When An Author Takes Over A Character Or Series That They Didn't Create

[Melodie]

Ace Atkins has taken over Robert B. Parker's Spenser series. He was hand-picked for this task by Parker's family. IMHO, he has done a remarkable job. I had read Atkins' work before in a series he wrote several years ago and liked his stuff. He has a good handle on most of the characters and has done a good job with both of the books he's already had released in the series. Since the Spenser books are hands down my favorite mystery series ever, I don't consider this a small feat on Atkins' part.

[Betty]

When Robert Goldsborough took over Nero Wolf stories, I was disappointed and didn't continue to read them. I recently read one Robert Goldsborough and I enjoyed it. The book seem to me that he had done and excellent job to recreate Nero and friends. I guess I ready to accept another author of one my favourites books

[Rebecca]

Well, it seems to be a nearly irresistible impulse, and I can't seem to resist reading them. I was pretty happy with Jill Paton Walsh's continuations of Dorothy Sayers' Peter Wimsey books, until she wrote one entirely on her own (the first two she did finished books that Sayers had at least outlined).

And I loved Anne Hillerman's explanation of her continuation of her father's series: she realized that if she was ever going to find out what happened to the characters she loved, she was going to have to write it herself. I haven't yet read her book to see how I feel about it.

Children continuing a parent's work seems to be not uncommon. Todd McCaffrey has continue the Pern novels, but I can't say I care for his style. Though I think he's right in one thing: he's not trying to be his mom, and is writing in his own voice and style. I wonder how much he was behind the direction the whole series took in later works, away from fantasy and more to SF--and a whole lot of books I couldn't love the way I did the first ones back in Jr. High!

[Lynn]

Nancy Pickard took over Virginia Rich's Eugenia Potter series, and I thought those were very well done. But I understand Rich left copious notes for Pickard, who really just wrote the last few books from outlines and notes left.

And I know a few series where authors shared the books, most notably (in my experience) the Cherry Ames series. Those worked very well and I enjoyed both Helen Wells' & Julie Tatham's contributions.

As for completely taking over a series with no instruction, I really don't have experience so I can't comment. But I'm sure it can be both very well done and extreme crap.

[HJ]

Felix Francis has continued writing books in the style of his father Dick Francis. The position is a little different as Dick's books were generally one-offs and very few had the same characters, and Felix also wrote a few books with his father before Dick died. He now publishes books under his own name, but also using his father's as they are described as a "Dick Francis Novel". I do not like that - I do not see how they can properly be called "Dick Francis Novels".

The position is also different because it's very likely that in fact it was his mother, Mary Francis, who did the actual writing of Dick's books; they collaborated on ideas and research but she was the writer. (Or so I believe; some prefer to believe that her main contribution was to the research.)

I read one of the books Felix co-authored with Dick and didn't like it, so I haven't read any others. I admit that I was probably prejudiced against it, but also that I wasn't surprised when I learnt later that Mary was probably the writer; this was the first book written since her death several years before and felt very different.

I don't like the fact that Felix uses his father's name as he does, although I don't doubt that it was with his father's blessing. I don't think it is "necessary" in the way some other continuations have been justified i.e. to finish an uncompleted story arc.

The inconsistency I find in myself about this is that I like some fanfiction very much, although on reflection I realise that I prefer it to be based on films or TV series than on books.

[Amanda]

K. M. wrote: "Over the years, I've heard different instances where a new author is brought in to continue writing a series that someone else has been writing, perhaps because the author passed away, or just chos..."

I agree with you. I feel that if a writer is talented enough to continue a successful series, he/she should be talented enough to create something original, even if it is similar to the defunct works.

[Kirsten]

What do you think of when an old series (estate) hires an author to write a follow-up? Sebastian Faulks did James Bond. Eoin Colfer did Hitchhiker. Doyle's estate even got someone to do Holmes.

A side note about Felix Francis. I heard once his dad told him to always write his books as if the Queen Mum would be reading them. (Which she did!)

[Amanda]

Kirsten wrote: "What do you think of when an old series (estate) hires an author to write a follow-up? Sebastian Faulks did James Bond. Eoin Colfer did Hitchhiker. Doyle's estate even got someone to do Holmes.

Personally, I think it's pathetic. Just greedy people trying to wring another egg out of the golden goose. I think Doyle would be horrified if he could see what a joke has been made of the Holmes character recently.
A ..."

[Diana]

A lot of factors go into the answer to this. It is hard to give a blanket statement. First, Does the new author remain true to the original? I was disappointed with the books written after Sanders died in the McNally series. The new author changed the relationships and even the perspectives of the original characters. Second if the original is much older than the new does the author remain true to the time. Walsh put ideas in the mouths of Sayers characters that were clearly more modern than the thirty's when Sayers wrote.

However, I find a careful attempt with the right motivation can be very rewarding. Anne Hillerman's efforts to keep her father's series alive is off to a good start for example.

[Kirsten]

I think there's a difference between people using someone else's characters and when the author brings in others to help out or even the next generation. Clive Cussler, Dick Francis, et cetera did this.

Also, the estates of Ian Fleming, Douglas Adams, A Conan Doyle (and maybe they checked with him using a seance), all did this.

I think you have to check them on their own merits. Laurie R King writes an excellent series starring Sherlock Holmes.

There is a fine line though. What makes these any different than fan fiction? Or Star Wars/Star Trek books (the original fan fiction)?

Some of these characters are very well loved. Maybe we need to still see them.

[Melodie]

Amanda wrote: "I agree with you. I feel that if a writer is talented enough to continue a successful series, he/she should be talented enough to create something original, even if it is similar to the defunct works.

As I mentioned previously in my post regarding Parker's Spenser series, Ace Atkins did write a series prior to being tapped by Parker's family to continue the Spenser books, along with some books that I believe were standalones. He also has another series that he writes now. I don't see this as an attempt to "wring another egg out of the golden goose" at all. I agree with Kirsten's statement that some of these characters are very well loved and people aren't ready to let them go yet. Definitely the case with Spenser and me. However, had the first book he did not been any good I wouldn't have gone any further.

[Amanda]

Melodie wrote: "Amanda wrote: "I agree with you. I feel that if a writer is talented enough to continue a successful series, he/she should be talented enough to create something original, even if it is similar to ..."

Did you see the Holmes movie with Robert Downey, Jr.? I thought it was an abomination. True to the original character as defined by Doyle? Maybe--in name only. And that's my point. I would hate to have people who are unfamiliar with the original Holmes as written by Doyle think they are seeing the character he created in the Downey movie. And if the Doyle estate okayed the project, I still say they did it for the money and not out of interest in carrying out Doyle's heritage.

[Kirsten]

I enjoyed the film. But only if I pretended it was just some guy named Sherlock Holmes and not really him.

Much better is the one on Masterpiece. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman are terrific! Rupert Graves is wonderful as Lestrade too.

[Melodie]

Amanda wrote: "Melodie wrote: "Amanda wrote: "I agree with you. I feel that if a writer is talented enough to continue a successful series, he/she should be talented enough to create something original, even if i..."

Never was much of a Holmes fan, but I saw the movie and I loved it. Like Kirsten, I never associated it with the books in anyway, unless characters with the same name counts. I also love the BBC series with Benedict Cumberbatch. I've seen many big screen & TV adaptations of things I've read that were really bad. OTOH, I've seen some that were really great, too. I singled out Atkins' Spenser books because I find them to be very good. I've read things that were taken up by someone else that were bad. Kind of like most things in life. To paint them all with the "money grubber" brush is totally unfair, IMHO.

[Leslie]

Amanda wrote: "K. M. wrote: "Over the years, I've heard… "
I agree with you. I feel that if a writer is talented enough to continue a successful series, he/she should be talented enough to create something original, even if it is similar to the defunct works...."

This is my feeling as well. I have read some that are well-written (the Laurie King books for example), but I tend to avoid reading them as I can't help feeling that the author is trying to cash in on someone else's success.

[Karen M]

Kirsten wrote: "I think you have to check them on their own merits. Laurie R King writes an excellent series starring Sherlock Holmes."

I've read only one in the Mary Russell series, Garment of Shadows, and it was very well done. Mary is the star and Sherlock is more of co-star in the story. To me, since Laurie R. King wasn't trying to write like Conan Doyle, it was a perfectly acceptable tribute to the memory of Sherlock and Conan Doyle.

[❂ Murder by Death]

The House of Silk: A Sherlock Holmes Novel was the novel approved by the Doyle estate and it is an abomination. Complete and utter rubbish. But I do enjoy Laurie R. King's Mary Russell books; Ms. King has a firm grasp on the true persona of Sherlock Holmes, but she's not trying to continue in Doyle's footsteps, rather going off in a different, "what if" direction.

Cozy examples: Lila Dare was a pseudonym for Ella Barrick and Laura DiSilverio, who wrote the first three Southern Beauty Shop Mysteries. For whatever reason, the fourth book of the series was written instead by Joanna Campbell Slan using the Lila Dare name. This book was the BEST of the four by a mile. She's an example of a replacement author doing better than the original. It's a shame the series ended there.

Lastly Blaize Clement passed away and her son has taken over the series. I've not yet read the first one he's officially written - it's on my Pile, but I'll admit to a bit of trepidation about reading it for fear of what he may have done to the characters.

[ஐ Katya (Book Queen)ஐ, Cozy Mysteries Group Owner]

This is a pet peeve of mine. I absolutely hate it and refuse to read the new stuff. I posted last year that someone is going to write a new Agatha Christie novel. I just think.... why???

It would be easier if they wrote a new generation decended from the original characters in a familiar setting. Someone mentioned Star Wars and Star Trek novels. I've read some of both. Some I dearly loved, and others I can't read after just a few pages. It all depends on if they got the characters right. But to me, fan fiction so to speak on a scifi series (written by many screenwriters) is completely different than one person writing a series that has become a classic. To tamper with a classic is blasphemy. To me, its just the estate of the original author trying to earn more money. It cheapens the original works and the "new" stuff is rarely worth reading. *end of Rant* lol

[Melodie]

❂ Jennifer (reviews on BookLikes) wrote: "The House of Silk: A Sherlock Holmes Novel was the novel approved by the Doyle estate and it is an abomination. Complete and utter rubbish. But I do enjoy Laurie R. King's Mary Ru..."

I totally agree with you on the Lila Dare thing. The only Holmes I ever read was Hound of the Baskervilles when I was a kid. Never felt compelled to read any more of them, but I've enjoyed the myriad big & small screen adaptations of them that I've seen. I take them all on their own merits. I also have the Blaize Clement in The Pile. I've always jumped on those straight away when they arrived, but I've been afraid to read this one!

[Diana]

I'm glad I'm not the only one that's afraid to read the next Blaize Clement book…I keep seeing it at the library and reading the blurb and then putting it back…and then picking it up…and putting it back…I just don't want to not like it…

I also LOVE Sherlock (the Benedict Cumberbatch version of Sherlock Holmes) a lot and love what they've done to modernize the stories, but I think, for some reason, that Sherlock Holmes is very adaptable…maybe it is just because the stories have been around for so long and so many people have played around with them that it now seems normal.

I did enjoy the first Mary Russell book, but haven't ever tried any since…not for any good reason, just haven't…

[❂ Murder by Death]

Sounds like there are more than a few of us staring at that Blaize Clement book! lol

I've just started listening to the second Mary Russell book: A Monstrous Regiment of Women. Too soon to tell if it will be any good or not.

I really enjoy the BBC's Sherlock; I feel like they remain true to the character of Holmes, more or less.

Agatha Christie's work needs to be left untouched. End of story. So sayeth me. ;)

[Diana]

Have to confess that Benedict Cumberbatch is a big part of the reason I love Sherlock - there is just something incredibly sexy about him and his super intelligence just makes that much more appealing...

[❂ Murder by Death]

Diana wrote: "Have to confess that Benedict Cumberbatch is a big part of the reason I love Sherlock - there is just something incredibly sexy about him and his super intelligence just makes that much more appeal..."

He's not at all my type, but I can see the attraction. And he does an excellent job of being Holmes; he looks at fellow characters like they are analytical experiments, for lack of a better way to phrase it.

[Melodie]

Diana wrote: "Have to confess that Benedict Cumberbatch is a big part of the reason I love Sherlock - there is just something incredibly sexy about him and his super intelligence just makes that much more appeal..."

I have a friend who is a Cumberbatch fanatic! Not my type either, but a great actor! Which is why he's such a good Holmes! He does have a wonderful voice.

[Kirsten]

I think Martin Freeman is incredible as Watson. Much better than the Watson in the old Basil Rathbone film series.

[Cheryl]

I'm with Brainsgirl on this. I really hate the idea of someone taking over characters created by another person who's dead. Even if the writing itself is similar, the characters themselves usually don't ring true. (Like Ian Fleming's James Bond series that were carried on after his death.)

[Pat]

Nancy Pickard did a great job writing from Virginia Rich`s notes. She kept the spirit and voice of Virginia extremely well. I just wish there had been more left behind.
Another series I loved, the Miss Seeton series, was written by three different authors. The second author did not keep to the character of the original author, therefore didn't write many of them. The third author, however, did very well. Again, I wish there were more of these.

[ஐ Katya (Book Queen)ஐ, Cozy Mysteries Group Owner]

If the "new" author is any good, then they should write on their own merit and shouldn't need to jump start their career by leeching off the works of good but dead authors. Just my opinion.

[Leslie]

ஐ Briansgirl (Book Sale Queen)ஐ wrote: "If the "new" author is any good, then they should write on their own merit and shouldn't need to jump start their career by leeching off the works of good but dead authors. Just my opinion."

Hear hear!

[Beth]

In general I agree, but if you are left hanging, as in The Wheel of Time series, you are grateful for the author (in this case Brian Sanderson) giving you some closure.