Friday, August 31, 2012

Avoiding the Shark Altogether-by Jordan Castillo Price

Fixed vs. Mutable Characters in Series

As a reader, I love series. When I get to revisit beloved characters over and over, each time I see them it feels as if I’m greeting old friends (or enemies!) We all have some friends who stay pretty much like we remember. It’s never a big shock when we reunite with them. They might have a small new wrinkle or be carrying an extra pound or two, but basically, when we meet up with them in the diner, we spot them right away. And then there are those other friends who are dyeing their hair, or changing out their wardrobe, or redecorating their house every two years. It’s tempting to tell them to wear a carnation to your rendezvous so you can actually figure out who they are.

Fictional series can be like that too: series where characters evolve, and series where the character is constant and only the situations they face vary.

Each approach has its own pros and cons. Let’s take Scooby-Doo! as an example of a series where the characters are static. We always know that Velma will lose her glasses, Fred will pontificate, and Shaggy and Scooby will blunder into the most dangerous part of the haunted house while trying to avoid it, or maybe while looking for something to eat. (I don’t really have a good grasp on Daphne, never have. She’s an enigma.) These characters don’t evolve—those meddling kids simply show up in new-ish situations from episode to episode.

Many TV shows feature basically fixed characters that they can drop into a variety of scenarios each week. Police procedurals often fall into this category, as do certain sitcoms. Sometimes there’s a thin character arc behind the season, but often it’s not really necessary. Viewers tune in primarily to see how their beloved characters will act in a new situation. The advantage to writing a series where character is constant while the plot and setting change is that you could potentially go on and on. Send them to the moon. Have an earthquake shake their city. Let their landlord evict them. Any situation you can think of is fair game as new adventure for your notable character, and you can keep spinning yarns until you (or your readership) is bored with the star of the series, and then retire them. Series like this are easy to access for readers, because they can wade in and out of the series at their leisure without following a linear progression.

Real people, however, tend to shift and change. Anyone who grew up in the 70’s will remember rushing home to see what would happen next on Little House on the Prairie. Now there’s a show where child characters were growing up as the show evolved, so it was necessary that while new situations and challenges were showcased each week, the characters themselves changed too, often in big and irreversible ways. (I was just talking about this to my girlfriends…remember when Mary went blind? *Gasp!*) Because the show was loosely biographical, it made sense that characters would need to evolve.

Stories where the main characters grow are all about the character arc—the progression of the character. While mutable characters will have an arc over the course of a single story, character arcs that stretch over entire series are particularly compelling. These are the types of series that engage the readership the most. They want to know what happens next—will that character deal with that damn issue that’s been dogging them—because it’s an awful lot like real life, albeit real life that might eventually come to a satisfying end where everything makes sense.

The end…that’s both an advantage and a disadvantage. Mutable characters who evolve and change eventually come to a point where they’re done, and to take them any farther becomes a letdown. It’s a conundrum, because if a readership adores a character, they want more of that character. It won’t matter if the arc is at an emotionally fulfilling stopping point. They like the character and that’s all they think they care about. However, the thing that makes the character so compelling is their believable arc. Once that precarious point of believability is past, the dreaded “jump the shark” moment has occurred. (This will complete my triumvirate of 70’s American TV show references with the episode of Happy Days in which Fonzie literally waterskied over a shark.)

At that juncture, where the character has evolved past the point of logic, the audience will say, “That’s where the series started to suck.” And then nobody’s happy.

To make things even more difficult for the writer, there’s also a risk of changing…but not quite enough. Evolving-character stories require definitive and satisfying change. I would be surprised if Stephanie Plum ever picked Ranger or Joe Morelli, but I feel like the storyline has gone beyond the point where either choice would satisfy readers, and the readership began grumbling about feeling dissatisfied with the series several books back.

So what’s a writer to do? I think it’s a matter of being aware that just because readers clamor “More! More!” it doesn’t necessarily mean that you should trump up a sequel or drag out your series arc to try to milk the success of a popular beginning. Because I guarantee you, it would be a crappy day indeed if you stumbled across the “that’s where the series started to suck” review under your own work. If readers are asking for a sequel for your novel, determine if there’s more growth your character needs, or if really you’ve told their story fully, and adding a new conflict for them to resolve would feel contrived.

Two of my series, PsyCop and Channeling Morpheus began as one-offs, but after the initial story came out, I saw that I wasn’t quite finished with the main characters yet, and they had some growing to do. However, other novels like Magic Mansion, The Starving Years and Hemovore wrapped up on such a definitive note that introducing a new conflict just for the sake of giving the characters more face-time would have amounted to strapping on the waterskis.

Author and artist Jordan Castillo Price is the owner of JCP Books and the author of many award-winning gay paranormal thrillers, including PsyCop and Magic Mansion. Her latest series, Turbulence, is a twisted foray into the Bermuda Triangle. Check it out at JCPbooks.com

Connect with Jordan in the following places:
JCP News: Jordan’s monthly newsletter
Facebook:

25 comments:

  1. Great post! I'm personally don't like series that go on and on, without anything ever really changing. Give me that long character arc with the definitive end!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great post, Jordan. As a reader, it is hard to say good-bye to those characters we love, but when there's nothing more for them to learn, no way for them to grow as individuals, it definitely makes for a less engaging book than the previous ones in the series. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm with you gals. No matter how quirky or interestingly-voiced a character might be, if they don't experience any real change, they start to bore me after a few books.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fixed or mutable, I'd rather remember a character fondly than become annoyed when they hang on too long. Just because there are more situations they haven't faced doesn't mean they should face them.

    That said, what's your opinion about a series where the growth of one character arcs over a few books and is the focus, and then the story evolves to where their partner/spouse/sig other/friend etc becomes the one in turmoil, thereby extending the series? New character development doesn't necessarily detract from the initial character readers identified with... I would equate this to the first book of a series featuring a person, then the next book covers their friend. Not Knowing Jack by KA Mitchell is one example, book 2 that follows a different couple than book 1 did. Or even PsyCop, where we've learned so much about Vic but now it seems Jacob is facing some changes.

    Excellent post.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Shifting the changes to a second character seems to be a plausible way to evolve a series that everyone's still enjoying. I'm pleased you think I'm doing it with PsyCop. It wasn't necessarily my intention. I like that Jacob discovers more about himself through the trials and tribulations of being with Vic, even if Jacob isn't the protagonist.

    I don't typically like the tag-team sort of series where first it starts with one couple, then explores a secondary set of characters, then moves to their neighbor, then their second-cousins, you know what I mean? I just find it's not meaty enough for me. But those sorts of series seem to be pretty successful. Maybe because readers can usually wade in and out of them and read the ones that interest them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi, Jordan. Agree on your premise - nothing so dreary as a stale character who's done the same thing again and again.

    Thanks for sharing!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Some excellent points, as usual.

    I am always sad when I realise that I've fallen out of love with a series character and don't want to read about them any more. Sometimes I'll continue to read just for the secondary characters or from a sense of loyalty, but that is still sad reason for reading something.

    It is rare that an author can pick that perfect moment to let go of a beloved character and fade the ending in a way that readers can accept. But those that can end with a smile and a teary sniffle for the reader are priceless.

    Mara Ismine

    ReplyDelete
  8. I like the TV shows, like Buffy and Angel, that show characters developing over time instead of remaining static. I think you're right about the benefits and dangers of doing that in a book series.

    I think you've handled it well with Psycops and Channeling Morpheus. I agree with Josh Lanyon, who left the Adrien English series where it was at the end of The Dark Tide, but many fans who wanted a demonstration that the HEA was real rather than a broad hint that it was about to happen were left unsatisfied.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There's a love/hate relationship for me with a series that goes long past the time when it should've been put to rest. On the one hand I want more of the characters I fell in love with, but on the other hand, if the story grows stale and there's nothing more to be explored, I really prefer that the story end with me wanting more. Does that make sense?

    In your PsyCop series I love that Vic and Jacob keep growing. We keep learning new things about them while at the same time you put them into all new situations and bring about new conflicts. That keeps me reading and wanting more. I trust your sense of judgement that you'll know when it's time to end the series. Um... just hoping that it won't be very soon, though :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Luckily Vic has a very logical ending point, so I feel like when I hit that note, readers will say, "I'll miss him...but ah! That feels right!" I guess we'll see. It's a couple books away, plus I want to do a few shorts.

      Delete
  10. @JM - Some characters can get away with dropping into new situations, but there's so often the chance that they'll end up becoming parodies of themselves if they have distinctive voices or characteristics.

    @marasmine - I'm reading a story now where the series should have ended a few books ago. It's like I can't look away, and I want to see how far the author's going to try to stretch it.

    @Lawless - There are some shows (I may need to dodge rotten tomatoes here) that I think go to far even with characters developing over arcs, like Supernatural. I liked it when they were fighting vampires, not gods. Xena was one of my favorite shows that shark-jumped, big time.

    I was thinking of a third group of Channeling Morpheus books, but when I realized I'd need to negate the hard-earned HEA they had at the end of book 10 to make it happen, I scrapped the idea. I might just do a fun short instead to celebrate the second-edition release of the final ebook.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I figure authors are like parents and readers are the children. (sometimes) Yes, you want to fulfill our every wish and see our happy smiling faces looking up at you from our blogs telling you you're the best author ever. But sometimes when we are begging for that next book (piece of candy) you have to say no because you know it's going to make us throw up. I get that as an author you want to please your readers, but there comes a point when author knows best... you hope. Or publisher, close friend, someone who says enough. It's very disheartening to start dislikingsomething you loved. And we fickle readers, despite stomping our feet and demanding more more more, will be more than happy to blame authors for giving it to us. I think sometimes you can't win, but in my opinion it's better to go out in a blaze of glory than in a hail of one star reviews.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cripes, Tam, reading this assessment makes me want to barf in a fit of anxiety!

      (well put.)

      Delete
  12. Great post. I'm working on a series at the moment and I've got it planned ahead (though of course with plenty of flexibility built in.) I know where it's going and who I want the characters to be when they get there. Knowing that really helps me with what the characters are going through in the current part of the story I'm working on. I have to make sure it's part of the journey to that end point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your plan-with-flexibility sounds like the perfect way to approach the situation! Sometimes you realize ideas are bigger than you originally thought and it needs a little more fleshing out.

      Delete
  13. Great topic, Jordan! I see this in mystery series a lot. What's especially interesting is how so many of these mystery heros are aging out of their ability to do law enforcement.

    I mean, James Lee Burke's hero Dave Robicheaux is probably pushing 70 by now as a sheriff's deputy. He started his series as a Vietnam vet and a police officer with the NOPD. Michael Connelly's hero Harry Bosch (also started as a Vietnam vet) is coming up against mandatory retirement from the LAPD. And the fans love these books! What's an author to do?

    I guess Sue Grafton has kept her entire series within two years in the 1980s. And JD Robb has each of her 32 Eve Dallas books just cover a few days on a case, so I think she's only covered about two years in all.

    All these characters I've mentioned show some very slow character development (losing people, gaining people in their lives, coping with changing circumstances) over the course of the series story arc, so I guess a series can be done successfully for a long time.

    But then there is author burnout to consider. When Dennis Lehane wrote Moonlight Mile, his latest mystery, it read like burnout. So sad, especially with the once-vibrant characters that had inhabited a masterpiece like Gone Baby Gone.

    Great post, Jordan! Very thought provoking.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Would you say that some of those series are more plot-driven than character-driven? It seems like a plot-driven series can drag on a lot longer without the burnout showing.

    I'm reading one now (I don't like to point fingers and name names) but it's really disappointing to see this series I once loved dragging its sorry ass through the pages, going through the motions. I wonder if this author is just going to keep milking it as long as she can or what. (NYT Bestselling author, popular series).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Fascinating post, Jordan. I do love a series with a strong character arc, but I'd rather have just the one book than a pointless sequel. Shark jumping irritates me beyond belief. Mind you, very occasionally a show gets the magic back. Red Dwarf (British cult scifi show) went seriously wrong at one point, regained the best character and rethought the premise for a great series, then shark jumped AGAIN. If they make any more, I'll be watching through my fingers.

    I have to admit, I rather like the "tag team" approach to romance sequels, because sometimes those secondary characters are fascinating.

    One of these days I'll write a series...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if TV shows sometimes do that when the writing staff changes over, and someone good comes on board and rescues it.

      Delete
  16. What a great post. I love series, well some of them anyway, which do not end with life or death cliffhanger for main characters :)), but I cannot tell you how many times I was reading the sequel and wondering what moved the writer to create the totally fake conflict and decide that the story needs to be continued.

    Sirius

    There was also a book which I loved so much and which in my mind stood perfectly as a stand alone, but the writer decided to write a sequel. Sometimes the reader does not even need to read it, the word of the friend whose tastes are close enough could be enough. So anyway, the verdict of the friend who read it and loved the first book as much as I did was basically - sexfest with very little plot as a filler. Needless to say I am not planning on reading the sequel and another sequel which is planned.

    So, yes, if you write a sequel, please make sure there are unresolved issues that warrant one, no matter how much readers are asking to spend more time with beloved characters. I actually usually do not get those requests, because to me a lot of those books definitely stand as standalone.

    I just realized that the first sentence of my previous paragraph reads close to an order, lol. Of course it is not an order, writer should writer whatever they feel like, I am just saying that contrived sequels annoy me.

    Thanks again for your post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My signature ended up in the middle of the post oy.

      Sirius

      Delete
    2. The contrived conflict thing is a really good description of a sequel that doesn't quite work. I could see a writer basking in the praise of a successful book and writing a sequel because the praise ignited that inner eagerness to please. But it's also the writer's job to know if the story is so definitively complete that a sequel could never measure up. (I really could see getting swept away in the praise though.)

      Delete
    3. That also goes to my absolute conviction that the writer should only listen to herself and nobody else as to the direction of where the story should go. I strongly believe that no matter what I as reader and reviewer will say about finished product - whether issues are left unresolved, characters are flat, whatever, I still think that the writer should never cater to the readers' demands. I know, I know, I am not a writer, but I still have an opinion :). I feel that there is a stronger chance that your audience will find you if you write what you want, rather than write to please the readers. I get that you want to sell your books, but I cannot forget another book, which was a nice sequel overall, but I could not shake off the impression that the writer was also checking off some boxes and trying to make people happy about some issues they were not happy with in book one. IMO that made book two weaker.

      Sirius

      Delete
  17. I love finding a series where the MC grows through the series, but still remains their core self. Vic (I love Vic) from your Psycop series is still Vic, but he's finally facing his demons, getting off the drugs (sort of) and accepting his Mediumship and all those things happened over several books. I'd have gotten bored with him if he didn't evolve. No one stays the same. I just still want my fictional characters to be true to themselves, please and thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're so right, he'd be really frustrating if he didn't evolve. It's probably a topic for another whole post, but sometimes you need to write someone fairly messed up to give them room to grow. (although that's not my excuse because I thought Among the Living was going to be a one-off.)

      Delete