I have heard of several authors who loathed their detectives by the end.
Probably why so many of them kill them off or drop series and start a new
one.
Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie both ended up doing that. Except Doyle got
so much backlash that he to resurrect his character. (LOL!) Doyle hated
Holmes, he wanted to write more scientific books, and got trapped into
writing mystery novels and short stories which sold.
Christie got sick of Poirot but also didn't want anyone else writing him,
so killed him off and kept him dead.
One interesting problem that mystery series often have is that the
detective is set up with some dark mystery in his own background*. This
works well as a hook to attract the reader/viewer, and yet over the course
of the series the authors feel the need to drip out information bit by bit
so as to keep the hook baited. And the very process of doing that normally
takes away the mystery and leaves the detective as fairly mundane by the
end. I doubt it is ever planned as such and I have never found it
satisfying.
Oh god, yes. Patricia Cornwell did that...as does David Baldaccio, and John
D. MacDonald. It's also popular in urban fantasy novels -- Illona Andrews
did it too. Except revealed it faster. As did Jim Butcher for the Dresden
Files. Usually it's something about a family member.
On television they'll do the proverbial carrot -- which is the character's
goal and string the audience along until the character reaches it. Angel
the Series -- made fun of the trope and set up a carrot only to show it as
being a weakness in the character, and he didn't really evolve or accept
himself until he rejected the carrot or stopped trying to reach for it.
Quantum Leap did it, the Fugitive, The Incredible Hulk..etc, until it
became clear that the audience no longer had any tolerance for the trope
and they stopped. With serials and fast paced plots, it's no longer an
effective device.
I guess the only other overall arc would be detectives who find a mate,
settle down and have a family, which again all too often removes the
mysterious element that most detectives seem to require to be considered
interesting by audience or author.
Yep, seen that a lot too. Except in some cases, Dresden Files, Stephanie
Plum mysteries, Kay Scarpetto, the romance never happens. The person dies.
She never chooses. They change their mind. And on to the next one.
I find this arc annoying too. They do it on television as well, again until
the audience got fed up and they realized they had to be bring them
together a lot faster. Remington Steel, Moonlighting, were examples of it
being drawn out. Bones and Castle examples of them uniting a bit faster --
before the end of the series.
Where they become a crime-fighting married couple. Only problem with
Castle's pairing is the two leads despised each other. It works better if
you are friends.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2017-06-20 05:49 pm (UTC)I have heard of several authors who loathed their detectives by the end. Probably why so many of them kill them off or drop series and start a new one.
Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie both ended up doing that. Except Doyle got so much backlash that he to resurrect his character. (LOL!) Doyle hated Holmes, he wanted to write more scientific books, and got trapped into writing mystery novels and short stories which sold.
Christie got sick of Poirot but also didn't want anyone else writing him, so killed him off and kept him dead.
One interesting problem that mystery series often have is that the detective is set up with some dark mystery in his own background*. This works well as a hook to attract the reader/viewer, and yet over the course of the series the authors feel the need to drip out information bit by bit so as to keep the hook baited. And the very process of doing that normally takes away the mystery and leaves the detective as fairly mundane by the end. I doubt it is ever planned as such and I have never found it satisfying.
Oh god, yes. Patricia Cornwell did that...as does David Baldaccio, and John D. MacDonald. It's also popular in urban fantasy novels -- Illona Andrews did it too. Except revealed it faster. As did Jim Butcher for the Dresden Files. Usually it's something about a family member.
On television they'll do the proverbial carrot -- which is the character's goal and string the audience along until the character reaches it. Angel the Series -- made fun of the trope and set up a carrot only to show it as being a weakness in the character, and he didn't really evolve or accept himself until he rejected the carrot or stopped trying to reach for it.
Quantum Leap did it, the Fugitive, The Incredible Hulk..etc, until it became clear that the audience no longer had any tolerance for the trope and they stopped. With serials and fast paced plots, it's no longer an effective device.
I guess the only other overall arc would be detectives who find a mate, settle down and have a family, which again all too often removes the mysterious element that most detectives seem to require to be considered interesting by audience or author.
Yep, seen that a lot too. Except in some cases, Dresden Files, Stephanie Plum mysteries, Kay Scarpetto, the romance never happens. The person dies. She never chooses. They change their mind. And on to the next one.
I find this arc annoying too. They do it on television as well, again until the audience got fed up and they realized they had to be bring them together a lot faster. Remington Steel, Moonlighting, were examples of it being drawn out. Bones and Castle examples of them uniting a bit faster -- before the end of the series. Where they become a crime-fighting married couple. Only problem with Castle's pairing is the two leads despised each other. It works better if you are friends.