Historical Mystery Lovers discussion

New authors are, at times, brought in to continue a well established series originally written by an author who has passed away. Samantha Norman, for example, is continuing her mother's Mistress of the Art of Death series and numerous authors have written new installments in series by Agatha Christie or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

What do you think of this practice? Should the series be allowed to come to a natural end with the death of the author or is it legitimate and perhaps even desirable for the series to continue? Wouldn't a talented author be better served with the own original characters and stories?

I hate it!

I don't think much of it, either.

Definitely not, specially in the case of authors who never intended anybody to "continue" their series. Dame Christie even planned for the end of the Poirot series - she wrote the last book, put it in a vault and said to publish it after her death.

In the case of Samantha Norman, her mother died a few books into the series so presumably they talked about it and agreed to it.

Samantha Norton has already dabbled in picking up where her mother left off with The Siege Winter: A Novel. The novel was fine. It wasn't great. It had potential. I haven't read the Mistress books so I can't say if I think Norton should continue her mother's work or not.

The man I am related to by marriage thinks the James Bond novels that are currently being written by authors other than Ian Flemming are terrible and should all be destroyed.

I can't give a positive example of new authors continuing old series when the series is historical, but I think Anne Hillerman is doing a good job with her father's series, and Ace Atkins is doing a great job with Robert Parker's Spenser series.

I'm looking forward to Norman's book simply because I'm curious as to where she takes it - the last one Franklin published ended on a cliffhanger, and I remember reading that she at least had the next one outlined, if not a draft done (can anyone confirm this? My memory isn't the greatest) - if that's the case, I'm sure she'll take it in at least the direction her mother intended. As to the quality, we'll have to see.

I haven't read any of the others mentioned as I was scarred for life by Scarlett and I've been very hesitant to read another one.

Shomeret wrote: "I can't give a positive example of new authors continuing old series when the series is historical, but I think Anne Hillerman is doing a good job with her father's series, and Ace Atkins is doing ..."

I agree with you on both series.

It's hit and miss for me. I think those who were involved with the author in some way (family, co-writer, etc) are better than those where there was no contact.
For example: Robert Knott wrote the screenplay for the film version of Appaloosa with Robert B. Parker, so after the author's death, he was asked by Mr. Parker's family to continue the series with Mr. Parker's blessing. On the author hand, many of the Sherlock stories commissioned by the Arthur Conan Doyle society haven't been all that great.

Meghan wrote: I'm looking forward to Norman's book simply because I'm curious as to where she takes it"

This is my feeling as well. The cliffhanger at the end of the last book really left the reader hanging and the series needs closure. Perhaps the fact that Norman is Franklin's daughter and probably had her mother's outline will help.

It's hit and miss for me.

For example, I really like most of the Laurie R. King Russell/Holmes novels, but am not really impressed with the continuation of the Lord Peter Wimsey novels.

As a matter of fact. I did like the continuation of the Lord Peter Wimsey novels, forgot all about them.

I recently bought the first of the Laurie King Russell books, but haven't started it yet. I usually don't like this sort of thing, but it looked interesting enough to try!

As long as it's clearly notes that this is not the original author's work I think it is fine and is up to a reader if they are interested. I would try it.