Saturday, April 28, 2012


Serial killer or Serial books?

       Your first novel is published. Is it set aside, forgotten like a serial killer who’s gotten the “book” thrown at him? Or, as you're starting a new book, is your first thought that fan who wanted to see more of your characters? With him in mind, do you continue the first novel as a series?
            Serials and trilogies are all the rage. As a reader, I tend to be quite judgmental of them, since they are difficult to do in a manner satisfying to both the readers who requested the sequel and  to new readers who have yet to bond with the characters. It’s not easy to get it right. I read a lot of series books. Jonathan Kellerman bears mentioning, his famous duo Detective Milo Sturgis and psychologist Alex Delaware are a team I never tire of following as they unfold countless murder mysteries in the streets and surrounding areas of Los Angeles. Kellerman uses very little carry over from book to book, endearing his writing to my taste.

            My list of grievances with series’ is as follows:
1.     One of the worst offenders is the second (or fifth) of a series that assumes the reader has not only read the first novel, but has read it yesterday. The reader feels as left out as a spouse at the other spouse's class reunion.
2.     My personal worst is the sequel that spends 50% of the book in a giant laxative dump, explaining every detail of what took place in the first book.
The reader feels like he is still at that reunion and being dragged around and introduced to everyone who could care less about meeting him.
3.     The one I'm getting very weary of is the dreaded, evil killer who always survives to make a comeback in the next novel, succeeding in being more annoying than recurring post-nasal drip. Patterson is fond of this repeated reincarnation in his Cross series. And I don't think Patricia Cornwell could write a book without a villain from a past novel playing a starring role, or at the very least the son, daughter, cousin, mother, father, or adopted child stepping in to repeat the pattern of the diabolical relative. What happened to creativity?

I do follow the series of my favorite authors. I’m their biggest fan and worst critic! I must give a mention here to Jeffrey Deaver who, along with Kellerman, does both stand-alones and series equally well, his Lincoln Rhyme and Kathryn Dance characters keep me spellbound from start to finish.
      As critical as I am of series, I’m reluctant to attempt one myself, although two of the characters from my first novel will be making cameo appearances in my second. I’m leaving the door to a series open!

Dear readers,
Once more I’d like to ask for your input; Do you read books in series’? Anything about reading them you find annoying? Favorites? Do you think today’s readers prefer books in a series?
Lots of questions. Pick one or two. I’d love to hear from you.
Happy reading,
Marla

6 comments:

  1. I enjoyed reading your post. Series books need to keep that happy medium between reminding us what happened before, but not beating us over the head with the facts.

    I love series books. Probably my favorite is Janet Evanovich's Stephanie Plum series. I also try to keep up with series by Suzanne Brockmann, Daniel Silva, Catherine Anderson, Luanne Rice, Nevada Barr, Lynn Kurland and Carla Neggers, to name a few. Reading a series is like coming home to family and friends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. I read a lot of them too. But I think it is hard as an author to get them just right. You've named some who know how it's done!
      Thanks for visiting and commenting, Teri!
      Marla

      Delete
  2. Writer Dave here.
    I don't read books in a series.
    I like new characters with different world views.
    I think it's 50/50 as far as those who don't like series books and those that do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm. I think you're rather a minority. But then, it may be more of a woman's thing to love series'. I know Terry hates TV programs that continue a story from week to week. Calls them "soaps" no matter what their genre! So it might be a guy thing to want conclusions, no?
      Thanks for commenting,
      Marla

      Delete
  3. Series novels can be very good, so long as the focus is on entering the novel's universe, with the "series regulars" handled very much like a very good episodic television show ((f you'll forgive me going all couch potato on you). Example: Parker's novels, adapted into a series of "movie of the week" television plays, "Jesse Stone" with Tom Sellick. We enter the same universe with each installment, the protagonist has the same quirks and struggles with himself in each one--but growth and failure deepen the characterization. We want to get more about this guy, and discovering another that we missed either gives us a preview or a prequel to enjoy the back story. I loved that the crooked small time pol in one volume, recurs in another--chastened, tired, but in some manner poignant, despite all that we know about him. An earlier novel or film gives us the back story we crave. Too long this post. Another great series, Raylan Givens in "Justified," from Elmore Leonard's originals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree! I like the Jesse Stone series too, but like the movies better than the books for some reason. I don't like the ongoing thing with Jesse and his ex-wife. It seems out of character for a man who has so many other women going after him, to keep putting up with the way she treats him. It was okay for a while, but going on too long for me. The movies haven't had as much about it as the books. Love Parker's novels, great dialogue!

      Thanks for commenting,
      Marla

      Delete

Please share your thoughts!