Why I’ll Stop Reading a Long-Running Mystery Series
NEWS flash: Ginny JC is the winner of Wendy Tyson’s audio book. Ginny, please check your email!
by Barb, traveling back to Key West after a lovely wedding in Vermont
As I explained on Maine Crime Writers on Thursday, as soon as I turn in my current book, it will be time to write a new proposal for books seven through nine of the Maine Clambake Mysteries. This got me thinking about the positive reasons why I stay with a long-running mystery series. I wrote my answers here.
In my post today, I’m looking at the opposite side of the question. What causes me to drift away from a series? I don’t mean read one book and decide,”This isn’t for me.” I mean to either consciously or unconsciously stop reading new books in a mystery series I’ve previously been invested in.
Here’s what I came up with.
[image error](1) I don’t care what happens to anyone. There are a lot of discussions, most of them not fruitful in my opinion, about whether main characters have to be “likeable.” For me, the answer is no. I don’t have to like them, but a do have to care what happens to them, because the entire point of reading a book is to find out what happens to them. There may be some standalone thrillers with plots so compelling you’ll read them in spite of the cardboard characters, but that isn’t possible for a series.
While this might seem like a reason not to start reading a series in the first place, I have often started series with interesting characters only to have them turn into people I wouldn’t want to share a cab with, much less get stuck on a desert island with. Patricia Cornwall’s Kay Scarpetta series became this for me. I wasn’t put off by the blood and gore, or the marital infidelity per se, or even the crazy politics. But a main character making terrible life decisions, sitting in judgey-judgment on all the other characters, who are also making terrible life decisions… It was too much. I let it go.
[image error](2) The series story doesn’t move forward. There’s a lot of talk about whether protagonists in crime series need a character arc. Whether they need to somehow be different at the end of a book than they are at the beginning. Whether they need to grow over a series. Lee Child’s Jack Reacher famously doesn’t.
I find I don’t care so much if the character changes, but I need the story to move forward. I need the character to choose the good guy or the bad boy, to make peace with her mother or decide she never will. I need the hints about that thing that happened in the past to be revealed if not resolved. I’m really patient. Milk it for as many books as you think you can, but I need it to happen.
Janet Evanovich’s Stephanie Plum series was this for me. I loved the humor and I loved the portrait of life in the Burg. But it all became a little rote–sassy dialog, car crash, fail to make choice between two men, crash funeral with grandma, car cash, car cash. She made a lot of money off of me. I took this series for a long ride, but eventually I gave up.
[image error](3) Every single character from every single book moves forward with the series. I like the introduction of interesting new series characters, especially if they have a personal or professional connection to the main character. But I don’t need every character I’ve ever met, many of whom I can’t remember, to be involved in each new investigation.
I stopped reading Martha Grimes’ Richard Jury series for this reason. When there got to be dozens of characters, all introduced in the first chapter of the next new book, I gave up.
(4) There are too many books, too frequently. Okay, I know this is idiosyncratic to me and that the only viable business model for a lot of self-published series right now involves frequent releases. It may be because I read slowly, or I have reading I have to do for my writing, or I have so many favorite series, but if an author writes so much that I get way far behind, I’ll give up.
Readers, what makes you stop reading new books mystery series?
Save
Save
Save
Save
Save
Filed under: Barb's posts Tagged: Janet Evanovich, Martha Grimes, Patricia Cornwell
newest »
I was thrilled to read your ideas about giving up on a series. It is a difficult decision because I am afraid I might miss something. I am going through the same thing with Joanna Fluke's Hannah Swenson series. I am enjoyed the series, but now I do not like the direction she is taking Hannah. I generally give up for the same reasons you stated and that validates how I feel about certain series. I think I prefer when the series ends with the characters in a good place and although I will miss them, I can let them go rather then abandon them. Love your characters and the location of your series. Thank you.
Thank you, Linda.Interesting what you say about an author planning a series ending and leaving the characters in a good place, rather than going on and on until readers abandon them.
What really puts me off is when the same things get explained in every book of a series. Most readers aren't likely to start reading a series at book #10. (And even if they do, These days they can read up what happened so far on the Internet.) And when the jokes repeat themselves more often than grandpa talks about the war.Selma Eichler's Desiree Shapiro was soooo getting on my nerves in both ways. I had actually bought the next two books and I never read the second one of the two.
I think author's should generally assume that readers will try to read a series' books in the right order, but may not have been in touch with the series for a while. So some gentle hints, yes, but no outright repetition.
There you go, my two cents worth ...
Interesting Stef, and good to think about. We're always told each book should stand alone, but I'm learning as I write book 6, by that point all the characters are dragging around so much backstory... And that's what it feels like...dragging.
Oh yes, I agree with a book should stand alone, maybe I didn't bring that over well. For example, I would never buy a book "in chapters" or a sequel to a book that left me hanging in the air completely. But there can be a stand-alone story and a web of interwoven lifelines spanning several books at the same time. And there will still be no neccessity to give a synopsis of everything that happened since the beginning of the series. (After all, you want people to read all the books ... lol!)
For example, you remind readers of how bumpy Julia's relationship with her boyfriend was in the beginning, but you're not going into all the details, you're rather pointing out how things have become gradually easier. You don't say she thought he was doing this when really he had been just protecting soandso and whawhawha ... There is no neccessity to highlight how Julia and her brother-in-law are not the greatest friends on earth with every new book, because either he will be important to the story and then readers will be able to tell, or he's not.
When someone enters who readers from day - or rather book - one have already met, you add a few new details which bring them closer to the ones who "know" them already and say enough to place them for the newbies. If you keep that up, I certainly won't stop reading the Maine clambake series ...
Is that clearer?
I may be a bit biased as I read mostly ebooks. And the true glory of ebooks is that they can't be out of print, so I have no excuse for not starting with book one!
