My friend and fellow writer Penny Williamson and I spent a wonderful afternoon today at a party of Dorothy Dunnett readers. Dunnett readers, as I’ve blogged about before, tend to be a fun, well-read, and extraordinarily nice group of people. Over tea and wine and a delicious array of food we talked about books by Dunnett and others as well as favorite television series.
There’s something about Dunnett’s books that particularly lends them to discussion and analysis. They’re so complex and multi-layered. The books aren’t mysteries, but there are mysteries running through both the Lymond Chronicle and the House of Niccoló which provide endless food for debate and speculation. Even now both series are finished, plenty of unresolved questions remain. Add to that vivid historical context, rich literary allusions, and a fascinating cast of characters, and it’s hard to read Dunnett and not want to talk about the books. As we discussed at the party today, in the dark ages before the internet, we all had long lists of questions we wanted to discuss with other Dunnett readers. For a long time, the only other Dunnett reader I knew was my mom. We would discuss and debate the books all the time. Penny and I first became friends because we both loved Dunnett books. We’d spend long lunches talking over the Lymond Chronicle and debating what might happen next in the House of Niccoló.
Through my Dunnett friends, I’m also involved in a discussion group of Dunnett readers who watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer (you’d be amazed at the parallels :-)). This evening, I’ve been pondering what it is about certain stories that seem to particularly lend themselves to discussion. Ongoing story arcs are a big part of it, so book and television series both lend themselves to reader and viewer discussions, online and in person. Dunnetts’ series and BVTS both have complicated, ongoing stories, with plenty of questions about who’s real agenda is what, who will end up with whom, how characters may have been related to other characters in the past, and a host of other mysteries. Not to mention books, episodes, and seasons that end with nerve-wracking cliff hangers.
Another important element is characters one comes to care about and root for. Sometimes, particularly when there are romantic triangles, the rival merits of the characters become a topic of discussion. I recall a number of debates over Gelis verus Kathi in the House of Niccoló or Angel versus Spike on BVTS.
The X-Files and Alias also lend themselves to discussion, as does Lost (I’m watching last week’s episode as I write this and will probably have to rewatch it to make sure I didn’t miss a vital clue). I think the more a series, television or book, has an going mytharc (to use an X-Files term), with story and character development that extends from episode to episode or book to book, the more it lends itself to discussion. The mystery series I talk about the most with fellow readers may wrap up the central mystery within a book but the continuing characters have plenty of ongoing issues that stretch from book to book. Elizabeth George’s Lynley/Havers series, Laurie King’s Mary Russell series, and C.S. Harris’s Sebastian St. Cyr series all come to mind. When I finish one of the books, I inevitably want to talk about it (particularly the in the case of the recent George and Harris books which left lots of unresolved questions). They aren’t mysteries, but the same is true of Lauren Willig’s Pink Carnation series. There are always questions, whether it’s about the identity of villains, Colin and Eloise, or the Pink Carnation herself.
Another thing all these series have in common is vivid, richly-detailed world-building, whether it’s Dunnett’s 15th and the 16th century Europe and beyond, suburban Sunnydale, Mulder & Scully’s conspiracy-rife FBI, Sydney Bristow’s CIA and the Alliance, an island that moves back and forth in time (and goodness knows what else), Lynley & Havers’s Scotland Yard, Holmes & Russell’s 20s Britain and beyond filled with puzzles and adventures, Sebastian St. Cyr’s dark Regency London, or the Pink Carnation’s adventure-filled Napoleonic Europe. They’re all worlds I enjoy visiting, filled with characters I enjoy spending time with.
Do you have favorite series, whether literary or on television, that lend themselves particularly to discussion? Do you seek out friends to talk them over with? What elements in series do you find particularly good topics for analysis?
Be sure to check out this week’s addition to the Fraser Correspondence, a letter from Quen to Charles.
March 24, 2009 at 11:56 pm
I enjoyed Dorothy Dunnett’s Lymond series immensely. Her descriptions were so rich you felt you could picture the world her characters lived in. Music, poetry and surroundings were beautifully portrayed. I think series give time for characters to grow and change in relationships. Some that I have liked are; the Sebastian St. Cyr series, Dorothy Sayers’ Harriet Vane books, Lois McMaster Bujold’s Vorsigan cycle, Anne Perry’s Monk novels, and Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander, and Laurie Kings Mary Russell series. Lot of great reading in all of them.
Donna
March 25, 2009 at 12:05 am
Excellent point about series giving characters time to grown and change in relationships, Donna. I think that’s why I often become more caught up in characters in ongoing series than in stand alone books (or movies versus tv shows). That’s why I think an important element of what makes series a focus of discussion is ongoing story arcs that allow for character growth. I can enjoy books and tv shows in which everything is wrapped up in each episode and the characters continue to the next episode but don’t really change, but those aren’t the ones I find myself wanting to talk and speculate about.
April 9, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I’m a huge fan of series, both books and television. My two favorite sayings about reading are “reading is a way to travel without moving an inch” and “a book is man’s best friend”. Though it’s true both apply to stand alone novels, which you can return to again and again whenever you want to revisit a much loved place or characters, the second is that much truer of series. It gives the sense these fictional characters are living, evolving beings.
When I was 6 my first favorite books ever were Nancy Drew. The 1960’s edited hard covers only, not the contemporary continuations or the uncomfortably politically incorrect unedited originals. I think those set the stage for all my future loves.
Television wise I was a HUGE Buffy fan. It was my age group and I will always love seasons 2 and 3. I still can’t believe how hard I cried when Buffy killed Angel at the end of season two. I can remember exactly where I was, how I was sitting, everything. I was so surprised at myself. I’ve always worked and lived around film and TV and for me to get that caught up as a viewer is rare.
Funny enough most girls I know now were all big Buffy fans back them, and most of us have become addicted to True Blood on HBO. It makes no sense, the tone is completely different, none of us are fans of vampire romanticism in general (Buffy was always the exception) but the central romance caught all of us. It’s gotten to the point where we gather on Sundays to watch it together, and bring friends, like a super bowl party. We watch the “next time” montages and spend hours texting, calling, emailing, and discussing what we think will happen. Those who cheated and read the books after the fact are not allowed to participate. Marketing wise it was a smart bet that would happen. A lot of us were in high school during Buffy and the main characters in True Blood are our age range now. It was bound to make that connection.
I used to watch West Wing addictively with my roommate, and am a fan of lots of BBC and ITV stuff. Life on Mars was a serious favorite.
The main thing that kills me is contemporary America’s lack of appreciation for the mini series. Something the British have turned into an art form. Now it’s mainly HBO and the Sci Fi channel. It’s a great way to attract hard to get actors, writers, and directors to the small screen because it’s temporary. Yet plays long enough to create anticipation and build an audience. Plus, for adaptation, it’s the perfect format. Too many beautiful books are hacked to pieces because it has to be squeezed into two hours or worse, if it’s TV, two hours with commercial breaks. In fact that’s what makes True Blood a little unique. It’s a book series turned into a TV series, but each season is only one book each. It takes it’s time and I can appreciate that.
April 9, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I started out reading Nancy Drews too, Angelique! The hardcovers as well. My parents traveled to the East Coast a lot for work in those days and took me with them, and I could read two Nancy Drews on one cross-country flight!
It always frustrated me a bit that the characters and their circumstances basically stayed the same. That’s what I loved about “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”–the characters grew and changed (sometimes for the worse, sometimes in tragic ways, but it kept you on the edge of your seat). I haven’t watched “True Blood”–I don’t get HBO, so I’ll have to try DVDs. Your recommendation definitely intrigues me.
April 9, 2009 at 11:34 pm
I completely agree with your evaluation of Nancy Drew! It’s one of the only things I loved as a child I can’t go back and enjoy because the characters were very wooden. Not just the fact that they don’t move on or age but there’s no internal monologue. They are painted as so simple and emotionally healthy that they only react to the physical circumstances around them. When I try to analyze why I liked them so much, considering what an emotional child I was, I think it may have appealed to me for exactly that reason. I had enough of my own internal monologue going on that it was probably nice to go somewhere where people were so simple, so driven, and lacking in angst. Also, I could fill in the blank spots with my own thoughts and feelings. It was probably what I needed at the time, I was six after all. I hadn’t learned yet that the emotional struggles of others can not only distract you from your own problems but help you resolve your own feelings as well.
April 10, 2009 at 4:25 am
That’s a great way of putting it, Angelique. I had noticed that lack of internal monologue in the Nancy Drew books, but I hadn’t really thought about the characters being “painted as so simple and emotionally healthy that they only react to the physical circumstances around them.” That’s so true, and ultimately makes them hard to engage with emotionally (so unlike Buffy and her friends!).
May 17, 2009 at 7:33 am
[…] I’ve mentioned in past blogs, Penny and I both love to talk about favorite series. When we first became friends, we spent […]
April 9, 2010 at 11:15 am
все заходите на мой сайт сайт ))).