Tess Timetraveler* is a talented author whose paranormal romances feature various members of two main families finding love with men and women from other centuries. The tricks and tribulations of going backward (or forward) in time are handled with great humor by Tess, and that alone makes me fan.
Or rather, made me a fan. I am a sucker for series. Television, movies, books. When I make a commitment to characters, I am theirs for a very long time. Yet the latest book from Tess had me saying “No. It is time for one of us to move on, and clearly it will have to be me.”
Sure I want every stinkin’ member of both families and their assorted friends, across the generations, to find true love and eternal happiness (and since they are trapped in a circle of time, I do mean eternal). Just let them do it off the page. We do not need to chronicle the unbelievable coincidence of each family member finding a soulmate from another century (and, in most cases, continent). Cute once, fun twice, bearable thrice…okay, time for a new hook.
A good series will keep me involved for a long time. The “In Death” series comes to mind. Robb/Roberts continually pushes her characters in new directions. Eve and Roarke are still, essentially, newlyweds and trying to work the whole marriage dance out. This keeps the series fresh. Will I get tired of the whole thing someday? Let’s just say I used to devour this series; the latest installment has sat unread for many weeks now.
The audience-building nature of series has lead, in my never humble opinion, to another worrisome trend: The Attack of the Killer Sequels. Apparently readers love sequels (which lead to series if left unchecked). May I suggest that readers love sequels when a character in the first book leaps off the page and captures the imagination? Shoehorning the “setting this chick up for her own story” subplot into the book makes me feel like I’m being manipulated. A second banana being groomed for heroine-dom rarely proves exciting. She is constricted by the (unwritten) rules that state we must like the heroine even when she’s part of someone else’s story.
We will skip the lecture on the trilogies. I’m sure you can guess my feelings there. Clever hooks grab readers because they are unexpected or unique. When that happens in a series, readers will respond with enthusiasm and anticipation. Clever hooks done until they make the reader beg for mercy are like party guests who believe their doing you a favor when they remain long after everyone has gone. Once they’re locked safely on the other side of the door, you don’t want to invite them back.
* – Names have been changed to protect the innocent
P.S. – Weak-willed soul that I am, I ended up reading Tess’s latest. This is the last time. I swear.
No related posts.
*G* Your postscript is the reason Tess keeps writing her series. Why come up with a new hook if she doesn’t have to?
But seriously, how many of us have stuck with a series long after it’s lost some of its ooomph? Even after a series has clearly jumped the shark, we lunge for the next installment the moment it hits the shelves, hoping that THIS book will charm us like the first one did. Hope springs eternal, and on some level we believe the magic will return if we stick around long enough.
And every now and then… it does.
I’m so weird. I love series. I mean, sure there are some that get old. I didn’t like Stephaine Plum in book eight, I just sort of liked her in nine, but by ten I was hooked again. I think it’s the best. (Granted, I’m ready for Stepahine to find her HEA if it’s out there. She’s been through enough.) Same with the Dark-Hunters. Oh My God! I want to read them ALL!!!! And if one isn’t all that great, I’m okay with that. But I can see there’s an end out there. Eventually she’s going to tell Ash’s story and that’ll be enough. And the Bridgerton’s are so great. And that doesn’t even begin to cover all the Harlequin/Silhouette family stories I’ve read over the years and loved. The Taggerts. The Men of Mayes County. Julie Miller’s family in Intrigue. What are their names?! Dang it I can’t remember. I guess my love afair with series started way back in the 80s with the Mallory’s. (Okay, so I don’t read the new ones but back then I couldn’t get enough.)
In the 90s I read Jo Beverly’s family series and loved them all. I thought it was so cool when I realized Margot Early’s Supers were all connected at least a little bit. And Alison Kent’s Girl-Gear series had me hooked from the beginning. It’s when I started reading her books.
But I do agree. Once the magic’s over, move on. Don’t make me hate a character I loved.
As a writer, though, I wonder. How do you know when the magic’s over? That would be so difficult to judge! I’m sure your publishing house is going to want you to continue writing a great selling character. If that’s the case will an editor tell you it’s time to move on? Especially if moving on means they might not make the big bucks on your next release. Can you judge by reader mail? Are you, as the creator, too close to the character to know? YIKES! So many questions! Good thing I don’t have to worry about all that yet.
Great post!
LOL, it’s so true. Anymore though, I don’t have the time to read that I used to, so there are very few series that I’ll read the second book on. It has to really grab me. Like DEAD WITCH WALKING and the sequel THE GOOD THE BAD THE UNDEAD. Dang what an incredible world that author has built. She’s got me hooked on waiting for the next one!
Nice post, Kassia, very timely as summer series blockbuster season is almost upon us! I think every series needs an arc and an end, and if it doesn’t have it, eventually the reader realizes that something is missing in the storyline, although they may not realize what it is. I love short series (Nora’s trilogies are my fav books ever) and I’m still buying Stephanie Plum, albeit I’m not there on release day anymore. One of my problems is that there are so many ongoing series these days, that I’ve limited the number of series I’ll let myself get involved with (it’s the same way I approach TV). And some of my favorite series, I’ve had to let go of because I can’t keep up.
So, I’m a series slut and will often stick with them long past the time when they’ve lost their luster. I still love the In Death series. I haven’t loved all of the books, but some of the newer ones have re-captured the magic for me.
I’m with a previous poster about Stephanie Plum. I still laugh out loud at these books. But with the last one, I felt as though nothing moved forward. It’s as if the book was in a time warp. No resolution. I’m ready for the “decision” and some sort of wrap-up of the series. Before I begin to hate Stephanie as I am…
Anita Blake. I think LKH has done this series almost into the ground. I loved those first Anita Blake books when she was a kick-ass heroine, a pioneer in her field and finding her way among her desires and her beliefs. Now, she’s having sex. A lot of sex. And I like sex in my books, I’m a big erotic romance fan. But that’s not how the Anita Blake books started out and I’m sad that’s what they’ve become. In my mind, it’s an example of a series that has gone on too long. (of course, I’m sure there are LKH fans just lying in wait out there now ready to flame me LOL!)
So, after this lengthy response, yes, series, as much as I love them are not always a good thing as far as character development (or lack thereof) is concerned.
And we won’t even discuss Stephanie Laurens Cynsters
I like some series if I can relate with the characters and like the idea behind the series (Women In Blue, Harlequin Superromance, for example). However, I like them not to linger forever as after several books I want to move on to the new one. And maybe it will be series, too.
First I want to tell Kassia that I hate her
I’m not kidding, I just wrote a rough draft about this very topic yesterday for a possible RTB column. What triggered it? Something Kassia mentions – manipulation.
If the hero’s entire Navy SEAL team doesn’t do anything to further the course of the primary romance – well I don’t need to be introduced to them all. Frankly, if they’re just there to strut, pose and scream “Look at me! I’m so H-O-T! I’m so Alpha! I’ll have my own story in April 2006! Buy it, buy it, buy it!” Well I really resent that. I do not want to be marketed to when I pick up a book.
When I do pick up a book, I want to be entertained. Dead weight and distraction doesn’t entertain me.
You speak about the issue of having to like secondary character because they are being set up for a sequel. My favorites are when an author takes a not very likeable character or at least someone you do not LOVE and gives them their own story. Mary Balogh has done this a few times. I feel it takes a lot of the cheese factor out of the cast of perfect characters all posing for their shots in future books.
Beating a series into the ground irritates the reader. GREATLY. I love the “In Death” series, but I’m falling out of love with Nora’s trilogies. The “Key” series, to me, was predictable. My best friend loved it. There are only so many ways it can go with six characters and three books. Ya know?
When a series loses its luster, I must confess, I wonder if the author is in it for the love of the craft or the love of the bottom line. Yes, I can be hateful. I think I have that in my profile somewhere. There are times when an author needs to MOVE ON. Let it go. Something. Create something entirely new and fresh. Hope springs eternal.
On the other hand, Harry Potter. Different genre but series work. I love Harry Potter. The last book was dark. I disliked it immensely. Will I purchase “The Half-Blood Prince”? You bet your sweet bippy. I only have two books to go. And there are still so many unanswered questions.
It’s time to let the series go when the mystery is gone. When the dialogue seems recycled. And the edge has been worn smooth.
Grins*
A small disclaimer. I love Nora Roberts. The difference is now BUYING the book to checking the book out of the library.
I’m a Nora fan, too, and I still enjoy the In Death series. Maybe because I didn’t read them all from the beginning and gag myself on them! But I’ve fallen out of love with her trilogies. The Romance Goddess will probably strike me dead for this, but the heroines are always Demure, Tomboy and Sex Kitten. Blonde, brunette, redhead. I enjoyed the Chesapeake Bay series that were primarily from the male POV because it got out of the rut a little bit.
I’m sticking with a few series, but I’ve finally learned to let go of the ones that get stale and/or so confusing you need a notepad to figure out who’s related to whom and how all the characters interconnect.
I’m too obsessive to read long series.
Just thinking about reading the In Death books or Stephanie Plum makes me tense. I want the stories I read to have a clear beginning, middle and end. And I prefer if the middle doesn’t go on forever, and I am at some point gaurenteed a satisfying ending.
I read the Harliquin (I think) miniseries set in Tyler, Texas and it just about killed me to get through the whole thing. And I’m not sure that I ever ended up reading the final book, so I still don’t know how it ends!!
I do enjoy trilogies though (there’s an end in sight), and sometimes the predictability of them is what makes them “safer” than other series for me.
That said, I can’t pass up a Dark Hunter book!
Personally, I love well-done trilogies. Or more precisely, I love well-crafted story arcs that are kept SHORT (3-5 books max). I’ve read and enjoyed several in romance in recent years. Linda Fallon’s SHADES same character books and Josie Linton’s Viking/Akora different couple arcs are great examples. There is just a certain elegance to the story arc form IF kept under control.
OTOH, I do believe romance-land has gone bonkers over spin-offs, i.e. characters from one story getting their own books later, AND there also seems to be a tendency towards trying to include an ongoing story arc in some of the spin-off “sets” nowadays. Which isn’t always a bad thing but there are limits to my patience and tolerance.
Then again, like any other reader, I can spot a character who deserves their own story a mile away. I just wish it happened more spontaneously nowadays with spin-offs or were better planned when multibook story arcs are involved.
Damn, now I want to know what the Tess series is. Because all I can think of as a possible is the Outlander series, but that doesn’t quite fit the description given. Obviously I haven’t heard of this one.
I second the comments on Anita Blake- the nothing-but-sex-and-no-plots thing has just gotten dull. And it’s really sad. I can’t be arsed to pay money for the books any more.
Sela, I agree with you about Nora’s trilogies. I still absolutely LOVE her stand-alones (like The Villa and Birthright, haven’t read the latest). And I love the IN DEATH series but, like Kassia, I bought the latest in h/c and haven’t read it yet. I’m a Stephanie Plum addict, have #10 in h/c, but still haven’t cracked open the cover. However, with both the last books in each series, I finish them in one day because I never want to put it down.
I never started writing a trilogy. It was my editor who suggested I tie my first book into two others. So I came up with a hook and they liked it. But each of my books can stand alone.
There’s one author of re-curring characters that I find tedious. I LOVED the first couple books, but the h/h from the first book keep coming back and the situation always feels contrived, IMO.
The only series I stick with is the “In Death” one. I abandoned the Anita Blake long ago and did not even glance at the Gentry. Emma Holly seems to have a small thing going with her “Midnight” one, since a third is being released this year and the previous two have been excellent so I’m excited.
Besides that though, I’m not really a series girl.
Speaking of series that never end and need to be shot and put out of their misery, totally different genre but anyone read Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series? A new book every couple of years and the damn twists and turns are so complicated you need to go back and re-read the whole daggone series to remember who is who and what is where. But each book is 700 pages long and there are something like 11 books. It’s horrible and excruciating!
Jordan’s WOT . . . ack, ack, ack.
My son got me started on that one several years ago and he’s currently impatiently waiting for me to finish the most recent. He may be waiting forever. Talk about an out of control story arc. I think that one may define the concept.
And on another thread in this discussion, sort of, I’ve been reading with interest the various comments about the various single character series (IN DEATH, Anita Blake, Stephanie Plum, etc.) and something occurs to me. I know romance readers have a tendency to want “character development” but it is really an advantage or a disadvantage to have these major long-running and seemingly neverending arcs included in what are essentially episodic series, even if they are character based?
Doesn’t it sort of defeat the purpose?
As a reader, I ADORE good series, and one that jumps the shark will have me mad an an author for a loooong time. If I love a book, I don’t want to have my memories of it ruined by crappy sequels. I prefer for an author who starts out a series to have a clear vision of where it’s going–EVERYWHERE it’s going. That way, episodic books that go nowhere aren’t a problem because the author has an endpoint in mind.
As a writer, I use “world” series–that is, all the stories take place in the same world, with characters who may or may not know each other. I then take the stories that develop independently of the characters and see who they’d “fit” with.
And not every character gets a story, of course!
Yes, but having an endpoint in mind over multiple books isn’t even what episodic series are about in the first place, which is why I wonder if it doesn’t defeat the purpose to have multibook story arcs in them to begin with. Or at least to have longrunning arcs. Each “episode” is supposed to be complete within itself – a single case for a detective/cop, article for a reporter or cause/innocent for a “super” hero/squad, etc. When they aren’t, a great deal of the focus IS lost, isn’t it?
I most definitely agree that the use of “worlds” are the best for spin-offs, however, because that way there doesn’t even have to be an arcs at all unless the author specifically wants to develop them. Hopefully over a very short number of books.
Thanks so much for all the thoughts — it’s interesting to learn I’m the only one who gets weird about trilogies
. It’s clear we can all see when a series has jumped the shark…why are we not all serving as consultants for publishers? I think ending a series too late might had an adverse impact on an author’s future sales as well.
As for Tess? You can contact me privately, but it appears from the responses that many of us have our own personal Tess in our reading.
PS — Sorry Wendy! I do feel your pain.
Yay! This is working again!
Personally, I don’t like most episodic series unless I’m in the mood for a cozy mystery. Some adventure type novels, but very little. The inherent lack of character development and the lack of a final closure makes that type of book unappealing to me most of the time. When there is a character arc, it usually becomes strained around the fourth book or so because the author is writing more because the audience wants more, not because the overall story demands it.
The only semi-episodic writer’s work I REALLY enjoy is Terry Pratchett becaue he is so conscious of playing in the world and keeping it fresh!
Xenical
http://www.xenical.greatnow.com
< Çà´º¶»
zz51.51.net
Thank you for your wonderful web site and this guest page