Mystery Lovers! discussion
Random Chats
>
Who needs to hang it up?
It must be hard as an author to know when the right time is to quit a series. I imagine it's like killing a friend.
I reckon Patricia Cornwell should have quit a few books ago. I quit reading at Trace (which was number 13) but wish I'd quit a couple before that. Frankly I think she "jumped the shark" when she started bringing characters back from the dead.
I've also lost interest in Jonathan Kellerman's Alex Delaware series. The last one I read was Gone and it was pretty boring (I only finished it because I had it with me on a work trip and didn't have access to any other books). I liked the early books in this series but now I get the feeling he's just not interested and is wondering just how bad he can make them and still have people buy them.
I reckon Patricia Cornwell should have quit a few books ago. I quit reading at Trace (which was number 13) but wish I'd quit a couple before that. Frankly I think she "jumped the shark" when she started bringing characters back from the dead.
I've also lost interest in Jonathan Kellerman's Alex Delaware series. The last one I read was Gone and it was pretty boring (I only finished it because I had it with me on a work trip and didn't have access to any other books). I liked the early books in this series but now I get the feeling he's just not interested and is wondering just how bad he can make them and still have people buy them.
You both make good points, the authors were some of my favorites and I've made the same observations. I will add, Iris Johansen has been losing me lately
Of course from the author's point of view you want to keep the franchise alive as long as it pays. I don't think Tommy and Tuppence caught on as well as Hercule Poirot for Agatha Christie.Somewhere I remember someone writing that if you have read one Perry Mason you have read them all. And if you like one Perry Mason, you'll like them all, sort of like chocolate ice cream cones.
Then again, if the ice cream cones don't taste the same, that's a good reason to look elsewhere.
What happens to me is that I discover a series that I like--two that come to mind are V. I. Warshawki by Sara Paretsky and Adam Dagliesh by P. D. James--and I read all the books that have been written so far in a marathon session. Then...I wait. And I wait.Sara Paretsky went off on this binge of writing non-series "mysteries" that were not really mysteries at all. I tried to read them, and I did not enjoy them at all. By the time she wrote another V I Warshawski mystery, I just could not for the life of me get back into the series. I would have had to re-read not just the one before the newest, but a couple of the ones before the newest to relearn the characters.
With P D James, I will give her credit that she does extremely thorough research for each of her mysteries; hence, why they are not formulaic or "Scooby Doo" as some else said. However, even after having the delight of meeting her, I will have to say that I have not read a P D James mystery since Death in Holy Orders. I just lost interest. The gaps between books were just too long.
thanks you guys, i just started thoses series and now i have nothing to look forward too. j/k. i will read them all in hopes of you being wrong. hey mysterious, i tried to add you as a friend, but i can't. so add me please?
There are so many authors that I find after a while I have no interest in reading.Jonathan Kellerman is definitely in that catagory. I cannot recall when I ceased reading his stuff.
I also cannot recall the last Kinsey book I read was it the k or h book.
I have labored I think through my last Elizabeth George book and I am only reading the latest James Lee Burke b/c it got great reviews
Robert Parker is another one but ocassionally he comes up with a good new book or a new character like Jesse Stone that at least has some new stuff, new twist.
I spend a lot of time finding new authors to read - who have new things to say or at least have new topics to draw on
I know what you mean about Sue Grafton's Kinsey Milhone series Jeffrey. They're boring me to tears these days. But something in my brain won't let me leave the series unfinished: because I know how many books there are going to be I seem compelled to buy and read each one even though I tell myself I won't do it again. So far I haven't bought 'T' but I don't for a minute think I've mastered my disease. I'll be passing a bargain bin one day and there it'll be and a few minutes later I'll be standing outside the store with a small plastic bag in my hand wondering what happened.
Sigh.
Sigh.
Oh, :: sigh :: I suppose I'm going to keep going with Graftons too, lol, I've come this far.I have T in my TBR pile.
I belong to a few trading sites and visit the fill-your-bag for $2 library sales to get books I'm not gun-ho to buy for full price, other-wise I might be more likely to just drop them.
From the author's standpoint, I think as long as you're getting good reviews, good comments from readers, and people are buying the books, you feel obligated to keep going. The fourth in my Greg McKenzie series just came out, and so far nobody has complained of it being formulaic. People keep asking "when will the next one be out?"I agree with earlier comments on some series. I quit reading Cornwell some time back. Ditto James Patterson (or whoever's name is on the cover with him). But I still find Kinsey entertaining.
Looking at the best seller list, I see that Kellerman is number 3 on hardcover and number 8 on paperback. Apparently there are an awful lot of people who think he is doing just fine, so I don't expect he will retire any time soon.On the other hand, I am trying to work my way through Gone and am still wondering what catches the public fancy there. So far it seems kind of routine and slow moving.
A lot of us here are a bit OCD when it comes to the books. Once we start a series, we have the compulsion to keep going. How many of you actually buy the books in the series that you are no longer into and leave them on this never ending "to-read" pile? I know I do. I am sure there are still people that still like the books, therefore the positive comments. But then there aren't usually as many positive comments as the # of books sold, right? Most of us just can't help ourselves not to continue buying the books in the series. Sigh. It is more of collecting than reading when it comes to that.
How can Ruth Rendell keep the Inspector Wexford series so readable? I don't think I will ever tire of these characters.I grumbled when Dennis Lehane stopped the Patrick/Angie series. I think he feared the formula factor. Absence makes the addiction grow stronger--I'd love another book, though I doubt he does this.
I wish Jonathan Kellerman would give us a book from the point of view of Milo. That might perk the series up.
I read once that Agatha Christie reached the point where she loathed H. Poirot...though she never reached this point with Miss Marple.
To you fiction writers, do you have favorite characters?
I am listening to Predator by Cornwell on audio right now and am not impressed so far
@Book Monkey - yep it definitely feels more like collecting OCD-style than reading sometimes
I think there's also something in my brain that wonders if I'm missing out on something. Like all my friends are at a party and I didn't go then spend the whole night wondering if something good is happening.
@Pamela - yes a book from Milo's point of view would be good. Preferably one where he tells the increasingly insufferable Dr Delaware to stop being such a pretentious annoyance :)
I think there's also something in my brain that wonders if I'm missing out on something. Like all my friends are at a party and I didn't go then spend the whole night wondering if something good is happening.
@Pamela - yes a book from Milo's point of view would be good. Preferably one where he tells the increasingly insufferable Dr Delaware to stop being such a pretentious annoyance :)
I'm probably alone with this one...Janet Evanovich. Her "Stephanie Plum" really started getting old after "6", I stopped reading after "7".
Pamela - To answer your question, yes. We writers have favorite characters - both of our own creation and those crafted by others. Because I am just starting a series, my characters are still fresh. Since, as a reader, I agree with all the comments in this post, I hope I will have sense enough to quit before my characters grow stale. When I grow tired of currently popular characters, I seek out new mystery writers and often return to the classic writers like Rex Stout or even Wilke Collins.
What a great thread!In the spirit of long-ago attended Iowa Writers' Workshops, though, I'll try offer what works for me along with what doesn't.
I've said it for years about Robert B. Parker: if he'd kill off Susan (preferably having her choke on one big slab of bread after all that dainty nibbling in book after book)he could let us see more of Rita Fiore or, please! just a new love interest. . . with a blood pressure! Hawk is a far more interesting character than Spenser at this point. That said about Spenser, I really enjoy Jesse Stone. Though obsessive about his ex-wife, he interacts well with other female characters and is dynamic and fascinating himself. If you haven't caught the occasional Jesse Stone TV movie with Tom Selleck, you're missing out on a real treat. Selleck=Jesse as Connery=Bond.
Jonathan Kellerman's Alex Delaware: tired. Wish I could say Milo isn't but I gave up on both of them years ago. I tried audio with great hopes and nearly dozed myself into a bridge abutment.
Sara Paretsky is, no doubt, a wonderful writer. She just doesn't write anything I like anymore. VI was terrific in her first couple of outings. I may be beaten to death for saying this but Paretsky's feminist schtick drives me nuts. I listened to her speak at a conference in Canada a few years ago and couldn't understand a word. Yeah, I know. I'm a heathen. What else is new?
James Lee Burke's Robichaux, on the other hand, is my favorite. Yes, Burke holds to a pretty obvious formula but he does it with such lyrical grace I can forgive the fact Dave gets suspended and/or Clete gets arrested in every other book. Pegasus Descending and Tin Roof Blowdown are two of my all time top reads and In The Electric Mist With Confederate Dead proves you can blend hardboiled with a ghost story and create a damn good tale.
No one has mentioned Robert Crais or Lee Child. Crais' Elvis Cole series was laugh out loud funny in the beginning, a comic book sort of read. He's matured in more recent books as Crais tries new things, including a virtual standalone book for Joe Pike. Excellent choices. I'll always make room for a new Crais.
Child's Reacher is a fascinating character...when he's working alone. Last year's Bad Luck and Trouble was exactly that. Child gave Reacher a team and I almost hit another bridge. Yawn. I liked the rest of the series and he's another author who I'll trust to get re-centered and grow.
One of my other favorites, and someone I don't see enough from, is Chicago's very own Sam Reaves. Dooley's Back, the profile of a former Chicago cop who comes back to town and kicks serious butt after fleeing a murder investigation that never indicted him, is brilliant. Homicide 69 is an equally brilliant prequel and a must read for police procedural buffs.
Doug, I won't beat you about the Paretsky comment. In fact, the standalone books were so "preachy" (and I mean "brow-beating preachy") about some of her pet topics that by the time she wrote another VI mystery I couldn't remember what had happened in the last one. By that time, even her minor characters were getting very well developed and it was necessary to be "in the loop" when reading the next book in the series.Yes, I could have gone and re-read the previous book to refresh my memory. However, her standalone books had made me no longer care.
Very sad because I loved VI.
Paretsky should use Marcia Muller as a good example of how to write standalone books and keep up a series (Sharon McCone) without alienating the series readers.
I kind of feel the same way about Plum by Evanovich. She's got the unrequited love interest with one guy and the cop, which never resolves itself and how many times can she blow up her car. Moreover, Evanovich has written two shorter novels that are not in her "numbered" list about Plum which are Plum light.I am hoping her latest Plum numbered book coming out soon will be worthwhile. Hard to give up on an author who makes me laugh.
@Debbie - you're not really alone - I never got into the Plum character at all. I've read several of the books (up to 3 or 4) but for some reason I haven't ever been able to find anything to like about the character - despite the fact I have other 'questionable' tastes.
@Doug - I agree about Sarah Paretsky's VI - she's gotten too message orientated for my liking. My primary reasons for reading this genre are entertainment and escapism - if I MUST be educated along the way I don't want to be beaten about the head with "IMPORTANT ISSUES". I heard Paretsky on BBC World Book Club a few months ago and honestly you'd have thought the VI character was responsible for world peace and curing cancer.
I've never read Crais or Child - in both cases because I am a bit daunted - by the time I noticed their existence they each had already written loads of books and I didn't feel like starting another long series.
@Doug - I agree about Sarah Paretsky's VI - she's gotten too message orientated for my liking. My primary reasons for reading this genre are entertainment and escapism - if I MUST be educated along the way I don't want to be beaten about the head with "IMPORTANT ISSUES". I heard Paretsky on BBC World Book Club a few months ago and honestly you'd have thought the VI character was responsible for world peace and curing cancer.
I've never read Crais or Child - in both cases because I am a bit daunted - by the time I noticed their existence they each had already written loads of books and I didn't feel like starting another long series.
You can pick up any Child and not be lost. Each book in the series stands on its own. Crais...the first five were comic. Lots of wisecracks and silliness but a lot of great action and suspense, too. In later books the character's mood and attitude change dramatically and we get to know him and his partner much better. To my way of looking at it, Crais has done a far better job of aging Elvis than Parker has done with Spenser.
Martha Grimes. I loved her first several books, but somewhere around The Horse You Rode In On, I not only didn't like them, I couldn't figure out why I had liked the previous books.I like the Stephanie Plum books for the silliness of it all, but the will-she won't-she thing with Ranger makes me want to throw up. Whenever he comes on the scene I turn the page. It's gotten SO TIRED.
Piers Anthony and the Xanth series. I owned the first 10-11 books. Then the latest came out (this was years ago) and I realized that I didn't care if I never visited Xanth again. What had been fresh and funny was tired, stale, sexist and mean-spirited.
I never got into the Stephanie Plum books either - I was beginning to think that it was just me! I still have hope for Sarah Paretsky ans Tony Hillerman, although I don't await the next book as eagerly as I once did. I gave up on the Spenser books long ago, and I'm not even sure where Sue Grafton lost me - maybe "L" or "M". Dennis Lehane hasn't been the same since "Mystic River" - his best book, in my opinion, and I loved them all up to that point. Unlike some writers (Laura Lippman, for example), he seems unable to bounce back from a truly great stand-alone.
I still love Walter Mosley's Easy and Fearless books, and I can't imagine tiring of James Lee Burke. Both are excellent writers and they both are great at evoking their distinct locales and developing their characters.
Patricia Cornwell, had to say goodbye right around when the dead character came back, knowing the background of Kay she should of known more about the dead body 
Cornwell tried to hang it up but was pressured into bringing it back. One can see it in the books. The first books the characteurs are treated lovingly. They are written in first person. The later books are second person and the chars are treated brutally
Renee wrote: "Cornwell tried to hang it up but was pressured into bringing it back. One can see it in the books. The first books the characteurs are treated lovingly. They are written in first person. The later ..."I didn't know this makes a whole lot of sense now. Maybe they should have her do a stand alone or new series.
I thought when her niece took over for a while it would go in a new direction.
is where I think it happens.
I usually don't read a series in order or even follow a series. Therefore, so much time has elapsed between books that I don't notice if the author is losing their touch. On the other hand, Stephen King has faltered a bit, but I'm not giving up hope. I haven't read all of his old school ones yet.
I think any series will grow wearisome if you read them back to back to back...I am in the midst of well over a hundred series, and often will read only a couple from each series in a given year, so it takes me a long time to get to the end--especially if the author's still writing! Very occasionally there'll be a series I really enjoy and might read two back to back, but that's my limit. Occasionally there will be a series where I'll read one every couple of months to catch up and find myself WAITING for the next release. I'm at that stage with Margaret Maron's Judge Knott and Deborah Crombie's Kincaid/James series now.I gave up on Evanovich in the middle of Hard Eight and haven't looked back. I hear she STILL hasn't decided between Joe and Ranger, and I keep saying when I hear that Joe and Ranger have hooked up and ride off into the sunset together leaving Stephanie with Grandma Mazur, I *might* go back and read that one. LOL
I haven't read a James Patterson book in eons. Jonathan Kellerman and his wife Faye's series used to be favorites, but I lost interest in those about five years ago, too. Cornwell I gave up on fairly early on, but not because the books became formulaic, it was because they were just terrible. LOL Mostly, I just don't even browse the bestseller list anymore...I like a lot of quirky, less-well-known authors.
I still enjoy Martha Grimes' series and also Sue Grafton's. Maybe it's because I didn't/don't read them all at once and they're well-spaced with other things in between, I don't know. Granted, most authors of long-running series have a stinker or two in the mix, but if they have gotten me to really care about the characters, I'm generally willing to wade through those to get to more good stuff.
Cheryl
I'm the same way - I can only read an author once or twice a year with a few months in-between. I think authors are like musicians - they're contracted or pressured to produce and get burned out. As much as they love it, it's still a job, and like the rest of us, get work-weary.
Spuddie wrote: "when I hear that Joe and Ranger have hooked up and ride off into the sunset together leaving Stephanie with Grandma Mazur, I *might* go back and read that one. LOL..."hahahaha So true! And I agree with you on Crombie and Maron - love those series. I still like Faye Kellerman's books too, but have tired of Cornwell.
I think what keeps me reading series is actually loving the characters. I will visit Hawk and Spence anywhere anytime...same with Stephanie...14 was not too eventful but it was great fun just being with her and the gang. J.L. Burke can do no wrong in my book...his prose is gorgeous.Walter Mosely's series are first rate and come out way too seldom. Ok, I'm done...oh yeah, still read Cornwell but the character coming back from the dead was over the top.
I like important issues, but it has to be a good novel with a great plot and deft characterization. A writer has to be able to integrate the theme with the plot. I won't be preached at even if I agree with the author's perspective as is the case with Sara Paretsky. I agree that Jonathan Kellerman needs to hang it up. He's already tried writing a book from Milo's perspective. It dealt with Milo's past as a cop before he met Alex Delaware. I can't recall the title. I did like that one.
It really saddens me that my favorites in this genre all end up in a rut writing the same books over and over. Eliot Pattison's Lord of the Dead is formula in the terms of his Tibetan series. But I can't say that I want him to hang it up because his previous book, Prayer of the Dragon was really wonderful and unexpected.
Shomeret
Re Hillerman-- Has nobody noticed that he died last year? It's almost a year ago now. Shomeret
Re Robert Parker-- I love Spenser's relationship with Susan. In fact, I'm a huge fan of Susan herself. I love her independence, her integrity and how deeply she cares about people. I also love Spenser's friendship with Hawk. But yes, the series is formulaic. It always has been. I never read the Spenser series for the cases. I read it for the snappy dialogue and the relationships between the ongoing characters. I can't read Robert Parker's other series. I have zero interest in Jesse Stone or Sunny Randall. So for my money, Parker can keep on writing Spenser.Shomeret
Yes, I know exactly what to expect when I open a Spenser novel. They're like potato chips, kinda.Though we joke here about Susan daintily nibbling herself to death!
Maybe, now don't hate me, but maybe these authors have only so many stories in a series to tell? Maybe three or four books should be the limit to any series. I love Ian Rankin, but the Rebus series got stale before he finally moved on. And in my estimation, they were his finest books. Yet, they still sit down, and work to please us. It's so hard to say, you need to quit, to a writer whom we have loved.
Stephen wrote: "Maybe, now don't hate me, but maybe these authors have only so many stories in a series to tell? Maybe three or four books should be the limit to any series. I love Ian Rankin, but the Rebus seri..."I don't think there are only so many stories. When I look at some of my favorites I can think of types of stories that they haven't done. Maybe they are more difficult and require more research.
Shomeret
Good point, Shomeret. Perhaps the writer falls too much in love with the series character, and has trouble letting them go, so they can move on to other types of books. Another consideration is after fifteen books about one character, they need some clearing the head time, maybe write five or even six really iffy books, to get the rhythm going again.
I also felt it was time for Rankin to move beyond Rebus - Rebus just got predictable and to me predictable is boring in mysteries as well as in lifesame with Parker series concerning Spencer - loved the books in the beginning but got old and couldn't read any more
I have read some of Peter Robinson's books and really like him so far
Peter Robinson is good, and he's making enough changes to his Inspector Banks that you don't feel dragged down. This character grows and changes, and that makes him much more enjoyable to follow.
So, do you want your characters in a series to grow and change with time (like we all do)? Or do you want them to stay the same?My editor and I have this discussion a lot--she says people prefer characters like Jack Reacher or Spenser who never change (much) because they don't have to read the books in order or keep track of relationships, etc.
I like writing characters who after facing a crisis are changed by it and relationships that evolve with time. Does anyone like to read those kind of books???
Fingers crossed, the answer is yes, lol!
Thanks!
CJ
CJ Lyons
http://www.cjlyons.net
URGENT CARE, coming October 27, 2009
WARNING SIGNS, "Lyons is a master within the genre." ~Pittsburgh Magazine
LIFELINES, "A breathtakingly fast-paced medical thriller."~Publishers Weekly
CJ wrote: "So, do you want your characters in a series to grow and change with time (like we all do)? Or do you want them to stay the same?My editor and I have this discussion a lot--she says people prefer..."
Oh yes, I want the characters to be changed by what they encounter. I have only read two or three Spense novels because to me they are formulaic, and borderline silly. I have read about the same number of Paretsky. However, Warshawski does seem to change a bit.
I want a my characters, even in a series, to grow and change like people do when they encounter horrid situations again and again in life. Murder is a messy business, no one can encounter it and not be deeply moved, or changed. Why should characters be any different?
Stephen wrote: Murder is a messy business, no one can encounter it and not be deeply moved, or changed. Why should characters be any different?Stephen, I totally agree! Having encountered real-life violence (I'm a pediatric ER doc turned thriller writer) I couldn't wrap my mind around characters not showing that impact from one story to the next.
Thanks!
CJ
CJ Lyons
http://www.cjlyons.net
URGENT CARE, coming October 27, 2009
WARNING SIGNS, "Lyons is a master within the genre." ~Pittsburgh Magazine
LIFELINES, "A breathtakingly fast-paced medical thriller."~Publishers Weekly
To CJ, I think a lot depends on what kind of book you like. Not all series and series charcters are the same. I spoke once with Lawrence Block and he talked about how he dealt differntly with the Bernie Rhodenbarr character and the Matt Scudder character. Bernie was of the old school - he didn't change or age, and we enjoyed being with him just as he was because he was charming and witty and the mysteries were entertaining. Scudder on the other hand, was a darker and fuller character, who aged, struggled with his addiction, and through him, Block explored what it meant to live a moral life. Ed McBain's excellent 87th Precinct series basically kept the characters in stasis, even as the world around them changed and was reflected in the novels (i.e., there was no Miranda warnings when the series started in the fifties, but were added to the series later). So, it depends on what the author wants to say with his or her series - and if it's a good series, it will find it's audience.
Good points, Bill! Thanks for chiming in!CJ
CJ Lyons
http://www.cjlyons.net
URGENT CARE, coming October 27, 2009
WARNING SIGNS, "Lyons is a master within the genre." ~Pittsburgh Magazine
LIFELINES, "A breathtakingly fast-paced medical thriller."~Publishers Weekly
Exactly Bill! Too many authors though write one character, and nothing but, until when they really want to break free they have to get a new name. Block has never been a one character writer. McBain's 87th Precinct is a series that we can experience as here and now. Whether they are in the 50s or 80s, you read it as where they are at that time. Ruth Rendell had to write as Barbara Vine to not lose a fan base, so she could write a whole different type of novel.
This is a wonderful thread.
I like the characters to change as they grow older and have more life experiences. It's what makes them real to me. CJ wrote: "So, do you want your characters in a series to grow and change with time (like we all do)? Or do you want them to stay the same?
My editor and I have this discussion a lot--she says people prefer..."
Gosh, the genre is so huge now, with sub-genres and all, that it's almost impossible to say, without knowing what are the sub-genres specific rules.For instance, I love to read the M. C. Beaton Agatha Raisin series. I don't her to grow or change too much. I adore her as she is.
This is a wonderful discussion
I am starting to believe the Reginald Hill needs to hang it up. His last one The Price of Butcher's Meat does not seem to be up to snuff. I think he's run "fat Andy" as far as he can go.
Mystery Lovers!
Books mentioned in this topic
The Cat Who Dropped a Bombshell (other topics)The Last Precinct (other topics)
The Cat Who Brought Down the House (other topics)
The Poe Shadow (other topics)
The Dante Club (other topics)
More...
So, I propose this question: In your readings, who needs to hang it up? Either by retiring from writing completely or by retiring from writing their successful character series and moving to a new one?
I have two examples: Lillian Jackson Braun--who was one of my favorite writers at the beginning of her 'Cat Who...' series--hasn't produced a decent book in years. Her novels are now tired, hack mysteries that are barely readable. She's starting to suffer from what I call "Scooby Doo Syndrome." --when you only have one or two new characters introduced in the mystery and one of them is the villian? And her visualization of Pickax is this fairy-tale utopia of some sort of collective where everyone is nice and well-read. It shows that LJB has never been in the north country to see the bars, bowling alleys, and blue collar people that tend to live there (like my relatives...). Lillian needs to be stopped.
The other one I can think of is Tony Hillerman. The Chee/Leaphorn novels were great when they first started...the last two have been horrid. I think it's time for Tony to move to a new gimmick. The Navajo Rez. has been beaten to death.