When Series go Wrong
By Dave King | January 16, 2024 |
Holmes dealing with his Nemesis
I’ve been reading some of the last few of Anne Perry’s 32 Thomas Pitt mysteries, centered around the late 19th century detective. (Sadly, Ms. Perry died in April of last year. She will be missed.) It’s been fun to watch how Ms. Perry developed her skills over the course of the run. For instance, she did eventually kick the habit of describing faces as a way to convey emotion. But these last few books show a problem common to a lot of longer series – feature creep.
At the start, Pitt solved murders as a police detective in London. As the series went on, he tracked serial killers, then battled conspiracies within the government. This got him kicked out of the police, but he was picked up by Special Branch, where he continued the fight. Toward the end, he saved the reputation of the Crown Prince, the life of Queen Victoria, and ultimately the Empire. And while Ms. Perry’s skills as a writer made much of this plausible, mostly by rooting it in Pitt’s character, I still wonder, if the series had continued for a few more volumes, would Pitt have prevented WW1?
There are lot of good reasons for writing a series. One of the pitfalls is, how do you keep from repeating yourself – the Bond books get formulaic pretty quickly — without pushing your stories to increasingly high stakes? A lot of great series run into this problem. After Doyle tried unsuccessfully to kill off Sherlock Holmes, the stories grew more unfocused. Watson’s wife disappeared, a lot of stories were nostalgic looks back at decades-old cases, and Holmes eventually retires and raises bees. The series ends with Holmes and Watson coming out of retirement to shut down a German spy operation on the eve of WW1.
One way to keep a series fresh is to introduce a nemesis – an ongoing villain to give the villain’s side of the story as much continuity and growth as the hero’s. A nemesis lets you reveal new details of how deeply they have their tendrils into society, giving the hero new and deeper flavors of evil to overcome with each book. In Pitt’s battle with the secret society within the halls of government, he uncovers links to colleagues around him he wouldn’t have expected. Rex Stout gave Nero Wolfe a nemesis in the form of criminal mastermind, Arnold Zeck, whom Wolfe pursued over the course of three novels. Even Doyle helped speed Holmes to his death by introducing Moriarty.
But nemeses rarely last for long without themselves becoming formulaic. The existence of SMERSH didn’t keep the Bond books from repeating themselves. Arnold Zeck only lasted for three novels before Wolfe managed to take him out and return to mysteries with a smaller, often more personal focus.
Another way to keep a series from falling apart is introducing new characters or new revelations about old characters. Elizabeth Peters’ Amelia Peabody Emerson series, which runs from late Victorian days to the thirties, is primarily centered around Amelia, her husband Radcliff, and their immediate family, all Egyptologists. But the cast eventually grows to hard-to-manage proportions. We meet various distant cousins and friends, both English and Egyptian. Their son Ramses marries a young woman they found in a surviving enclave of ancient Egyptians right out of H. Rider Haggard. Sethos, the nemesis for several of the novels, turns out to be Radcliff’s long lost half-brother. The new relationships that the new characters bring into the mix, and the way other characters mature, keeps the series fresh and fun until the end. But the dramatis personae does eventually get a bit crowded.
By far, though, the best way to keep a series fresh is through quality characterization of the core characters. I’ve talked before about how high-quality, complex characterization can keep readers coming back far more effectively than anything else. I haven’t read to the end of the series, but from what I’ve read, Kinsey Milhone’s character doesn’t go through any major transformations. Yet Sue Grafton’s books continue to delight because Kinsey is such a pleasure to spend time with, mostly because of Grafton’s fresh prose.
Over the course of Patrick O’Brien’s Aubrey/Maturin books, Jack Aubrey advances in his career in the Royal Navy at the time of the Napoleonic wars, but his character and the character of his friend Dr. Maturin don’t really change. Yet their friendship is deep and improbable enough that it always feels fresh, even 20 books in.
As I said, there are a lot of good reasons to write series. You fall in love with your characters and want to keep telling their stories. You make acquisitions editors happy because they know there will be a steady supply of popular books. You make readers happy for much the same reason. It’s natural to be drawn toward starting a series.
If you do, pay attention to what engages your readers in the early books. A given plot structure can be fun at first but wear out quickly (looking at you, Dirk Pitt). A single quirk of character can draw readers in – in the earlier Wolfe novels, Wolfe and Archie are mostly made up of quirks. These features may be enough to get your series started. But if you really want to keep readers reading for ten, fifteen, twenty books without disappointment, work to develop characters who are more than their quirks. Give them complexity, serious flaws, layers they might not even be aware of. If you can, create characters readers will deeply love. Then. readers will want to keep coming back just to spend time with them.
So what series have disappointed you, and why? What attracted you to the series in the first place? At what point did you realize things were going wrong?
Dave King has been editing for nearly 40 years now. He is co-author of Self-Editing for Fiction Writers, a former contributing editor to Writer’s Digest, and has contributed more than 100 articles over the last 12 years to Writer Unboxed. He lives on 25 acres in rural Massachusetts with his business partner and wife, Ruth Julian, who also edits his work. His other day job, at least on Sundays, is as the organist at a Lutheran church in Greenfield, Mass.
[coffee]
Nice summary — thanks! Just working on a couple of new series myself.
As Anne Perry’s North American agent for 33 years, I went on that series journey, discussing her stories with her weekly, sometimes daily. I can tell you she that she was keenly aware of the issue you raise. Thirty-plus titles with a character will do that. She worked hard to keep each of her two main series fresh.
Ultimately though she ran out of steam for both and, at the age of seventy-five, launched two new series, one featuring Thomas and Charlotte Pitt’s son Daniel in the decade of the 1900’s, and the other set in the 1930’s featuring a young woman photographer/spy named Elena Standish.
Anne chose the 1930’s because of its dangerous parallels to our own time. Every novel she wrote, in fact, 101 to be precise, was fired by family and something in current events that she found disturbing. She also kept fresh with detours in more than twenty short Christmas mysteries, each of which featured a minor character from her main series. She wrote short stories too.
Anne’s secret, though it is hardly a secret, was to stay engaged not just with her characters but with the world. There’s always something new, dangerous, exciting and worth our attention there, no matter how long you write.
Anne Perry RIP, she was my client but also my friend and inspiration.
What a nice testament to Anne and her talents. I’ve enjoyed many of her books, and need to find her Christmas stories. Somehow I missed them. And I so wished she’d lived long enough to bring us more Elena Standish novels.
Thanks for commenting, Don. I had forgotten you were Ms. Perry’s agent, though Ruth reminded me she’d dedicated one of the Pitt book to you.
It’s fascinating to learn she was aware that she was running out of steam on both. (Incidentally, I didn’t mention her fudging Aunt Vespasia’s age to the point that she could plausibly marry Narroway — another way to keep the series fresh). As I said, she was a skilled enough writer — and engaged enough with her characters — that she almost pulled it off. Still, I think she may have done the right thing in launching the new series.
As I say, she will be missed.
Having met Anne and having enjoyed a number of conversations with her, I can attest to her insatiably curious mind and deep involvement in issues of morality and history. Her idea of small talk was discussing unionism in late 19th century England or the difference between misguided good intentions and genuine evil. She was one of a rare breed. I’m sorry to hear of her passing.
One of the reasons I find her stories so engaging is her ability to really inhabit the nineteenth-century mind.
Here’s an interesting thing, Dave: Anne’s first drafts were entirely about the people, getting them right, their emotions authentic, and above all making sure that someone in the story was squeezed into a state of anguish. When she had that, she knew she had a viable novel.
Anne’s characters, though, were based on contemporary people: protagonists came from family members and villains came from people in the current news. Only in later drafts did she layer in the carriages and crinolines, the period details.
Did she capture the “Victorian mind”? It was a trick, in a way, because mindset that we think was “Victorian” in her novels is still very much true of us today. Not entirely, she still understood the Victorian way of thinking–her research library was vast–but in large part the historical effect we feel in reading her stories is self-recognition.
BTW, she also took great delight in making Aunt Vespasia ageless.
That is fascinating. I mean, I’ve worked on a few historical novels that have, without intending to, been based on modern people. It shows. If this was Ms. Perry’s starting point, she hides it remarkably well.
I also took great delight in her making Aunt Vespasia ageless. She’s a wonderful charater.
I started reading her after hearing you talk about her at BONI in 2012, and though I never managed to keep up with the series novels, I am nearly through with the Christmas novellas, savoring the last few as I know there will be no more. Another thing she did that kept the series interesting was her explorations of justice and mercy from multiple angles.
After reading Anne’s obituary I started the Pitt series and was utterly absorbed and enchanted. Her depictions of Victorian society through the characters and plot seemed seamless and arresting. I’ve now finished the last and am in mourning there will be no more though I understand her fatigue much like the actors who need new roles. I do wish I could write her a note of thanks and appreciation for the bounty she created. What a productive life! How grateful are we that she, after a horrendous passage, created such a tangible universe of characters. She is profoundly missed. Lucky you to have known and worked with her.
This is great Dave. I like your point about layers. I have a novel coming out in September 2024 with Crystal Lake Publishing, and I am writing the sequel now. I don’t see a series brewing from the storyline, but writing a sequel has its challenges, especially being aware of repetition, reminders, or prompts necessary to reflect something in the first novel that is important. Any suggestions on books or articles on how to write effective sequels? Or, what not to do in a sequel? The genre is supernatural/magick/romance. Anyone else here has thoughts, please jump in.
I think I need to know a little more about the books. Do they simply share characters and setting, or does the second book complete some plot threads that you introduced in the first?
Generally, with standalone novel within a series, it is a tricky to know how much to recap. But usually, writers err on the side of including too much background. It’s tempting to put all the background in towards the front, so readers know where they are before the story begins. But that background can often come when readers should be getting into the present story, not hearing about the last one. Besides, readers are usually willing to put up with a bit of ambiguity at the beginning of the story.
Hope this helps.
Thanks, Dave. The sequel has new plot threads as well as a continuing (enhanced) storyline in the same town with the same two main characters. There is new stuff but it builds on what happened in the first book. At the moment, I’m threading in the necessary reminders where it seems timely. But I’m looking for some instruction on how to write an effective sequel. Most advice I’m reading online is very general.
There may be an article in the question of how to write a sequel in general. Watch this space.
For now, I’d recommend that you find beta readers who haven’t read the first book and see if they can follow the action in the second. It’s notoriously hard to judge how much background you give your readers, especially when you already know the background in detail yourself. This sounds like a job for outside eyes.
Great information, Dave, especially with your line by line ability to help a writer keep things fresh. And praise to Anne Perry whose imagination and thus success has provided so much reading joy to so many.
Well, thank you, Elizabeth.
Amelia Peabody is very likely one of the reasons I’m an Egyptologist today. It was so fun to see your mention of her! I remember cracking up while reading some of the earlier volumes under my desk in seventh grade: Ramses, with his little-boy accents and too-adult vocabulary, was hilarious (“pass me that femuw”), and I loved Nefret from the start. I think that the overly large cast is only a problem if you start reading a series in the middle (or if too much time has passed between volumes). As it is, I think fondly of the entire Peabody/Emerson clan as personal friends.
Oh, she does keep things fun and exciting up until the end. And it’s wonderful that she inspired you into your career — inspiration does come from odd places.
One of my favorite moments was from a book set in, about, 1905, when Amelia and Emerson meet Howard Carter. They find him pleasant, “but, of course, he’ll never amount to anything in Egyptology.”
Dennis Lehane once remarked, when asked if he intended to write any more books in his Kenzie & Gennaro series, “Have you ever heard anyone say the 17th book in a series was their favorite?”
Subsequent to that remark, I picked up the 49th book in Ed McBain’s 87th Precinct series — and it was an utter gas.
McBain enjoyed the opportunity presented by having a large cast of characters–the entire precinct, more or less–to explore in his stories.
Of other writers whose series have somehow managed to remain fresh, I’d single our Mike Connelly’s Bosch novels. In creating Harry Bosch, Mike introduced a character with so many demons and so many issues that it would take numerous book to deal with them all — and then, once they were addressed, he gave Harry a daughter he was unaware he had, then a half-brother who was a defense attorney (Mickey Haller, the “Lincoln Lawyer”), always presenting one more challenge, often personal not professional, to broaden our understanding of who Harry was and what he could handle.
Great topic. Happy New Year, Dave!
I’m glad you liked it, David. And you’re right about McBain keeping his series fresh by rooting it in the precinct as a whole rather than an individual character or handful of characters. I remember one memorable scene from one of the earlier books (I forget which one) in which he effectively wrote a scene from the point of view of the precinct. That’s pretty original storytelling.
Oh, and I love the Lehane quote. It sums it up nicely.
There’s always something new, deeper or previously hidden to discover about a series character. Connelly is brilliant at that. The opposite way to go is to create cypher heroes, around whom mystery abounds. I’d put Sherlock Holmes and Reacher into that category.
A great disappointment for me, after I had hacked my way through four and a half doorstops, was “A Song of Ice and Fire,” George R.R. Martin’s epic fantasy series. I enjoyed the first one very much, even though I was astonished–and not in a good way–by Martin’s gleeful habit of killing off the people to whom I had become attached. I also absorbed the second and third volumes. The fourth, I thought, was inhabited mostly by the people I didn’t care about, doing very bad things. In the middle of the fifth volume, I began to feel so strongly that Martin had no ending in mind that I quit. I have never seen the TV series, even though I’m strongly in favor of nudity and dragons.
I’m kind of the opposite. I read the first book but am most familiar with the series. Even then, I never saw the end of it, because Covid came along and excessive violence seemed less entertaining. I never watch the Vikings series to the end for the same reason.
But I have heard about how Martin got lost in the latter books, and thanks for confirming it. He can write exceptionally well. But he was tripped up by this quirk of creating a series. And possibly the deadline demands that a television series can create.
Good example, thanks.
Occasionally a series book takes the MC off their patch, for a good reason, but those books are often less appealing. We’re not in the setting we’ve come to know and love but more than that, so few of the regular characters make the trip. So far, in two series, I’ve only sent my amateur sleuth on a field trip in short stories. Taking her further afield, when that’s not part of the series from the start, seems risky. It works well, though, in series like Grafton’s, or Deborah Crombie’s Duncan Kincaid and Gemma James series, where the MC is a professional investigator (PI or cop), who often travels on cases, but is still seen occasionally in the office or at home.
Actually, shifting the setting is another way to keep a series fresh. I still remember when Rex Stout sent Nero Wolfe to a dude ranch out west. Or to Montenegro, for that matter. And given Wolfe’s girth, moving him around is even more dramatic.
Obviously, reader response varies — raising questions for the author.
Good point. When planning my series, I tried to avoid the pitfalls of “Murder She Wrote” (how many murders can take place in one small town?) by having my protagonist travel the highways of North America in his Freightliner. I needn’t have worried, however. I’m only on the 6th book of the series and I probably won’t get past 10, if that. I keep them fresh for myself by choosing new main characters in each book with traits and backgrounds that interest and intrigue me. Hopefully that does the same for my readers.
As always, Dave, your insights are appreciated!
See my reply above on moving your characters around to keep the stories fresh.
Also, I found it curious that, on Murder She Wrote, the murder was always committed by the highest paid guest star.
I enjoy series, especially if the cast grows to contain a found family structure as in the early JR Ward Black Dagger Brotherhood series, or Laurell K Hamilton’s Anita Blake series. Unfortunately, both lost their way with increasingly improbable situations, even in the fantasy world that had been created. In Anita Blake’s case, I think Hamilton wrote herself into a corner by making her a succubus. The books became 25% sex scenes and the arch villain, nothing more than a cartoon villain. After one too many times spending money on a hardcover and finding myself utterly bored, that was it for me.
Contrast that with the Dublin Murder Squad series by Tana French. Amazing characterization, IMHO, with 1st person POV and a protagonist that changes with each book, so that you get the intimacy of inhabiting a distinct person in one novel, then a glimpse of how they’re perceived by others at another point in time. Each character has their demons, and the psychological motivations are impeccably grounded, and the endings aren’t pat. She reminds me of Lehane or Connolly in her capabilities around creating a noir setting.
Excellent examples, Jan.
Just for fun, I looked up the plot summary of one of the later Dirk Pitt adventures. He more or less started out raising the Titanic. By the time Valhalla Rising rolled around, he was discovering the remains of Captain Nemo’s Nautalus.
Yeah, it’s easy to paint yourself into a corner with a developing series.
Dave:
Mick Herron’s Slough House series is a great example of a series worthy of its longevity. A revolving cast of characters, all noticeably flawed, in a variety of situations, plus tight writing and plotting. Highly recommended.
Good example, Christine. Thank you.
Interested in fact based espionage and ungentlemanly officers and spies? Do read “Beyond Enkription” by Bill Fairclough – it is the first stand-alone fact-based espionage novel of six autobiographical tomes in The Burlington Files series. As the first book in the series, it provides a gripping introduction to the world of British intelligence and espionage. It is an intense electrifying spy thriller that had me perched on the edge of my seat from beginning to end. The twists and turns in the interwoven plots kept me guessing beyond the epilogue. The characters were wholesome, well-developed and intriguing. The author’s attention to detail added extra layers of authenticity to the narrative.
In real life Bill Fairclough aka Edward Burlington (MI6 codename JJ) was one of Pemberton’s People in MI6; for more about that see a brief News Article dated 31 October 2022 published in TheBurlingtonFiles website. The series follows the real life of Bill Fairclough (and his family) who worked not only for British Intelligence, but also the CIA et al for several decades. The first tome is set in 1974 in London, Nassau and Port au Prince: see TheBurlingtonFiles website for a synopsis.
Fairclough is not a professional but his writing style is engaging and fast-paced, making it difficult to put the book down as he effortlessly glides from cerebral issues to action-packed scenes which are never that far apart. Beyond Enkription is the stuff memorable spy films are made of. It’s unadulterated, realistic, punchy, pacy and provocative. While the book does not feature John le Carré’s “delicate diction, sophisticated syntax and placid plots” it remains a riveting and delightful read.
This thriller is like nothing we have ever come across before. Indeed, we wonder what The Burlington Files would have been like if David Cornwell (aka John le Carré) had collaborated with Bill Fairclough whom critics have likened to “a posh Harry Palmer”. They did consider collaborating but did not proceed as explained in the aforementioned News Article. Nonetheless, critics have lauded Beyond Enkription as being ”up there with My Silent War by Kim Philby and No Other Choice by George Blake”. No wonder it’s mandatory reading on some countries’ intelligence induction programs.
Overall, Beyond Enkription is a brilliantly refreshing book and a must read, especially for espionage cognoscenti. I cannot wait to see what is in store for us in the future. In the meantime, before reading Beyond Enkription do visit TheBurlingtonFiles website. It is like a living espionage museum and breathtaking in its own right.
Best read these news articles for starters – https://theburlingtonfiles.org/news_2023_06.07.php & https://theburlingtonfiles.org/news_2022.10.31.php.
A fascinating discussion. Series success seems to be based on balance, solid characters and a setting bringing a range of variables yet still feels like home. Ww
Exactly. Both fresh and familiar. It’s a tough balance to hit.