Thanks,

When Elizabeth George killed Helen, I cried for Lynley and Havers and all the other characters. I was shocked but I can’t wait to read the next one. If somehow Nora Roberts decided that Peabody, Mira or Somerset (or anybody) had to bite it, I’d probably quit reading the series for a while but I would go back.

I guess I haven’t been betrayed by the right author yet. Catherine Asaro, leave the Ruby Dynasty alive!

SPOILERish!!

Am I the only one disappointed that he didn’t die? Seriously I felt it would have been a great ending and would have worked well. Instead of which there is some lame deus ex machina, his sacrifice wasn’t really a sacrifice and the only people killed off are those you don’t really care so much about. Plus the awful epilogue, which is a device straight out of a formula romance novel.

Anyway, though I’m a fan of the series my attitude to this disappointment is merely “meh”, “I won’t bother buying my own copy of the book” and “It’ll probably still make a good film”. Strangely no hostile feelings towards JK at all. I suppose if I could write a better book I should get out there and do it.

I was upset about it, but I wasn’t mad at the author. In fact I switched to reading Maron’s other series–and promptly landed on Bloody Kin, which opens with Kate’s husband’s murder :P

I’m kidding, but only sorta. It happened to me once.

Oh I forgot about that one. It PISSED. ME. OFF. It took a while for me to read Maron again. And I LOVED that series.

I didn’t feel betrayed by that one though.

They not only want to write their books without reader influence (totally acceptable) but they also want to write their books free of reader judgment. If you want to write what you want free of criticism, don’t put it out there in the stream of commerce.

Very interesting. And good to remember.

It takes one person, shut up in a room for hours on end.

That’s all well and good, but she’d soon be pissed if she sat all alone working on her books, and nobody bought them.

Does anybody really think the series would have been as popular if J.K Rowling had decided to kill off Harry in the middle of the series? I think not, even she was astute enough to know that killing off Harry would have probably pissed off her readers.

Writers can write what the hell they like, but they shouldn’t be surprised when their readers (who incidentally help them continue their career), feel fully justified in expressing their dismay, over the direction in which their books are going.

Authors and readers have a symbiotic relationship, and for a writer not to realise this, seems more than just a little disingenuous to me.

The optimum is a relationship plot AND a suspense plot. When either one loses tension, it’s disappointing.

Edit:
Ahem. Hi, Nora Roberts. Note that I *do* like Eve and Roarke’s relationship!

Does that covenant apply to the main characters’ lives? I’d thought of it as mainly about solving the mystery and (often) punishing the bad guys. I can think of a few sleuths who suffer personal tragedies in the course of solving crimes. Maybe it varies by subgenre–I think equivocal endings are less common in “cozy” series mysteries.

In what I’ve read recently, Inspector Morse dies; Margaret Maron kills off Oscar Nauman and puts Deborah Knott through a major breakup; in the hard-boiled tradition, Sam Spade types often lose friends and don’t get the girl. Even catching the bad guys isn’t guaranteed. Sherlock Holmes usually wins the battle but never the whole war against Moriarty.

“I’ve noticed lately that quite a few readers seem angry if books don’t turn out in a way that would have made them happier. That’s an attitude I find hard to understand. (Maybe it’s my age? I don’t know.) The writer is determiner of fate for his or her characters. Writing is a lone pastime, not a group endeavor. It doesn’t take a village to write a book. It takes one person, shut up in a room for hours on end.”

“know that readers have every right not to be happy with the way a book ends, or with the way characters meet their fate. But to be angry with the writer? The characters belong to the writer. I know in a certain sense they belong to the reader, too; but the characters live in the writer’s mind and at her/his will.”

What I see Harris is saying is that readers don’t have the right to be angry about the direction of the books. Who else can a reader direct her anger at but the author particularly when the author is the one, as Harris acknowledges, decides what the characters do. It’s a bit disingenuous to say, ‘hey, these are my characters and I can fuck with them in whatever way I want but you can’t be mad about it’.

The whole point of series books, instead of single titles, is to build up the readership. I’ve seen it referenced on authors’ blogs that series sell because authors can build off a returning reader base.

Now, I am not for stagnation. I think MJD is one author whose Betsy series suffered from lack of character growth and increasing predictability. I think the question is whether what Harris, Cornwell and Slaughter did is the only creative outlet for stagnation?

I.e., RfP is disappointed in the declining tension between Roarke and Eve now that they are a settled couple. If tension between the couple is what drives the series, then isn’t that a romance rather than a mystery and then doesn’t that incorporate a number of other reader expectations?

To me Harris and Slaughter and every author wants the impossible. They not only want to write their books without reader influence (totally acceptable) but they also want to write their books free of reader judgment. If you want to write what you want free of criticism, don’t put it out there in the stream of commerce.

How can an author, on the one hand want the reader to care about the characters, want to the reader to love them to pieces, but on the other hand not understand how a reader that they have lured into loving their books be angry at the creator, at the GOD of the characters, when the characters meet an unacceptable (to the reader) fate?

I guess that is the ultimate God complex. Follow me and don’t judge me. I know I am right. It’s a paternalistic attitude I find objectionable.

i loved that series.

Think the publisher decided not to continue with it.

I haven’t read Karin’s series so can’t add to the discussion. I do wonder if the ending of this recent book somehow breeches the old covenent between the author and mystery reader that justice must be done and good must triumph over evil.

With a series where the main characters re-appear…, the readers become emotionally attached to the characters more than the authors’ work.

Good main characters are crucial to a series, but I more often quit a series due to boredom (too much conformity to expectations) than to being surprised or losing characters.

I hate it when authors forget that the main reason for their success is due to their fans, and the loyalty of those fans. Yes, she’s a great author, but in order to be hailed a great author, her sales numbers had to marry up

I think someone is a great author not when she pleases the most people but when she writes stories that hang together and stay (close to) as gripping as the first book. Authors can get backed into corners by their own success–I still enjoy the occasional In Death book, but the newer books have less tension because Roarke and Eve’s relationship has stabilized. I wouldn’t want them to break up–that’s not in character! But it’s taken the books down a notch.

Back on Slaughter–there can be good reasons for a twist.

1. To keep the story from going stale for the reader.
Jane says “the story would have been just as believable without what happened”. Maybe mystery-oriented readers would have disagreed; or Slaughter and her editors disagreed. Or maybe it really was gratuitous.

2. To keep the story from going stale for the author.
I can see why readers get upset, but I’d rather see an author try new challenges than coast. Whether the author starts a new series or takes a twist with an old, I usually read the next book and see where it goes.

I’ll probably never read these books, but the author’s letter explaining her decision makes sense to me. It’s also similar to Kim Harrison’s explanations* of killing a character: “it made for a better story, and I had to hold true to that and write it that way.”
*Her longer explanation is here: http://forum.laurellkhamilton.org/showthread.php?t=16970

In the previous Harrison book I felt that that character had sex appeal, but held back the heroine and the overall plot. Even so, reading the death rocked me. But I’m more interested in the series knowing she’s focused on characters who can teach the heroine and stand beside her. I’d feared she was heading for Anitablakeville, where nothing bad happened and she was so powerful that her relationships were one-sided.

I often find that ‘series authors’ will drag a series on, instead of ending it off on a more satisfying high note. To keep the series going they will put the characters through drama that only serves to keep the series going but ends up destroying my love of the characters.

To me, a series drags when each book is too predictable. A series needs to turn corners–and not always in pleasant ways in darker fiction, where a dangerous atmosphere is a crucial part of the books. It’s great to end on a high note, but often I find a mixed-bag ending more believable.

I have never read Karen Slaughter so I can’t comment on her work.

I know that authors have to write for themselves but they also write for their fans whether or not they realize it. When an author disregards their readers, they are ringing a death knell.