I read more than I write.  Maybe some authors don’t do that.  There’s some justification.  They want to ensure they develop their own voice, for example.  They don’t want to be confused with other writers.  They want to avoid the critique that they write like so-and-so.  There can be many reasons, some good, some bad, and some a wee bit silly.  But I read a lot and have always noted that some writers become predictable.  I’ve noticed that so much that I’m constantly questioning whether I’m committing the same sin.

Let’s take an example from my early youth.  Anyone remember the Hardy Boys series?  They were to boys what Nancy Drew was to girls.  By the time I was ten, I stopped reading that series.  Even at that age, I’d discovered predictability.  Maybe that was a good thing.  I started reading sci-fi, first from my brother’s collection and then from the public library, which was probably a good thing, because I later had a steady day-job as a scientist, knowing that writing probably wouldn’t put bread on the table, unless I was lucky enough to be a smashing success.  Back to the point: Joe and Frank were nice guys, old friends by the time I’d read a few books, but their adventures became too predictable.

That happens a lot now.  I’ve always liked Dean Koontz better than Stephen King, but Dean is too predictable now while Stephen is not.  Koontz has his Odd Thomas and Frankenstein series while King doesn’t write series.  Series have pros and cons.  One positive is that readers can develop a familiarity with characters—like Joe and Frank, characters become old friends.  That can also be a negative if the characters don’t grow with each book in the series.  But the biggest danger of a series is that success with the first few books leads an author to think s/he has discovered her/his niche, and s/he strives to repeat it so much that the plots start to seem the same.  That can lead to reader boredom.

Predictability more often occurs with elite authors, in fact.  Here are two famous examples: Lee Child’s Jack Reacher is an old friend to many readers, but I’m tired of Child’s stories, which can be summarized as follows: loner Reacher moves around like the Lone Ranger saving the day when problems come his way.  It’s become a bit boring.  I’ve stopped reading Child.  Sue Grafton’s mystery/suspense novels have stopped being mysterious and suspenseful as she’s worked through the alphabet—I don’t remember which letter was my last one, but they became boring.  I’ve stopped reading Sue Grafton.

Of course, books can be boring and still be unpredictable.  I was amused that AARP magazine (yeah, I read it because it’s free—that just shows I’m over fifty, by the way) featured six female writers of mystery, all nice ladies I’m sure, but they write boring stories.  Sue Grafton was there.  Mary Higgins Clark was there.  The only one I’ve read recently is Louise Penny.  Grafton is predictable, but some of these writers are not.  But they all write fluff—no socially relevant themes because they think the formula to writing success is to avoid issues that might piss off one sector of readers or the other.

When you combine that fluff aspect with predictability you can have a disaster.  But that’s just me I guess.  The six mystery women have a following, and they’re successful, so maybe they do have the secret formula.  Maybe Child and Grafton also have the formula.  Maybe other readers are really into fluff and predictability.  I don’t write fluff, but maybe that makes me predictable?  My longest series is the “Detectives Chen and Castilblanco Series” (only one of four), but my perception is that C & C are still developing characters, so they’re not predictable.  And their cases, mysteries or thrillers, aren’t fluff because they treat troubling themes, something the mystery madams seem to avoid.  The plots also have enough twists in them to keep readers guessing.

There is a strong correlation between success and predictability, of course.  An author has success in some corner of the vast world of genre fiction and keeps pounding on it.  Part of this is due to the nefarious influence of traditional publishers—more original books can be found in the indie world.  Success usually means that the writer has mastered the element of craft, but if that implies that her/his stories become hackneyed parodies of each other, I want no part of it, as a reader or a writer.  Fortunately, indie writing allows me to ignore what publishers want and be free to go my own way.

In social commentary, we often talk about the 1% v. the 99%.  There’s something similar in writing: about 1% of the writers have cornered a large percentage of the market (some indies, like Howey, Eisler, and Konrath are entering in that privileged group now).  (I generally identify them with people who supported Douglas Preston and his fight against Amazon in favor of Hachette-the indies mentioned are exceptions, of course.)  It’s human nature for these writers to support the status quo and put down the competition.  They might not even consciously do it.  This isn’t non-productive whining on my part because, as a reader, I suffer the consequences.  Forget that I’m an indie writer.  As a reader, I see this obsessive desire for control as a driver for producing predictable fiction.  Many readers are comfortable with that.  I’m not.  Every time I poke into a book, I want something new and different.

PR and marketing encourages predictability too, especially for traditionally published authors.  It’s easier to construct an ad for a book when an author has a product that’s predictable to readers.  Maybe last Tuesday’s NY Times full-page ad for Higgins Clark’s new book (I don’t even remember the name), or that old James Patterson book trailer shown as a commercial during the ABC show Castle (again, I don’t remember the book—another Alex Cross adventure?) actually stimulate readers to buy the books, but my reaction is, “Gee, I’m tired of their stuff.”

The real negative is when an author becomes so charmed by and comfortable with her/his similar plots that s/he doesn’t know when to stop.  Lee Child is certainly in that category.  Ken Follett isn’t.  I’d rather be a Ken Follett if I were famous.  And I’d rather not be famous if it means I become predictable.

[Kindle Countdown Deal: Teeter-Totter between Lust and Murder, #3 in the “Detectives Chen and Castilblanco Series,” will go on sale July 1 through July 7, reduced from $2.99 to $0.99 for this period.  Does Chen commit murder? The long answer is surprising.]

In elibris libertas….

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 2nd, 2015 at 4:00 am and is filed under Writing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.