Recurring characters
One of the tricky parts about writing a series over the course of a long period (it's been nearly a decade since I first wrote the name Lenox down on a piece of paper, thinking it might make a good name for a protagonist) is knowing how much characters should change.
There are protagonists who never, or rarely, change - Miss Marple, Sherlock Holmes, Robert Parker's Spenser. Then there are those who grow and change and even die, like those of Elizabeth George or Sue Grafton or PD James.
I like both methods. I think the second is riskier - you can alienate the reader, or lose sight of what made the character interesting in the first place. (Since the author spends a LOT more time with the characters than the reader, it's tempting to make unnaturally drastic changes, just for the excitement.) Elizabeth George's books have been worse to me since she killed off a major character.
I try to have my characters grow and evolve, and at the same time stay somewhat static - so that visiting them in the sixth book and the first book doesn't feel like THAT different of an experience. They're still the same people, with the same qualities and fears and loves. This seems to me true to life. It's uncommon to see people take huge turns. More often you see people deepen into their characters.
What do you prefer - characters trapped in amber, or characters who evolve in crazy new directions? What's your favorite example of one way or the other? Curious as a writer to hear how readers react to this subject.
There are protagonists who never, or rarely, change - Miss Marple, Sherlock Holmes, Robert Parker's Spenser. Then there are those who grow and change and even die, like those of Elizabeth George or Sue Grafton or PD James.
I like both methods. I think the second is riskier - you can alienate the reader, or lose sight of what made the character interesting in the first place. (Since the author spends a LOT more time with the characters than the reader, it's tempting to make unnaturally drastic changes, just for the excitement.) Elizabeth George's books have been worse to me since she killed off a major character.
I try to have my characters grow and evolve, and at the same time stay somewhat static - so that visiting them in the sixth book and the first book doesn't feel like THAT different of an experience. They're still the same people, with the same qualities and fears and loves. This seems to me true to life. It's uncommon to see people take huge turns. More often you see people deepen into their characters.
What do you prefer - characters trapped in amber, or characters who evolve in crazy new directions? What's your favorite example of one way or the other? Curious as a writer to hear how readers react to this subject.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Suzanne
(new)
Oct 23, 2013 06:57PM
I agree with you about EG. Killing off Helen destroyed something essential to the reader's investment in a circle of friends/lovers/colleagues. I am bored by books where the characters are "trapped in amber", but hope for consistency of character traits and a believable life trajectory in a series.
reply
|
flag
I can go either way. I love Sherlock, Miss Marple and Hamish Macbeth. As I think about all my favorite lead characters, however (and I am addicted to series mysteries and read a lot of them), most of my favorites do grow and change over time while remaining recognizable -- just like my friends and family! The continuing backstory is part of what keeps me coming back novel after novel. That also helps on the occasions (rare!)when some aspect of a mystery novel is a bit of a dud. I can still enjoy the "soap opera" and look forward to the next book. Following a character or cast of characters over many years also adds a special dimension to my "virtual relationship" with authors as they become a continuing part of my life. I truly miss Ellis Peters. I grieved for Margaret Frazer and Ariana Franklin because, while I never met them, the characters they created won't be coming back again.
Suzanne wrote: "I agree with you about EG. Killing off Helen destroyed something essential to the reader's investment in a circle of friends/lovers/colleagues. I am bored by books where the characters are "trapped..."Suzanne, that sums up my attitude. Though I'll admit that in certain cases, like Sherlock Holmes, it's nice when there's an unchanging consistency to the character, and you can drop in on any story and feel right at home...
Kathy wrote: "I can go either way. I love Sherlock, Miss Marple and Hamish Macbeth. As I think about all my favorite lead characters, however (and I am addicted to series mysteries and read a lot of them), most ..."Kathy, as someone who likes writing the characters best and the mysteries least, I'm glad you stick with series for the characters!!! Great response, thanks for posting.
Charles, it's a tough call. I think with some series, like M. C. Beaton's Hamish Macbeth, the consistency of character works. I can't imagine what the series would be like if Hamish got married or left Loch Dubh. On the other hand, I do enjoy books where things evolve in a more realistic way, like your Charles Lennox series. It definitely gives it that extra layer of realism if done well. However, I'd have to agree that I was really aghast at EG's choice to kill off Helen. Lynley was one of my favorite characters, and the books since then just seem a bit out of character. I could never see him with the alcoholic Isabelle in "Believing the Lie". I suppose not being the writer, I have no call on how he evolves as a character, but it just totally ruined the whole experience for me. I'm not sure whether or not you've read any of them, but I have a lot of apprehension for Jacqueline Winspear's next Maisie Dobbs book. I don't want to give any spoilers as it hasn't been a very long time since the last one came out, but I'm really worried about what direction the story is going to go in the next one. Her Maisie Dobbs has evolved through the series in a very believable way so far, but the cliff hanger at the end of the last book could really take a bad turn easily. So much so, that as a reader, I wondered if she intends to write another one at all.
Depends on the genre for me. If there's a juicy mystery to solve, a world to save, a war to win, then the character doesn't have to do as much of the heavy lifting in terms of wrapping me into the story, but a character facing some personal demons--however small--will be easier to create empathy for than one who's static. A character facing a LOT of personal demons... potentially, lots of empathy (Holmes?).
Charles, Since I read a lot of series, I like the main character to evolve but in a way that is natural. Your Charles Lennox series is good this way as you fit the characters into the plot seamlessly. I like continuity but I don't like static. The characters have to speak to me and keep me interested in the story so that I will want to finish it.
I look forward to reading your newest book.
In addition to a good mystery story one of the things I really enjoy with the Lennox series is spending time with "friends" such as Lady Grey and Charles Lennox. A key part to this enjoyment is watching them evolve and change with life.
It depends. For the most part, it is comforting to spend time getting lost in a book where you have a static character because you know outside influences won’t interfere with the plot, etc. I like the element of surprise and knowing more about a character. Like knowing that friend for twenty years and finding out they knit or play banjo. It’s difficult for readers of a series because these characters become our friends. Our only real connection to them is seeing them come to life on a page whereas, the author spends more time with them than we do. So while the death of a character is hard (the YA community is experiencing this as we speak), it also mirrors real life. Yes, it’s out of the blue when a death happens as we read, but then sometimes people do get that 2 am phone call we all dread. In the end, I’d rather have characters evolve. I’ve heard friends complain about static characters and how nothing is happening, etc. in a series.
We, as people, evolve over time, things change around us. But generally we are who we are. Experiences will influence us, and may even change our minds, but that change of mind doesn't mean it changes our character. We simply find a new way of incorporating the change into our character. When I become invested in a main character in a series, that's what I want to see. The consistency of that person should be the ground that the book walks on. And I can take comfort in the expectations I have of my fantasy friend.
I generally prefer characters to evolve over time. We get used to them, get to know them and begin to see them almost as real people. It would be strange if they did not change or remained unaffected by what happened to them. Some characters, Poirot, Miss Marple, etc. are instantly imbued with this sense of stability and of being almost caricatures, at least in my opinion (though I am a huge fan of Monsieur Poirot!) and so they don't need to change much, because in their case, their stability and reliability is what we are attracted to.
I am the type of reader who needs to be drawn in by characters. Even if there are holes in the plot, I can love a book if I can somehow connect to the characters, that is really why their evolution matters so much to me. I want them to be real;-)
I am looking at the series I have close at hand...Lindsey Davis' Falco books, Michael Connelley's Harry Bosch and Mickey Haller, Robert Crais' Elvis Cole and Joe Pike, Rhys Bowen's Royal Spyness series and Dorothy L. Sayers' Lord Peter Wimsey. It would seem that I prefer characters who evolve, even if it is done very slowly. Wimsey did, if only in the books that involved Harriet Vane. I also enjoy Holmes, in the original, and in the reimagining of Laurie R. King's Mary Russell/Holmes novels. That is an interesting combo...Mary grows up, from fifteen to adulthood, and Holmes has to change, due to the relationship with Mary.
Katelynn wrote: "Charles, it's a tough call. I think with some series, like M. C. Beaton's Hamish Macbeth, the consistency of character works. I can't imagine what the series would be like if Hamish got married or ..."I absolutely agree with Katelynn. There are some series characters that work really well as fairly static characters (Miss Marple, Poirot, Holmes)--It's nice to know that when you visit St. Mary's Mead or 221B Baker Street that things will generally be the same. But I also enjoy the characters that grow and change and have events that work to change them. For the most part. Elizabeth George's Inspector Lynley series is the tricky one. I enjoyed his growth until she snatched happiness from him. I haven't read another book since What Came Before He Shot Her and I have no desire to do so. Extreme, abrupt change for a beloved character is definitely a difficult endeavor for an author to bring off successfully.
