Wait, I’m talking about in your favorite book and on your favorite TV show not real life. I’ve mentioned before that I only keep up with a few TV shows. A couple of those shows feature a male and female lead.
For the most part I can’t help but want these characters to get together. The chemistry is there, that spark that makes them work so well together (thanks also to the great writing team).
One example is on Castle. The characters of Detective Kate Beckett (Stana Katic) and mystery novelist Richard Castle (Nathan Fillion) have a yin and yang relationship. They build the case they are working off of each other and finish each other’s sentences.
You see the attraction grow between them, as well as see the jealousy rise when others get near. But yet, nothing has really happened between them.
Another example is on Bones. You have FBI Special Agent Seeley Booth (David Boreanaz) working with forensic anthropologist Dr. Temperance “Bones” Brennan (Emily Deschanel).
Their’s is a more complicated case because Booth has revealed that he loves Bones. You get the impression that she loves him but can’t show it.
In both shows, I’d love to see the main characters as a couple. However, I know that probably won’t work. It’s happened before. Does anyone remember Moonlighting? When Maddie and David got together the show lost it’s spark.
Is it the same way in books? I don’t think so. In romance books the lead man and woman always get together and they do live happily ever after. That’s one reason we read them. There may be twists, turns, complications and some heartbreak along the way but in the end they will be together.
With mysteries and thrillers it’s a little different, especially if there is a series involved. One such series that comes to mind is Cleo Coyle’s Coffeehouse Mystery series. Starting with the first book, protagonist Clare Cosi and Detective Mike Quinn have had an attraction to each other. With each book that attraction has grown until they are now dating.
I guess what it really all comes down to is the writing, especially with the TV shows. It’s that dialogue between the characters that draws our interest in. It’s their interaction that creates the spark that we’d like to see grow into a flame.
As a writer do you include a touch of romance in your work, even if it’s a murder mystery? Do you plan for your characters to become a couple or do they just work their way together?
Am I alone in wanting Bones and Booth, and Beckett and Castle to get together, but at the same time don’t want to lose any of either show’s spark?
BTW, thanks to everyone who commented on yesterday‘s post. The gift certificate seems to be the most popular choice of a product giveaway item. I’ll be checking into the matter and hopefully have something to report back soon.
Hope everyone has a wonderful Saturday. Be sure to check back tomorrow for Sunday Salon. My review will be on Emeril Lagasse's FARM TO FORK: COOKING LOCAL, COOKING FRESH cookbook that was just released June 1. The review will also include a couple of great recipes from the book. Be sure to share that smile again today. :)
Please join me in welcoming author D.C. Corso as the special guest blogger here today at Thoughts in Progress as part of her Virtual Blog Tour.
D.C. is the author of “Skin and Bones.”
D.C. has stopped by today to talking about “getting it write: researching the FBI in a post-9/11 America.”
D.C. could you explain.
Most mystery writers will agree that if you ask the FBI for an interview on procedures to ensure accuracy in your book, you’ll get a polite response that everything you could possibly want to know is on their official website (read: everything they feel comfortable sharing is on their website).
Despite any initial disappointment that a Real Live FBI Agent will not be advising you, the FBI website really does hold a wealth of information. Everything from department names and functions to statistics can be found at www.fbi.gov, including links to other agencies and all the various Field Offices.
Not a fan of the internet? There are plenty of books out there by retired agents; the most readable ones are aimed at the mainstream true crime-reading public (such as former agent John Douglas’ intriguing Mind Hunter). There are also plenty of procedural guides out there that give a more historical spin and really read more like reference books.
If you’re trying to get an idea of what a behavioral profiler is trained to do, the more academic texts written by agents are extremely helpful. For instance, BSU co-founder Robert Ressler’s unfortunately-titled Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives – a text which I am too self-conscious to give away or read in public, as if people who see it will think it’s a how-to book.
I have pages upon pages of notes taken largely from the FBI site. But how much do the readers care about technicalities? I assume that they only want to
know what they need to know, and write accordingly. I recall my first draft was filled with far too much procedural information which, in turn, required far too much accompanying expositional dialogue.
There are simply some things that law enforcement officers do not say to other officers because they already know it. My favorite example of bad expositional dialogue appears repeatedly on television crime dramas; one officer will ask another, “Was there any GSR?” The other will inquire, “You mean gunshot residue?,” for the benefit of those watching at home. It’s necessary for television, but I prefer to avoid clunkers like this; there are always better options in writing.
My first novel, Skin and Bones, is about a small Washington island community affected by a series of child abductions. I chose the days immediately following 9/11 because the shared emotional chaos of those early days was the start of an important shift in the American psyche. There was a short-lived sense of unity among Americans as we all looked nervously to the skies, yet there was also a paranoid sense of self-inflicted isolation among individuals. I had no way of knowing how this affected the FBI, aside from interdepartmental shifts that occurred at the time, which were all well-documented and easy to find via the Internet.
While I did not want 9/11 to be the focus of the story, but rather a backdrop, capturing that feeling did not entail regurgitating facts, but rather keeping them in mind when setting the characters about their business. After all, during this time the general public tended to ignore the more ordinary horrors of local news, fixing our gaze instead on CNN’s coverage of the national tragedies.
This is where the real story lay, I thought – in the forgotten. I wanted to keep the focus on the Missing Persons Squad and how their jobs were perhaps made more difficult by Americans’ intense focus on anti-terrorism. And while research was a must to set the background, only character development and multiple drafts brings reality to fiction.
D.C., thank you so much for guest blogging here today. You bring up a good point that I hadn’t even thought of - the “smaller” tragedies were mainly overlooked immediately following 9/11. It was almost as if all other crimes stopped as we focused on the terrorists.
For more information on D.C., check out her website
