Reports that Sophie Hannah has been commissioned to write a second Hercule Poirot novel have provoked plenty of interest and comment. There are conflicting views on whether "continuation novels", where present day writers produce new stories featuring long-established characters, are a Good Thing, so I thought I'd contribute a few observations to the debate.
The first thing to say is that there's nothing new about the idea of continuation stories. People other than Conan Doyle started writing about Sherlock Holmes a very long time ago. But it's fair to say that continuation novels have become much more popular, and common, in recent years. So we have new James Bond stories, written by a variety of very distinguished writers, new Hercule Poirot stories from Sophie, new Wimsey stories from Jill Paton Walsh, new Albert Campion stories by Mike Ripley, and so on.
Some readers take the view that they want to stick with the original stories by the original authors, and that is, of course, a perfectly understandable and reasonable choice. It is also occasionally suggested that there's something inappropriate about present day writers writing new stories about characters created by others. This is a viewpoint I understand, but do not share.
There's nothing at all wrong, in my opinion, in writers - regardless of whether or not they are already bestsellers- being paid to produce stories that people want to read. Those writers still produce books about their own characters, but I am pretty sure that their attitude towards writing about other characters is much the same as mine, when I wrote the stories in The New Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes: there is something very pleasurable about soaking oneself in a fine writer's work, and seeking to give it new life. It's a challenge to one's professional skills as an author. My guess is that this, coupled with the sheer fun of it, is why the likes of Jeffrey Deaver, William Boyd, Sebastian Faulks, Anthony Horowitz, Sophie, Mike, Jill, and company relish tackling continuation fiction.
For me, the real issue - as with any piece of writing - is whether the story is well done. A poor continuation novel is at least as disappointing as any other poor novel. There are, for instance, some rather laboured Sherlockian pastiches around, though there are many good ones. But some continuation stories are highly enjoyable. The fact that continuations are becoming more commonplace suggests that there is a significant demand for such books, and if this trend continues, I wouldn't be surprised if more detectives from the past are given a fresh incarnation in the 21st century.
16 comments:
I agree Martin - I don;t think there is a reason per se not to do this, though it is always clear when things are done for the love of it and some, well, just for the love of cash! I think Robert B Parker did a decent job of writing POODLE SPRINGS about as well as Chandler might have done in the circumstances at the time and deserved real credit for it. On the other hand, PERCHANCE TO DREAM, his sequel to THE BIG SLEEP was really poor. If the book is good you'll forgive anything! The thing about Hannah's book is that so few people seemed to have anything good to say about it, which obviously makes you wary about the possibility of more ...
They scare me! But, if I love a character (like Wimsey, Poirot, or Holmes) and have the slightest feeling that I can trust the writer (like Jill, Sophie, or you), I am quite likely to read the new stories. Yes, I have had my heart broken, but hope springs eternal...
I am one of those readers who prefers to leave well enough alone when it comes to continuing a well-known author's work. Two of my long-time favorite authors died recently, Ruth Rendell and PD James, and when one has followed a writer's entire body (no pun intended!) of work,I,for one, would be able to tell the difference and that would not be a good thing for me. Fortunately, Ruth Rendell left her fans a surprise, "Dark Corners", which I just received in the mail from the UK. Re-reading a favorite, unique author's novels is a much better solution for me. Martin, you are among my favorite authors whose work cannot be duplicated by someone else! Just my humble opinion.
The problem with modern writers trying to continue the works of long-dead writers is that they invariably impose modern viewpoints onto the past. That is always disastrous. If you can write a Hercule Poirot story that captures Christie's view of the world then OK, go for it. But you have to be able to share her worldview in its entirety - even the bits of it that you don't agree with. If you can't capture and share her worldview then what you write won't be a Hercule Poirot story, so claiming it to be a Poirot story is dishonest.
I'm with you on this. A lot of it comes down to how well the continuation is done. The problem is that the style, the sound of the writer's voice, is enormously important with the authors mentioned in your piece. It's not just about writing a good story, but about catching the essence of the writing. Anthony Horowitz is a good writer, but reading his Holmes novel I never felt that I was reading anyone else but Horowitz. It's probably unfair to ask writers to be mimics as well, but if they don't even sound like the original, then what's the point of the continuation novel?
Bradstreet
I appreciate that it's all about sales, but there's so much great fiction out of print - as you'l know, Martin, from books you're forced to choose from for the British Library Crime Classics! - that I'd rather publishers spent the money bringing back the genuine classics rather than aping them with inevitably variable results. If there was something to add, fine, but at least cover what already exists and has done the job well first...
The best I've read - ever - is Benjamin Black's Raymond Chandler novel, The Black-Eyed Blonde. I thought it was brilliant. I'm a huge fan of Sophie Hannah but I'm afraid I was disappointed in her Poirot. I've steered clear of most of these you mention. But if there's a demand, people will keep writing them, so we just have to accept it!
In general, I don't like continuations; in particular, I can enjoy them sometimes. I think Jill PW started well because she had some of Sayers' writing to build on but I lost interest when Wimsey grew out of his period. I think pastiches of Holmes can work as short stories because there isn't so much scope for period detail feeling wrong, but when a modern author tries to sustain the atmosphere in a novel based on a classic such as Jane Austen, it just makes my toes curl. I have deliberately read very few so may not be fair to those who have succeeded, but I'll stick with re-reading the originals.
Hi....just wondering of and when The Dungeon House will be available as ebook?
This is a difficult one. I've no problem with continuations - in fact, despite giving it a bit of a kicking on my blog, I had been looking forward to The Monogram Murders - but to me, it needs to feel like it's continuing the spirit of the original, which is a horribly vague notion. For example Edward D Hoch's Sherlock Holmes stories feel like originals although there's a difference in style in that he couldn't resist making them fair-play whodunits. Whereas The Monogram Murders just didn't seem to capture the style - Poirot seemed out of character and the plot was far more convoluted than something you would expect from Dame Agatha. But why does one work for me and not the other? Who knows? But I'm still hopeful for the next Poirot...
Marmee,thanks for your interest. I'm fairly sure it's available already as an ebook. If you have any difficulty finding it, let me know.
Puzzle Doctor, good points. Ultimately, the reader's personal taste and preferences play a very large part, I think. As I've said, I very much understand why some people don't care for continuations, but I do find the concept very interesting. I share your enthusiasm for Ed Hoch, by the way.
I must say I've been disappointed by Hannah's non- Poirot work ( fabulous premises, lackluster executions, dismal denouements), so I was disinclined to read her Poirot. Also, let's respect Christie's wishes: she wrote CURTAIN for a reason--so that no one would write more Poirot's after her death. Sadly, Christie's estate had other ideas.
What a hornet's nest you have stirred up there, Martin Edwards! When there is a character you know and love like an old friend it is difficult to see them wearing new clothes - much as you want to. The problem is that the first consideration should be love and deep understanding of the character NOT commercial or trendy literary concerns. A case in point are the Mark Gatiss/Stephen Moffat TV updates of Holmes. Sherlock is rich in detail, toe curlingly good, true to the characters and the source material, and a fine example for anyone to follow. The only TV programme where I leap to my feet and shout 'I wish I'd written that!'
To me, these are the exception that prove the rule - although Martin's Sherlock stories, and those of Lyn McConchie, are always good. Speaking as an author myself, shifting periods helps to expand and deepen your writing art, and it is also very releasing to do this. However, I am bitterly disappointed in most continuation stories - thought the Sophie Hannah Poirot very so-so and disliked the Jill Paton Walsh version of Wimsey intensely; they got worse as they continued.Felix Francis's take on his father's books are pretty woeful and smack of old themes reworked but feebly, which is sad.
I especially dislike the books which make the author the heroine (Josephine Tey, anyone?) or reinvent the wheel (Sherlock Holmes married and having his young and very disengaged new young wife as a Watson figure? No, I don't think so. The words feathers and spitting come to mind.
Peter O'Donnell killed off Modesty and Willie precisely so no-one else could pick up the characters. He said they were his oldest friends and deserved better. I rest my case.
Liz Gilbey
Fascinating and well-reasoned comment, Liz. Many thanks. I must say I did like Thrones, Dominations, though I accept that was a completion rather than a continuation, and that there is a difference.
Modesty and Willie are dead!?
I can't even read Busman's Honeymoon. I struggled with Mr Campion's Farthing, but love Cargo of Eagles. Waiting to read the Ripley/Carter/Allingham. Agree about recreating Christie's worldview.
But I've always wanted to read The Clue of the Crimson Goldfish...
What is really hard to reproduce are the unquestioned middle-class assumptions of the characters, and their intellectual fads. The way they talk about emotions is such a giveaway... One day, a blog post!
Post a Comment