Question A

[Jonetta]

Were you surprised to learn Terry McCaleb had died? Why do you think Connelly decided to sacrifice this character?

[Robin]

I was very surprised that Terry McCaleb died. I wonder if Connelly decided to kill him off, thinking we would definitely jump to the conclusion that the Poet had killed him. After all, the Poet had killed a string of detectives in the past.

[Jonetta]

I was disappointed and surprised. You make a good case, Robin. I'm going to see if I can find an interview with Connelly that explains his rationale.

[Jonetta]

Found one. Here's what he said:

Interviewer: I’ll get to the one you’re working on later, but I want to talk a little bit about THE NARROWS. Everyone asks the question about why you wrote a sequel to the Poet but no one seems to ask this: why kill McCaleb, and why now?

MC: I knew I wasn’t going to write about him again. It all came out of creative means or needs. I knew after I wrote A DARKNESS MORE THAN NIGHT I wouldn’t write about him again simply because he was too well-adjusted, too normal and when you’re writing these books you have to figure out which character can sustain you, keep you interested, gives you that juice for your engine over a year’s time. I didn’t think I’d want to spend year writing about that character again. Initially, if I stare at a blank screen in front of me and decide what to write, it’s really a) a character I know or b) somebody new. And if it’s a), there’s no way Terry McCaleb could ever unseat Harry Bosch as far as someone I’d be excited about writing again. That was 3-4 years ago, so for this book I decided to use him in a way that would be an exciting incident for another story.

Interviewer: Sure, you could have just decided not to write about him again and leave it at that. But doing it like this is certainly a shocking way to open a novel.

MC: I think it’s better to conclude stories even if you’re writing about series characters. Even if it’s not a conclusion people will like.

[Robin]

I can kind of see his point. He wouldn't want to write about someone who was so "normal" that he was boring. But I'm not sure Terry was that well-adjusted. He seemed to be obsessed with these crimes, to the point where his marriage was melting down. I think he could have sustained another story or two.

[Jonetta]

I thought Terry a bit more complicated, too. Well, Connelly's got to write him so if he's bored by him, another story would be problematic.

[Lauren]

Thanks for posting the interview, Jonetta.

I was really shocked that Connelly killed Terry off given that he had two books in which he was a main character. I don't think I've ever read a series where that happened.

Terry dying made me sad, but the fact that it was at his own hand made me a bit angry. In doing this Connelly undermined everything that Terry had struggled for and made Theresa's death somewhat of a waste as well.

[Jonetta]

Lauren, thanks for putting into words those feelings I was struggling to express. His death bothered me but less when I thought he was murdered by Backus. The suicide seemed out of character, even if he thought it was best for his family. Connelly becoming bored with him was a cop out.

[Lauren]

Jonetta wrote: "His death bothered me but less when I thought he was murdered by Backus.."

Exactly! Then he would at least have died for something :0(

[Robin]

I agree. Suicide just didn't seem like something Terry would do.