Mysterious Matters: Mystery Publishing Demystified

The Fallacy of Character Development

Many of today's readers say they read for character, which explains the reading public's great willingness to buy series books.  The conventional wisdom is this:  Multiple books featuring the same protagonist (and supporting cast) allow the characters to develop and grow, not only within each novel but also from book to book.

This is utter nonsense.

In genre fiction, it is rare indeed for characters to develop substantially within a book, or even over the length of a series.  Think about it:  Most mysteries take place within a relatively short time period--a few days, a week or two, maybe a month.  How many cases investigated by our fearless sleuths really have such personal or social relevance that the results cause a sea change in their personality by the epilogue? How many of our series characters have life-changing epiphanies in every book?

In the classic days, our sleuths didn't have much of a life, because they weren't expected to.  The emphasis was on the story and the puzzle, on the sleuth matching wits with someone exceedingly clever (but ultimately not clever enough to outwit our sleuth).  Thus Hercule Poirot and Jane Marple remained delightfully unencumbered; we rarely heard anything about Campion's personal life; and so forth.

Now, in the age of psychology, readers are looking for someone they can relate to or like.  That's really the key thing, not the false idea that said character "develops."  Reviewers and readers, I think, often use the phrase "character development" when they mean "character likability" or "character similarity to myself, or the way I think and behave, or my own self-aspiration."  Thus the same folks looking for "complexity" in their characters will turn against them if they do something unlikable, or unthinking, or naive.  Readers today, more than ever, have an expectation of what they want their characters to say, do, and think; and this situation makes for great complications in the life of the poor novelist.  It's almost as if readers want to direct writers in terms of how their characters behave and what they do, rather than sitting back and being taken on a journey of the author's creation.  

I should not be overly general here.  Certainly most readers respond to character complexity, to those little inconsistencies of thought and action that make a character more than a cardboard cutout.  But complexity, or depth, I would argue, is different than character development.  Let's think for a moment about the greats.  Is Adam Dalgliesh now any different than he was in Cover Her Face?  Wexford's older, and he's raised two girls, one of whom is quite obnoxious as an adult, but has his fundamental character changed over 20+ years?  Isn't V.I. Warshawski the same tough broad she's always been?  Eve Dallas is still tough and highly competent, though she's let her defenses down a bit with Roarke.  But then again she was always tough, and always had a sensitive side.  Isn't Barbara Havers still an undiagnosed case of Asperger's, and haven't Lynley and his wife retained their essential snobbery over the years?

Let's look at the less-than-greats, too.  Isn't Stephanie Plum the same clueless airhead she's always been?   Isn't the supporting cast still a wacky bunch of stereotypes, many of whom remind us of types we have known in our own lives? Kinsey Millhone remains likable and competent.  21 books later, she has softened a bit, but we haven't really seen any change in her, have we?   

No, genre fiction is not about character development.  It’s about a story and a hero/heroine whom we find appealing.  Today’s authors know this, I think, which is why they try so hard to create likable people who can be all things to all (or many) people.  My opinion is that this M.O comes at the cost of complexity and the type of depth one typically sees in more literary novels.  However, I won’t say that such characters are necessarily unrealistic.  Think about the people in your life.  How many of them have really changed or developed in some essential way during the course of your acquaintanceship?  Maybe some, but probably not many.  In my own life, I see friends and family members doing the same stupid things and behaving in the same dysfunctional ways in their 50s that they did when they were in their 20s (and I don’t exempt myself from this category).

Seeking Panelists

Does anyone remember the forums in Harper's Magazine, that great feature in which a moderator and five or so panelists discuss a topic of current interest?

I'd like to do an online forum here on Mysterious Matters, and I'm seeking panelists.  I'm hoping this will be the first in a series.  If all goes well with the first, I'd like to do a few per year, each on a different topic.

For the first, I'd like to talk to writers who have at least one book published and who are trying to increase the awareness of their work.  The ideal candidates will:

• Be published by a small or independent press.  (Poisoned Pen is independent and therefore a part of the universe.)  I'm not saying I'll definitely discriminate against those published by larger houses, but everyone who reads Mysterious Matters knows that I'm an advocate for small presses, so my choices will most likely be guided by my prejudices.
• Have a Yahoo account with Yahoo messenger, by which I'll conduct the forum.  (The good news is, if you don't currently have an account, you can get one for free.)

I'd like to get a mix of writers in different sub-genres: police procedurals, cozy, etc.  

The topic of the first panel will be: ORIGINALITY.  I haven't come up with all the questions yet, but I'd like us to talk about unique or interesting plot ideas, narrative structures, characters, and situations.  I'd like to talk about some of the "greats" and "firsts," as well as ideas for how mysteries can resonate with the reading public by taking chances or doing something new and exciting.  

If you'd like to take part, please send me an email at agathomystery AT yahoo DOT com by January 30th. I'll choose the panelists by the first week in February, and we'll schedule the online chat for mid-February.  I'll try to schedule the chat on a Saturday or Sunday so that people don't have to do too much juggling with their work schedules.  I'll record the chat, then edit out the boring bits, and post it here on Mysterious Matters, along with a mini biography of each panelist and a book shot.

In your email, tell me a little about yourself, your work, and your publisher(s).  I'll buy a book by each writer chosen to participate, so getting chosen means a sale of at least one book, with the potential for more sales among the Mysterious Matters readership.

The volume of mail I get means that I'm not able to respond individually.   Hope to hear from you.

To those who blog, post, etc.: Please feel free to spread the word, share this link, or cut and paste this entry into whichever fora mystery writers and readers congregate.  Future topics will include, I hope, a readers' panel and an editors' panel.  

 

What's the Story, Charlie?

(With apologies to the old StarKist tuna commercials for ripping off their tagline)

I don't often write here about movies, because I feel completely incompetent as a film critic.  I go for the enjoyment and spectacle, and my wife is frequently explaining techniques and the finer points over coffee later on.  I return the favor when she reads a book I've read, since books are my thing and films are hers.

But we recently went to see AVATAR and it got me thinking about the role of story. Or, as it is sometimes known, PLOT.

I don't consider myself a highly knowledgeable film buff, but it struck me that, aside from the special effects, I'd seen everything in the film before.  No real spoilers here, if you haven't seen it yet:

• The "noble savages" are as old as the earliest novels, but this theme was handled quite well in DANCES WITH WOLVES.  I kept thinking, AVATAR is DANCES WITH WOLVES in outer space.
• The evil, unfeeling, money-grubbing embodiment of corporate America was done quite well by Paul Reiser in ALIEN; here it's Giovanni Ribisi doing the same thing.
• Sigourney Weaver played a wise, caring woman infiltrating a foreign culture - that of primates - in GORILLAS IN THE MIST.  She plays the exact same role in AVATAR, with a bit more profanity.

And the list goes on and on...

While this may sound critical (in the pejorative sense), all these similarities - perhaps Jungian plot devices? - mattered not a whit to my enjoyment of the film.  I found it involving and affecting.

And it hit me that mystery/crime fiction is in a similar boat.  Much of today's fiction really does recycle the same old plots and plot devices time and again.  This liberal borrowing from what has come before annoys us (well, it annoys ME) only when it's not done well.  In the right hands, and when executed with panache, a tired old plot contrivance causes me to think "Ah, well done."  When executed by a less-than-able practitioner, I think, "Oh God, not THIS again," even though it's not the plot, or the story, that's the problem, but rather the way it's implemented.

This is good news, I think, for those trying to break into print.  While we (editors) say we want something new and interesting, I don't think too many would dispute that it's often the books that rely the most on formula and tradition that end up with contracts.  Every once in a while something really fresh comes along, but how often does that happen, really?  The idealists in us want such new and exciting things, but then we think: How will we market it?  How will we describe it?  How will we find reviewers whom we can count on to say something nice?  Thus those many talented people attempting to write cross-overs or multiple genres in one book (let's say, horror + mystery + supernatural + cozy) send agents and editors running for the hills, which isn't fair; but, as I was fond of saying to my children when they were younger, since when is anything fair?

 Some day I'll have to write a bit more about PLOT vs. CHARACTER.  I use the "vs." for a reason.  I have found in the last few years (well, decades probably) that the books that sell massively are mostly plot-centric.  And for good reason--many people read for a good story.  And yet it seems to me that people are reluctant to admit that story is often as important, or more important, than character development.  Yet I see savage reviews when Reviewer has decided that there is not enough Character Development in a piece of genre fiction.  What Reviewer means, I think, is that S/He has not found someone to like in the book, or someone to relate to.  For, really, how much crime fiction is a bildungsroman?  But that's fodder for another post, perhaps.

ON ANOTHER NOTE...

I try to blog only on one subject at a time, but I was reading some of the comments on my last post, and was slightly saddened that a reader thought I painted a "bleak picture" of publishing.  I can see where that perception comes from, but I want to say that I don't think things are bleak.  They are changing, yes; and the model of "write a book and get a big advance" is going the way of the dodo, which to me is good news, not bad news.  But I see ample opportunities for small and independent presses to step in and make a difference; and I think many feel the same way.

Remember, too, that you can make a difference.  All it takes a willingness to read new writers, to buy their books new, to spread the word, to "do no harm."  There's a somewhat famous story of a well-liked mystery novelist who was dropped by a publisher in 2009 and then picked up rather quickly by a smaller house when readers rallied to his side.  So people/readers can and DO make the difference.