The Orion Team. discussion
THE SEVENTH FLOOR
>
How long is too long
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Joshua
(new)
Mar 01, 2015 05:18AM
I am curious to get everyone's point of view on the following. How long can your main protagonist stay relevant as an Operator? I think Vince Flynn was dealing with the same question towards the end of the Mitch Rapp series and I'd love to hear everyone's response.
reply
|
flag
Personally, I believe that a spymaster could go on for decades. A good spy is nothing like the James Bond type and will actually rarely (ideally, never) be involved in fights, as the best weapon of a spy is anonymity. As for Special Ops soldiers, that is an entirely different story. I personaly served 32 years in the Canadian Forces (5 years in the infantry, then in Military Intelligence) and by their 40s, most soldiers start suffering from back and knee problems due to the harsh pounding on the body of field duty. I think that a Spec Ops soldier will be good maybe until the end of his thirties, then it will be time for him to slow down before he suffers long term medical problems to his joints and back.
I was thinking along the lines of a series. When does someone like Matt Damon's Jason Bourne become to decrepit to effectively operate?
It can go for a while, to me. I think the Bourne series however was washed out after Ludlum quit writing. Vince's books had Stan Hurley being a bad ass into his seventies, but a series could go on for decades I believe. Daniel Silva and Vince are into the teens in term of number of novels and so long as the story and character adapts to the times, there is an endless number of issues to write about, and they don't have the character being invincible to bullets and still believable. I love the longer series and look for ones that are long to enjoy. Brad taylor hopefully continues his Pike Logan series well into teens and Harvath is there too. Personally, so long as the series adapts and stays relevant and believable I'd love for them to be in the dozens.
Mod
Mr Flynn and Thor understood this.
The purpose of the American Assassin prequels was to refresh the Rapp series and shed new light and character development on the characters. It also helped that it made Mitch younger and allowed him to do more action packed stuff. While "The Last Man" changed the game by being a "classic spy thriller" focusing on South Asian geopolitics rather than the traditional counter-terrorist thrillers Flynn made his name writing.
In the case of Thor, from Foreign Influence up to Act Of War, Brad moved the focus away from Islamic Terrorism and explored new subjects. Black List for example beat the headlines when it came to the NSA surveillance disclosures and Act Of War had Harvath go up against a nation state, one of only two times he has done so in his series.
However, if the author doesn't age/"adapt" them as time passes, then people are going to notice. Which gives them two options. They either destroy their continuity like in the Kirk McGarvey series (the main character should be 60 by now but is permanently in his early 50's), or they begin shifting the focus to other characters and give their main protagonist the responsibility of calling the shots.
Mr Thor said by the time of FULL BLACK and BLACKLIST, he decided to go for the second option, with Harvath coordinating his own assets in the field, instead of his previous singleton antics. Mr Rapp also went through the same phase when he hit 40 years of age in "The Last Man", with him managing a team for most of the novel, who help pick up the slack when he gets taken out of commission for a bit at the end of the first third of the story.
[In the case of the Jason Bourne book series, the current writer admitted that Robert Ludlum had only intended for the character to be in the original trilogy, three acts and then closure. So he had to make some very drastic/questionable moves, gradually eliminating the cold war back-story for starters among other things.]
Samuel I agree, what you just said was what I was "trying" to say. I agree 100%. I feel like if the author can adapt then the more books the merrier. Flynn did a superb job. When I spoke with him after Kill Shot he told me exactly what you said. It was a continuation of sorts to add more to the character and introduce others. We all wondered who Stan Hurley was and where Irene Kennedy came from so to speak. He was going to write a third novel in the prequel books but UNFORTUNATELY he passed. The Rapp series continuing is bitter sweet. I think it's the best ever written and am very happy it will continue, but any Rapp story written by someone other than Vince doesn't seem right. In the case of Kirk McGarvey I couldn't agree more. And I feel like certain things need to change in Silva's Gabriel Allon series as well. I am very much excited for the next prequel in the Rapp series though and pray to God that Kyle Mills will, in fact, write it and not bypass it. Mr Flynn had that books story line already written. So he said. RIP Mr. Flynn.
I believe when an author becomes complacent, the ripple effect happens. The story line, sub plots, characters, all suffer, and that's usually the timeline of an ineffective spy. As for real life living, I don't believe we can put a time line on anyone's job effectiveness.
Flynn's books didn't fall off, Clancy's did. That's my opinion. It's hard ass work writing a book, especially if you sweat the little details. I think it goes back to the Authors motivation. At first you do it because you love it. I'm still there. I still like writing and adore my Characters. At some point, I will burn out. When I do I hope that I am smart enough not to sully my previous hard work with crap. It's much like the athlete losing a step and deciding to finish at the top of his/her game.However, as long as you keep it fresh, new characters, new goals,and a new purpose. You can go as long as you want. I decided to do three. I'm a few weeks a way from publishing #2 and the first draft for #3 is almost complete. Is that it? I already have an Idea for #4, but can my family handle it? I'm not so sure.
Sometimes being self published and poor is a godsend. It keeps you honest with yourself.
Its refreshing to hear from a humble author.
It's too long when the main character doesn't grab you or engage you as a reader. He/she cannot do the same thing book after book after book. I agree with Clancy falling off. Red Rabbit and the Teeth of the Tiger are a far cry from The Hunt for Red October and Patriot Games for example. However, when new life is breathed into a series (as Mark Greeney did for Clancy), it can take new life. It was refreshing to see Jack Sr. pickup with Clancy still alive and that to me is the difference.With Flynn and Ludlum, it seems that these are just a money grab from the estate or publisher. Ludlum intended for the Bourne series to be done after the Jackal was dead. End it there as the man wished. I'm sure Kyle Mills is an outstanding author. It's a shame to carry on another man's work if the original series author has no say in the matter. Make another series or start a new character, but let dead men rest.
Related, Bob Lee Swagger still has life in his old age and yet you see his long-lost son taking over. Similar to how Jack Jr. has stolen the plot from President Ryan. Both are running with great continuation and plots in new scenes and backgrounds.
I think that Clancy did a pretty good job of keeping his characters relevant as long as he was the one doing the writing, not when he was "co-authoring" the book. His prequel book on John Clark is one of my favorites, and it allowed him to keep a character relevant without having to worry about aging. He also managed to keep his characters in the game by changing the part that they played in it, and that not only kept things fresh for quite a while, but also was more realistic. Eventually, someone is going to step out of the field and start working things from the other side of the office door. It might not seem exciting when you hear it said, but it can be made exciting and make for good reading.
Mod
http://www.amazon.com/The-Survivor-Mi...
Talking about Clancy, John Clark is STILL running around. I wonder if a character can stay in the game 'forever'. One example is the movie Bond. By not tying the character to a real world event, he can always be 30s-40s.
If we want to be more realistic, there are two factors:
1. Can the operator remain physically capable of doing all the things one would expect from an action hero. Probably the latest would be his 40s with a 'once more into the breach' kinda thing.
2 Can the operator's career withstand not advancing past field world. If the guy's military, it would expected that he would be promoted (demoted?) into a staff position mid-career leading to a command post.
Mod
I wonder if a character can stay in the game 'forever'. One example is the movie Bond. By not tying the character to a real world event..."
Very good points. By the way, here is a discussion thread you might be interested in.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Mod
Mod
Dennis Lehane says five novels is the maximum amount of abuse characters can endure and still be relatively believable. Beyond that, how many insane capers can a person find themself in the middle of without dying or getting severely maimed? From a writing perspective once a series gets to a certain point it runs the risk of becoming redundant, jumping the shark, or over-staying its welcome, plodding along on a downward spiral of diminishing returns--having missed the window of opportunity for a strong finish. You see this a lot with tv dramas that keep going after the fourth or fifth season.
There's always a new direction a character can go, but if the writer isn't careful said character can find itself on a motorcycle in the parking lot at Al's Diner, heading straight for a ramp and a tank full of live sharks.
Good, character driven, storytelling can avoid that--though not indefinitely, imo.
I agree with Dennis Lehane. Barry Eisler's John Rain series is a prime example. The first books in the series were outstanding but got progressively silly in later books.
I haven't read all of the John Rain books yet, but I'm not surprised by what you're saying. It seems inevitable that any character in any genre will over stay their welcome beyond a certain point. The all-time winner in this category is probably Mack Bolan, trailed by Nick Carter at a close second, with James Bond and Sherlock Holmes tying for third.
At some point the comic book industry figured out that they could kill the title characters off and reboot the series. Granted it's a different audience that appears to be pretty forgiving on that point. The jury is still out on genre fiction as to whether readers are going to be receptive to the idea. While publishers are fine with having new writers churning out books for best-selling authors, now deceased, I'm not aware of any examples of a series starting over from the beginning.
To be fair authors can get bored doing the same thing ad nauseam. Why reinvent their own characters instead of creating new ones?
Joshua wrote: "I was thinking along the lines of a series. When does someone like Matt Damon's Jason Bourne become too decrepit to effectively operate?"If the gap between the next movie and Ultimatum is in real time and assuming the character hasn't been burning the candle at both ends, as he does in the movies, then he's had several years without putting a lot of wear and tear on his body. One more adventure seems plausible enough, assuming he hasn't had any serious trauma in the interim. That said, like everybody else, even Treadstone operators must start feeling their age at some point.
Perhaps it's ironic that the actors who play seemingly indestructible characters have to stop because they can't endure anymore injuries. Jackie Chan, who did insane stunts, had to start using stunt doubles and eventually retired from action movies. Similarly, Stallone was seriously considering one more outing as Rambo, at 69, but opted not to because running, falling, and bouncing off solid objects is a young man's game and he's pushing 70. To address your question directly: whenever Matt Damon himself becomes too decrepit to go one more round as Bourne--which might be sooner than later.
Conversely, how hilarious is it that, in the Rogue Warrior books from the 90s, Marcinko--then in his 50s--is running around like a maniac, getting into fights, jumping out of planes, scaling oil rigs, etc?!! (Well, it's amusing to me anyway...)
In order to keep the series going Eric Van Lustbader had to write David Webb's family out of the books and forget about them, in an effort to make Bourne appear ageless, in much the same way that Bond is.
Good points Mac. I thought Jack Reacher jumped the shark a few book back when he fought redneck bad guys with his hands in his pockets but the most recent book was back to form. There are some notable exceptions out there. John Sandford's Lucas Davenport has been the protagonist in about 30 exceptional mystery's with good action, dialogue and humor. What Sandford did about his aging protagonist was create Virgil Flowers, a younger laid back detective who reports to Davenport and takes over as protagonist every other book or so. This is an exception to the rule however.
Mod
Fifth book? Heh, funny you should say that. Ian Fleming tried to kill James Bond when he reached that entry in the series. He failed of course. Strangely, the next entries after From Russia With Love were more, large scale/surreal, a sort of self parody if you will. Dr No and Goldfinger which were radical departures from the slightly exaggerated but down to earth novels that came before.
I think you can play around with timelines too. If you started a series with your hero in his thirties or forties, it's possible to take the reader back where it began or back to certain operations. I started my hero off in his early forties but have been peppering specific operations and historic operational incidents throughout. That gives me some wiggle room to create a book or novella taking the story back to a younger man's life. I also created future opportunities to mentor and nurture the next generation.
Ed wrote: "Good points Mac. I thought Jack Reacher jumped the shark a few book back when he fought redneck bad guys with his hands in his pockets but the most recent book was back to form. There are some nota..."I haven't read the book in question, but if it's one of the more recent entries in the series then it's probably number 20 or so. In Lee Child's defense he's got to come up with new, interesting, ways for Jack Reacher to beat the crap out of people. That said I also get that when one follows a series long enough sometimes it feels like the author phoned it in.
That's one of the pitfalls of being under contract--they've got to crank out a new book every year. Some authors have two different series characters, or more, to keep from burning out and also to give their ideas time to incubate and develop. A lot of bestselling authors keep writing variations of the same book. They have a successful formula that gets refined incrementally, but stays about the same overall. Again, they have to crank out a book every calendar year--or every twelve months--and they want it to sell so they don't take chances creatively.
Mod
As I mentioned before, Mr Hagberg froze the age of Kirk. He claims his readers didn't mind and are forgiving. Would you agree or disagree with this justification? And what would be the reasons why doing such a thing should be avoided at all costs? Love to hear your thoughts as always.
If you freeze the age of your main character, then you also have to freeze the time period where the action is happening. You can't have, say, a CIA assassin staying eternally in his thirties or forties while serving during the Cold War, then the War on Terror, then the ISIS threat, and so on. Readers are bound eventually to raise an eyebrow on this. One prominent guilty one about this is the character of James Bond, who seems to never age, whether he is facing the Soviets in the Cold War or fighting terrorists in the 21st Century Middle East. In that aspect, James Bond is way past his due date.
Mod
Which is probably why Ian Fleming Publications have had most recent continuation novels set during the period of 58-70. Trigger Mortis, for instance (the best of the bunch) is set after the Goldfinger novel
As a die hard John Rain fan, I wish Eisler had quit 2 books sooner. The last two were really weak and sort of diminished the character. Then again I think everything he's written since then is weak, including The God's Eye View. Nowhere near as fresh and innovative as his early stuff.
Flynn kept his standards pretty consistently through the series and I think Kyle Mills did a fine job finishing the book, though I thought a little Mark Beamon humor crept in here and there.
Clancy, Cussler, Higgins, Child, and too many other have held on way too long.
Most authors seem to hit a wall somewhere between 6 and 8 books into a series. Their creative juices dry up and the whole thing gets formula and predictable as a metronome. I can also see - insert fight scene here - in Child's books. And the whole thing feels contrived and dull. A few author get through that slump and turn out some great stuff. Some don't. I did find Flynn uneven after book 10, but his final few were back up there. Thor did some of his best stuff in the past few years. Same for Daniel Silva, who I thought was toast, yet came back with some really good things. So I guess, it all depends on the author and just how creative they are.
Mystery, spy, assassin and military characters all face one other critical decision by the author - do you age your character, or do you 'freeze' them while the world ages but they stay 'forever young'? Opinions?
Flynn kept his standards pretty consistently through the series and I think Kyle Mills did a fine job finishing the book, though I thought a little Mark Beamon humor crept in here and there.
Clancy, Cussler, Higgins, Child, and too many other have held on way too long.
Most authors seem to hit a wall somewhere between 6 and 8 books into a series. Their creative juices dry up and the whole thing gets formula and predictable as a metronome. I can also see - insert fight scene here - in Child's books. And the whole thing feels contrived and dull. A few author get through that slump and turn out some great stuff. Some don't. I did find Flynn uneven after book 10, but his final few were back up there. Thor did some of his best stuff in the past few years. Same for Daniel Silva, who I thought was toast, yet came back with some really good things. So I guess, it all depends on the author and just how creative they are.
Mystery, spy, assassin and military characters all face one other critical decision by the author - do you age your character, or do you 'freeze' them while the world ages but they stay 'forever young'? Opinions?
Mod
Well, Brad Thor once used the trick of having three books cover the period of one year in the Harvath universe (Foreign Influence-Black List). But personally, I think one has to age. The McGarvey series as I mentioned is one which used the freeze technique. It has led to the absurdity of someone who should be in their 60's take on younger, faster shooters and come out on top.
I'd hesitate to set a hard and fast limit on how many books, but there has to be an end, at least if you're not trying to either be Mack Bolan or The Simpsons (i.e., completely over-the-top unbelievable). There's only so much a given individual or team can withstand the stress of operations, not to mention the physical beating. And there's the matter of "luck." Sooner or later, the odds will catch up with you.That's why I'm planning on bringing the Praetorians series to an end with book 5. While I make a point anymore of including in the "This is a work of fiction" disclaimer at the beginning of pointing out that the books are more intense than anything 90% of real gunfighters ever experience, I do try to maintain a certain realism, and from a realistic perspective, the Praetorians are fast approaching burnout.
I think too many get wrapped up in a particular series, instead of telling a story, then ending it and moving on to different characters in a different story.
Peter wrote: "I'd hesitate to set a hard and fast limit on how many books, but there has to be an end, at least if you're not trying to either be Mack Bolan or The Simpsons (i.e., completely over-the-top unbelie..."I loved Mack Bolan, we passed those books around on the carrier like sacred whores.
Don't get me wrong, some Mack Bolan, or Stony Man, or SOBs can be great reads, as long as you accept them for what they are. If that's what you're after, great. If you're looking to be more "realistic," as I assume most mainstream thriller writers are, then you can't have Mr. Super Ninja Operator keep going for twenty books and still be believable. That's all I'm saying.
Mod
Question for this thread.
There's a third option. Liquidation. Is it possible to kill your characters at the end of the series instead of giving them a white picket fence life? Or does attachment normally come into play and hence one looses the heart to destroy their creation?
As I mentioned above, Ian Fleming tried to do this with James Bond in From Russia With Love. He failed, of course due to inadvertently turning out his best writing and plotting, (it triggered a tsunami of fan mail which convinced him 007 was worth saving) but points for trying. Have there been any other cases where a thriller author has successfully bumped off their leading protagonist?
I intended to write one book, a WW3 alt history that gave every NATO country a bite at the cherry, not just the USA, and weave in an espionage thread into it. I managed to keep that cropping up in what ended up as a five book series.Readers liked or loathed the thread as it jarred with those who just wanted a war story, so half way through the writing (665K+ words) I did think about ending the thread early.
I did not give the character a picket fence, she disappeared herself, as she still had a price on her head. So, she can reappear if I ever write a sequel, or a pure spook tale.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/latest...
Mod
Hello Andy. Welcome to the group. I hope you enjoy it here. The solution you say you utilized for a story arc is a pretty good one. Putting the character on hiatus, or off-stage if you will. Best of both worlds, the focus can shift onto other places and that precious resource has not been destroyed and unable to return to be part of the story at a later date.
Samuel wrote: "Putting the character on hiatus, or off-stage if you will. Best of both worlds, the focus can shift onto other places.."Thank you Samuel, I am looking forward to it.
Alternatively, I have killed off characters who will appear again in prequels.
So far, only with military characters, though.
Many military fiction readers do not like any detraction from the war story and consider only a 'love interest' as being worse than throwing cloak and dagger into the tale.
But, no one will ever write a book that everyone likes.
Andy wrote: "Samuel wrote: "Putting the character on hiatus, or off-stage if you will. Best of both worlds, the focus can shift onto other places.."Thank you Samuel, I am looking forward to it.
Alternativel..."
"But, no one will ever write a book that everyone likes"
Spoke a book there my friend. That's why you should write what you like.
Mod
Regarding the original 8 days, I would have said the best "cut off" point would have been during Day 7. Jack got infected with a biological weapon, was set to die but was genuinely happy and at peace, having made a difference and settled his outstanding affairs.
(This is not to say Day 8 was bad. Acts 2 and 3 were outstanding in my opinion.)
Mod
Regarding th..."
That being said. Could a shared fictional universe be a way to ensure the longevity of a series and keep it fresh? Kill the cast of a previous set of novels but introduce little Easter eggs to show that the replacements are in the same universe.
Mod
Ed wrote: "I agree with Dennis Lehane. Barry Eisler's John Rain series is a prime example. The first books in the series were outstanding but got progressively silly in later books."Well, that's unfortunate. I just finished the 2nd John Rain novel, and was about to start the 3rd.
As for the main discussion, I think Vince Flynn did a pretty stellar job. Mitch Rapp actually aged, and then he brought in characters like Mike Nash. And I find the Mitch Rapp prequels to be particularly good, because you see a rawer... less angry... assassin.
But on general principle, I think if the plot of the story is good, and the writing is good, that really is all that matters. Authors are ingenious, and can no doubt find a way to slot in new novels within a previously established chronology.
Samuel wrote: "Could a shared fictional universe be a way to ensure the longevity of a series and keep it fresh?"
This is one of the better ideas that I can think of to lengthen a series, while at the same time not over using a character.
Unfortunately, it is probably the hardest thing to do.
Authors must have a horribly difficult time creating one protagonist that the audience will latch on to - but I can only imagine the difficulty of creating multiple characters, within the same "universe," that are unique enough not to be obvious facsimiles, that the audience will be equally attached. Plus, an author's world building has got to be seriously good.
My two cents on this. The discussion reminded me of some of the books that read from Colin Forbes. The team work in Forbes books was IMO the highlight of the series. Various personalities suited to different activities. I think today's spy and thriller novels are more personality cult based than ever. It is a reflection of the changing times around us when individuals dominate the news and happening rather than teams or groups. It reflects on everything around us.
I would like to read a good book or series which focuses on a team fighting terrorism or organized crime. It would bring in a sense of camaraderie and also help stabilize the series narrative where the authors can focus on doling out snippets about each team members back story and how they came together to form the team.
Brad Taylor's Pike Logan series does this to some extent where we are able to see the stories about the different members of the team, but primarily the action still revolves around Pike, I would like to see that diversified a little.
James Rollins is another author whose Sigma Series allows for character growth and development, I think it is one of the primary reasons why the series has not fatigued and is still going strong. The series arc started with the focus on Painter Crowe and then saw the baton passed on Gray while Monk and Kowalski has been given their chance at the spotlight too.
Conclusions: There is a limited number of ways that a lead character can be stretched before it seems like the character has reached their end of life. Physical fitness level not withstanding, some of the extreme dare devilry performed by the heros just does not seem plausible at their age logically. Hollywood not withstanding.
Teams are a better way to go IMO to increase the character longevity and reduce fatigue.
Comments?
