Not in the Flesh by Ruth Rendell

[Sherie]

I just finished Not in the Flesh by Ruth Rendell and although not her best I still enjoyed her prose and characterizations. What I wanted to discuss however is how writers of long running series age their characters while still giving themselves the ability to tackle current issues. Some like Sue Grafton and Earlene Fowler age their charcters in real time and as a result the stories remain in the past - eighties for Grafton and nineties for Fowler. Most age their characters slowly but always set their books in the present day. This can get awkward if your character is a Vietnam veteran and he is still in his forties in 2009. Rendell has been writing the Wexford series since 1964 with Wexford starting out as middle-aged. He is now in late middle age and while she deals with important current issues,such as female genital mutilation in this one, her characters have begun to seem out of synch with their times. I just don't think Wexford is believable anymore as a man of about 60 even though he is a compassionate and open minded man. What about other writers such as Connelly, Paretsky, Muller? Are their characters beginning to be too much like something out of science fiction as they live through decades without aging?

[Ann]

Sherie:
Good discussion topic! I think my first opinion is that authors who choose not to age their characters as time goes by forfeit the ability to use current events in their plots unless they are careful to do so in a way that might provide background for current events without disconnecting from the age of their character.
Unfortunately for readers expecting to enjoy the backlist of some authors with stories set in the time before ipods and even before cell phones (like Grafton's Kinsey Milhone) the lack of the modern detective's tools of the trade is rather jarring. On the other hand, I don't expect Jaqueline Winspear's Maisie Dobbs to have such advantages, so I suppose it might be depending on how truly the author sticks to the setting and correspondingly from the age point of view of the character. They need to "keep the reader engaged" in the time setting presented without letting incongruities distract us.
I realize this isn't exactly what you meant about characters who don't age in real time when a series started years ago as a contemporary time frame. I think Michael Connelly is a good example of aging Harry Bosch with the changing expectations and actions of an older detective making his character even more interesting.

Sherie wrote: "I just finished Not in the Flesh by Ruth Rendell .... What I wanted to discuss however is how writers of long running series age their characters while still giving themselves the ability to tackle current issues ...... What about other writers such as Connelly, Paretsky, Muller? Are their characters beginning to be too much like something out of science fiction as they live through decades without aging?"

[Mary/Quite Contrary]

Good topic, mind if I jump in the pool? I am a techie and have gotten used to how technology impacts the genre. But reading a Sue Grafton is refreshing. She has to call people on the phone, go find them in the homes or business's, she doesn't do all her research on a computer. This gives more depth to the story. I like what Sue Grafton has done, and there is still the opportunity for her to "age" her going forward.

[Sandi]

>>This can get awkward if your character is a Vietnam veteran and he is still in his forties in 2009<<

This is a small peeve for me. It seems liked most of the PI and Cop series started in the eighties had a Vietnam Vet as the lead and I really did not see why the authors would choose to tie their characters to such a specific time period. I understand it with Harry Bosch because one of the plots really incorporated his war background and as Ann stated he has been aging throughout the books, but with most of the others it just seemed like a throwaway line in the text. I actually think I prefer characters who age is indeterminate like P. D. James' Adam Dalgliesh. The series started in 1962 and has continued up until the present but Dalgliesh has changed very little and James has always set the books during the time she was writing them.

[Sherie]

If we are all in part a product of our times, then it seems challenging for an author to maintain the integrity of a continuing character when based on the date the newest book takes place, he must have come of age in the sixties but in the first book of the series, he would have been well into adulthood by then. There is a different mindset and life experience for people of different generations. I don't really have a problem with authors setting their books in the present time but it can be jarring sometimes if the characters act as if they are a generation older than they are supposed to be. I do agree with Mary that it is refreshing to see Kinsey have to rely more on her wits and legwork than google.