Popularity and changing formula

[beccaelizabeth]

The book on Ideology in Crime Fiction I'm reading analyses the first book in a series, or the first book about a particular character, on the basis that that was the book that made them popular. It figures out the ideology from that and then compares the later stories when they deviate from that pattern. It seems to think that the first one was Win and the later ones were more likely to be weak.

But that's odd and backwards. If a series gets weak, people stop watching. It has to continue to be Win to keep getting the ratings or making more sales. Sure, there's a few people who'll keep buying on habit, but there's people who'll drop it for not being what they need, or pick it up on the basis it has only just become what they need. So you can't just call Holmes a product of the moment of his *initial* creation; as an enduring character he continued to be of value to the audience that read him, but he also continued to be shaped by the society that his author lived in.

There's a bit in the analysis where it seems to me the crit is saying that initially Holmes was valued for being the right detective for that ideological moment, but then later Doyle didn't like him and that showed up in the stories. Like the early success was ideology but the later changes were personal to Doyle. I'm not sure the book is saying that, but that was the impression I got. But since the later stories (for odd values of later) were also popular, even if Doyle is saying something personal, say about how he hates to write but he needs the money, that has to fit with something the audience wants to read. How they hate their jobs but have to keep turning up, how it feels like begging to ask to be paid, how they'd rather be doing something more elevated and refined but hey, the mucky stuff pays pretty good. If the audience finds that in the text and likes it, finds it useful, likes how it is resolved there, then hey, popularity!

But you don't actually have to try and figure out the motives of the author, or how they feel about their characters, to figure that other bit out. And it's not wildly useful to know that an author didn't like his character, but it says a lot more about a lot many to find bits in the text that the many found useful.

Also I'm never convinced by arguments that go 'X thinks this and it shows up in the text', but I'll happily read arguments that say 'I read this in the text and think it would appeal to audiences who read it the same way'. I mean the first requires mind reading as well as close reading, and I don't reckon that works. But the second is starting with 'I read', which the writer can be pretty sure is true. And then it can suggest other people read it the same way, which is more of a stretch but I feel is fair enough to be going on with. Only I'm not sure why it's so very different in my head. Since the first way can be restated as 'I think this shows up in the text and I reckon X thinks it too'.

My head is weird.


Also, I'm not sure book I just read meant the thing I think it meant, and I'm never sure of that, so if I have an argue with a book it feels like having an argue with my interpretation of a book ie me.

Which is clearly productive.

Comments

[legionseagle]

Actually, for me Holmes becomes more interesting later on (The Sign of the Four and A Study in Scarlet are very hit and miss) because Doyle hits his stride in terms of craft, and the Holmes/Watson relationship settles into its stride and yet is still capable of surprising the reader - as when Holmes goes off on his "Lighthouses, my boy! Beacons of the future!" speech about the Board Schools, which is so throwaway radical when you consider how "Board School boys" get regarded in other light literature of the day.

Likewise, with Lord Peter Wimsey, it's the middle books and later books (Strong Poison etc) which have the sophistication, because Sayers doesn't have to worry about whether it's too radical to get published at all, so she can extend herself and breathe a little.

[beccaelizabeth]

Yes, exactly. Lots of things do that. Like things by Joss Whedon. Early stories convince someone to let him write, middle stories are sort of doing the thing he wants but getting better at it, and then he's ending and can do whatever. Story adapts as it goes along. If it still has an audience all the bits are doing something they want.