marycatelli (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
marycatelli) wrote2023-01-26 09:35 pm
marycatelli) wrote2023-01-26 09:35 pm
Entry tags:
philosophy of unceasing series
Was in some discussion of series lately. . . .
If you want a series that goes on and on and on --
Some series have their main character undergo character development. Some don't. The problem with the first is that while a straight line can go on forever, an arc has to end. With the second, that there are only so many variations you can ring on a fixed group. And it's hard to segue from one to the other. "No change" to "change" is easier than the other, but then puts a terminus with the end of the development, because a fixed character story then seems lacking.
Both, however, are preferable to the sort of pseudo-change you get in, say, comic books, where we are giving hints of change without its actually coming through regardless of what contortions have to be introduced to stop it.
The easiest way to have a series last until your imagination runs out is to have the unifying factor be a setting. Terry Pratchett's Discworld, or Andre Norton's Witch World. There is the danger that the series won't really hang together, though. One notes that Louis L'Amour had to introduce another unifying factor, the Sackett family, to get the Wild West into a series.
Most series need a main character. It is, however, possible, for the main character to remain the same while major characters change about him. A series can work very well, when the main character is continually shedding and gaining new major characters, who change. Travel is the traditional means, though a static location may work. This is not so much because travel is the best way for the major characters to change as because it allows new settings and new challenges. A professor at a magical school with continually new pupils still has only the (admittedly large) resources of the school.
Hmmmm -- Doctor Who has the ideal set-up, since it can go literally anywhere. No wonder it lasts so long.
If you want a series that goes on and on and on --
Some series have their main character undergo character development. Some don't. The problem with the first is that while a straight line can go on forever, an arc has to end. With the second, that there are only so many variations you can ring on a fixed group. And it's hard to segue from one to the other. "No change" to "change" is easier than the other, but then puts a terminus with the end of the development, because a fixed character story then seems lacking.
Both, however, are preferable to the sort of pseudo-change you get in, say, comic books, where we are giving hints of change without its actually coming through regardless of what contortions have to be introduced to stop it.
The easiest way to have a series last until your imagination runs out is to have the unifying factor be a setting. Terry Pratchett's Discworld, or Andre Norton's Witch World. There is the danger that the series won't really hang together, though. One notes that Louis L'Amour had to introduce another unifying factor, the Sackett family, to get the Wild West into a series.
Most series need a main character. It is, however, possible, for the main character to remain the same while major characters change about him. A series can work very well, when the main character is continually shedding and gaining new major characters, who change. Travel is the traditional means, though a static location may work. This is not so much because travel is the best way for the major characters to change as because it allows new settings and new challenges. A professor at a magical school with continually new pupils still has only the (admittedly large) resources of the school.
Hmmmm -- Doctor Who has the ideal set-up, since it can go literally anywhere. No wonder it lasts so long.
no subject
no subject
A villain could hold together the series by being what the main character always fights, so the villain is the central character to the series.