take? And why, given the above circumstances, can’t the plot that fills the rest of the pages be well thought out, memorable, and bring all those readers back for more? Maybe these aren’t questions that can be answered. Maybe characters just die of entropy. Maybe a series can only be kept fresh for so long before it’s impossible to twist your imagination back to their little world even one more time. I hope I never reach that point with my characters. Currently, I enjoy their company.
Onward!
DNW

13 Comments, Comment or Ping
Janet Berliner
Good essay, Dave, one that poses a lot of questions.
I don’t understand your issue about tics and memories being repetiive. Of course they are, when you’re writing about the same person. My question always, even with the hottest of new plots, is how to deal with readers who have read the other books at the same time as readers who haven’t. The latter are surely entitled to some background, but how do you do that without annoying the former.
I wish we could ask Stephen to do an essay for us on that topic.
Thanks for stepping to fill the space left by Matt.
–Janet
Sep 7th, 2006
Teresa
…how to deal with readers who have read the other books at the same time as readers who haven’t Janet.
I’d be happy with a brief overview of the high points in characters’ backgounds, perhaps as an appendix. Those who know don’t ever need to look at it; those who want the details can find them. Just include the details that are relavent to the story being told. That reduces the amount of spoilage for readers who decide to get other books in the series. It would have the added benefit of keeping the author aware of how much old ground is being covered and reduce the strain on dedicated supporters of the series. I think that anyone who reads a multi-book story or a character series wishes they had a memory jog once in a while especially if books are spaced over several years.
(I sure hope GRRM has a good ‘jogger’ for A Feast for Crows. because it was a long wait.
Sep 8th, 2006
Michele Lee
Bravo. I’m an anita blake reader that you have pinpointed exactly why I’m not buying the books anymore. The plot takes a back seat to personal stuff. It’s irritated me so much I started a series with no one uping bad guys and no new powers. I really do not want my characters to fade out like that.
Sep 8th, 2006
Sully
The tendency to exploit character at the expense of plot has ruined most of my favorite TV series over time. “X-Files” was one. Maybe “Lost” is getting lost as well, though it seems to save itself most episodes. Sometimes it’s a consequence of star power in performance art, as this actor or that wants their character padded and developed. One very prominent TV series that never lost its richness or rhythm was M*A*S*H.
But then they had Gelbart to set the standard for writing.
In books it’s the author’s vanity, perhaps, that leads to intrusive character fluorishes. And one author here that I’ll nominate as a notable exception is a dear friend of mine. Loren D. Estleman has evolved many series characters, and I can’t think of one that made him miss a beat on his overall presentation. You could say he’s not a plot-driven author, however. His social commentary is razor sharp and he is so steeped in period history that you read him out of fascination for the time-travel as much as anything.
– Sully (Thomas Sullivan)
Sep 8th, 2006
Teresa
I see we see TV in similar ways, Sully. Great examples.
I’ve never heard of your friend; but I’m going to go looking right now.
Sep 8th, 2006
Mort
In addition to Estelman, we have Walter Mosley’s “EZ Rawlins” and James Le Burke’s “Dave Robicheaux” books.
These characters grow, move through time, and always engaging as involved in plots that grow from their changing/aging personalities but from the differing zeitgeists in a changing world.
Mort
Sep 8th, 2006
Mort
& sorry for the grammar goofs. Bad sleeping thanks to cold medications…
Mort
Sep 8th, 2006
David Niall Wilson
Thanks for weighing in guys. I don’t know that I agree about Robicheaux, Mort. He’s faded for me as well…but he isn’t really one of the problem children.
I think the most notable for me is Kinsey Milhone from Cornwell…you can read her early books, and maybe a 1/3 of the book was the “tics” as Janet names them…
The later books are 3/4 the problems of Kinsey’s family, her continually more failed relationships, and repeating baddies of more and more stealth and power….and buried deeply you find the plot of the actual mystery she is on the trail of.
And Janet, I don’t mind that the tics come up when it’s relevant, but there are characters where you sometimes find the author repeating these tics so often it begins to look like it’s something they do automtatically, instead of thinking about it.
I kind of liked the old days when the tendency was to put in a short “what came before” section in the beginning before the actual book started…though I can’t for the life of me remember a single one of the books where I’ve seen that..
Anway…
ONWARD!
DNW
Sep 8th, 2006
Mark Rainey
“The second of the two major problems I detect in many of the series novels I’ve read is the urge to “one up” the last book.”
Lord, yes. Movies in particular are terrible offenders in this regard.
Don Pendleton’s THE EXECUTIONER novels always opened with a summary of the character’s origin and an overview of his previous adventures, at least in the early days; I stopped reading them somewhere in the series’ teens. Those summaries could get pretty unwieldy. I don’t know how many novels in the series actually exist, and I’ve never read any of the ones where other writers took up the Pendleton torch (I don’t think), but there’s a series it’s hard to imagine existing for as long as it has.
–M
Sep 8th, 2006
David Niall Wilson
Not to mention shows like NCIS (which I love) that go big-show-big show - BIGGER show so often that they seem afraid to go back to just a show without an international incident involved. Pace yourselves, people …
DNW
Sep 8th, 2006
Janet Berliner
“And Janet, I don’t mind that the tics come up when it’s relevant, but there are characters where you sometimes find the author repeating these tics so often it begins to look like it’s something they do automtatically, instead of thinking about it.”
THAT’S PLAIN BAD WRITING, DAVE.
“I kind of liked the old days when the tendency was to put in a short “what came before” section in the beginning before the actual book started…though I can’t for the life of me remember a single one of the books where I’ve seen that.”
THAT WAS MY BASIC M.O. WITH THE TRILOGY. TERESA’S IDEA IS A GOOD ONE, TOO, BUT I THINK YOU’D HAVE TO REFERENCE IT AT THE BEGINNING.
Janet
Sep 8th, 2006
David Niall Wilson
I guess my point was that the writing goes down hill on most novel series after a few books unless the author really invests in each new book — and I think after a while, for a lot of authors, it becomes more of an automatic process they use to get a book a year into print…
D
Sep 8th, 2006
John B. Rosenman
Dave, I’m really glad you posted this. Not only is it a great essay, but I’m writing a sequel to a novel and trying to avoid some of the pitfalls you mention.
Good stuff.
Sep 8th, 2006
Reply to “Writing and reading Serial Characters - Some thoughts”