Fri 30 Jan 2009
Archived Review: JESSICA FLETCHER & DONALD BAIN – Murder She Wrote: A Palette for Murder.
Posted by Steve under Authors , Characters , Reviews , TV mysteries[20] Comments
JESSICA FLETCHER & DONALD BAIN – Murder She Wrote: A Palette for Murder.
Signet, paperback original. First printing, October 1996.
The first question that occurs to me as I sit down to write this review, and it hadn’t occurred to me before now, except in a nebulous sort of way, is just how many of these “Jessica Fletcher” books are there? They’ve seemed sort of generic and ubiquitous at the same time, and I never stopped to get them listed and enumerated. Until now. Take a look at the other end of this review…
… and now that your eyes are back,some historical perspective may be in order. The TV show itself, the one starring Angela Lansbury, was on the air for twelve seasons, from 1984 to 1996, with four made-for-TV movies appearing after that, the last one in 2003.
The first Murder, She Wrote novel came out in 1985, and there’s at least one that’s scheduled for 2009, a span of years that’s even longer than when the TV program was on the air. It’s quite a track record, and it certainly goes a long way in explaining the ubiquitousness I mentioned above.
Which of course got me to thinking. What other series of TV tie-ins has consisted of more books than this one with Mrs. Fletcher has?
To set some parameters, let’s restrict this question to detective novels. Otherwise in the field of science fiction, there is Star Trek, and we do not want to even begin to go there.
In the field of gothics, and books that are actually included in Al Hubin’s Crime Fiction IV, there are the Dark Shadows books, of which there 32 (at a quick, rough count). Good, but not good enough. There are 35 Murder, She Wrote books, or there will be soon.
If anyone can come up with a series I’m simply not thinking of — and, no, I don’t consider the Perry Mason paperbacks with photos of Raymond Burr on the back cover true TV tie-ins, or should I? — let me know.
As for the author, Donald Bain, he has his own website (and photo), and by following the link, you can find a complete list of all of the books he admits that he has written, and not all of them have been crime fiction, by any means. His bibliography also pointedly omits 24 books he wrote under another’s name but which he can not contractually reveal. Most of these books are (in all likelihood) the Margaret Truman books, of which Al Hubin says, again in the Revised Crime Fiction IV:
Back up when I starting this review, which seems a long time ago already — you don’t know it, but it is now several days later, real time — I also called the books “generic” as well as ubiquitous, and perhaps I should apologize for that, even though I said “they’ve seemed,” since of course and/or as usual, this is the first one that I’ve read.
“Ubiquitous” I think I may have proven, but the case is far less solid when it comes to generic, unless of course you think that the TV show was generic, and maybe it was, but what TV show today exerts as much effort into actual deduction in terms of its detective work than Murder, She Wrote? Numb3rs, perhaps? Any others?
I’ll get back to this. To tell you something about the book I have just read, in it Jessica Fletcher is visiting the Hamptons (on Long Island), trying to get away from the hustle and bustle of the big city and secretly to try her hand at oil painting.
The latter effort fails — well, in fact both objectives fail — if getting away from the big city means staying away from murder cases — when the young model posing nude for Jessica’s class is found dead while taking a short break. (With careful camera angles, most of the activity immediately preceding could have been shown on television.)
But in any case it is thus that Mrs. Fletcher is introduced to world of modern art, including thefts (her own sketch of the dead girl included), forgeries and high finance, Long Island style.
She also tells the story in her own words, and what is quite remarkable is that Donald Bain as the author has her voice down cold. Perfect. To a T. From page 58:
“I knew I could justify looking into her death based upon the theft of my sketch. Maybe I could find out who took it. Even more important, the sketch was now floating around the Hamptons. Where was it? And who had it now?
“I stopped going through my internal justification process, and decided to take a walk. It was sunny and warm outside, the sort of pretty day I’d counted on when deciding to vacation in the Hamptons.”
And then a second death occurs, suggesting that the first one was not a simple accident of some kind, as if we (the reader) did not know that already. Perhaps innate in the world of “cozy” detective novels, the death may have affected me more than it did anyone in the story, including Mrs. Fletcher, who had begun to know the second victim well. (Shouldn’t she have at least been angry about it?)
What I said about Donald Bain’s having his “co-author’s” voice down pat, he — at this relatively early point in the series — it does not seem to me that he has the mystery-telling (and solving) pattern of television series very well in mind at all.
Instead of calling the suspects together and recreating the crime scene (in flashbacks) and naming the killer as a result, we have Jessica going here and there on her own and in exceedingly dangerous places, not realizing as she should that a two-time killer is on the loose.
The ending is rather muddled altogether, in fact, and that I ending up skimming through it, rather than being transfixed with the unraveling, may tell you more about the mystery than anything else, I regret to say. I may read another, but without a push from some other direction, all things considered, it’s not as likely as it should be.
By JAMES ANDERSON —
Hooray for Homicide (n.) Avon, pb, 1985.
Lovers and Other Killers (n.) Avon, pb, 1986.
By DAVID GEORGE DEUTSCH —
By JESSICA FLETCHER & DONALD BAIN —
Manhattans and Murder. Signet, pb, December 1994.
Brandy and Bullets. Signet, pb, August 1995.
Martinis and Mayhem. Signet, pb, December 1995.
Rum and Razors. Signet, pb, April 1995.
A Deadly Judgment. Signet, pb, April 1996.
A Palette for Murder. Signet, pb, October 1996.
The Highland Fling Murders. Signet, pb, April 1997.
Murder on the QE2. Signet, pb, October 1997.
Murder in Moscow. Signet, pb, May 1998.
A Little Yuletide Murder. Signet, pb, October 1998.
Murder at the Powderhorn Ranch. Signet, pb, May 1999.
Knock ’Em Dead. Signet, pb, October 1999.
Trick or Treachery. Signet, pb, October 2000.
Blood on the Vine. Signet, pb, April 2001.
Murder in a Minor Key. Signet, pb, October 2001.
Provence to Die For. Signet, pb, April 2002.
You Bet Your Life. Signet, pb, October 2002.
Majoring in Murder. Signet, pb, April 2003.
Destination Murder. New American Library (NAL), hc, October 2003; Signet, pb, September 2004.
Dying to Retire By. Signet, pb, April 2004.
A Vote for Murder. NAL, hc, October 2004; Signet, pb, September 2005.
The Maine Mutiny. Signet, pb, April 2005.
Margaritas and Murder. NAL, hc, October 2005; Signet, pb, September 2006.
A Question of Murder. Signet, pb, April 2006.
Three Strikes and You’re Dead. NAL, hc, October 2006; Signet, pb, September 2007.
Coffee, Tea, or Murder. Signet, pb, April 2007.
Panning For Murder. NAL, September 2007; Signet, pb, September 2008.
Murder on Parade. NAL, hc, April 2008. Signet, pb, March 2009.
A Slaying In Savannah. NAL, hc, September 2008. Signet, pb, September 2009.
Madison Avenue Shoot. NAL, hc, April 2009
[UPDATE] 01-30-09. Any updating has already been done, either in the course of the review, or in the subsequent bibliography. This post is long enough now without my needing to say more!
January 30th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Steve:
Most TV tie-ins aren’t very good on the whole.
However, while I haven’t read any of the seven novelizations of the ‘Monk’ series by Lee Goldberg, most reviewers say nice things about them.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Mike,
I appreciate the praise for my MONK books, but I think you are being too dismissive of the tie-in genre as a whole. For instance, Max Allan Collins’ CSI novels and Tod Goldberg’s recent BURN NOTICE have received wide acclaim…as have many of the STAR TREK and STAR WARS novels, to name a few. That’s not to say there isn’t hack work out there — that’s true of mysteries, romances and sci-fi — but I think it’s inaccurate and unfair to use those poor works to make such a broad and negative generalization about tie-ins as a whole.
You can find out more about tie-ins at the webpage of the International Association of Media Tie-In Writers:
http://www.iamtw.org
Lee
January 30th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Oh, I almost forgot… my MONK books are NOT novelizations (books based on screenplays)…they are totally original novels using the characters from the TV series.
Lee
January 30th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Lee
I hope everyone reading this will follow the link to the IAMTW page, and then on to the page listing some authors and the work they’ve done, including yourself — or go to http://www.iamtw.org/about.html directly.
It’s an impressive list of accomplishments.
Lee, may I ask you a couple of questions?
You mention that your Monk books are original novels, not novelizations. Which is more rewarding and/or pleasurable to do — a novelization or an original work using already established characters? Coming up with new story lines for familiar characters would seem to be a lot of fun. On the other hand, I can see that doing a novelization has its own challenges and rewards, fleshing out in words sequences and scenes that readers have probably already seen for themselves.
But this leads to another question, this time to novelizations only: Which does comes first to most readers, the book or the movie/TV show? Any idea? Do they see the movie first, then find a copy of the book? Or read the book before deciding to see the movie?
(Am I right in assuming that readers of the Monk books, not novelizations, have already seen the TV show?)
Finally, not to put you on the spot, but maybe I am: Do you have any insight into the continuing popularity of the Jessica Fletcher character and her way of tackling mysteries?
— Steve
January 30th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
In response to Lee:
Thank you for correcting me on the ‘Monk’ titles: They are indeed originals, and from what I hear very good ones. I may have to bust the piggy bank to find out how good.
… “Most TV tie-ins aren’t very good on the whole.”
I am the first to assail sweeping generalizations whenever I encounter them, although I did use the qualifier “Most.”
Perhaps it stems from my early days. You are probably too young to remember the first TV tie-ins to hit the spinner racks back in the mid-to-late ’50s, but even to my 12-year-old mind they just didn’t compare with what was on a 12-inch B&W screen. (TV went all-color circa 1965 and I went all-color twenty years later.) Of course, like most kids, I didn’t have the critical skills I have now, but I knew what I liked and didn’t like — usually based on the criterion: Does this even remotely seem like the show? (Bad writing doubtless had something to do with it, but back then I didn’t know a blurb from a verb.)
During the sci-fi/spy boom of the ’60s (with shows like ‘I Spy,’ ‘The Man from UNCLE,’ ‘Star Trek,’ ‘The Invaders,’ and ‘Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea’ for example), there were usually paperback and occasionally hardcover tie-ins; I’m afraid they weren’t very good — failing to capture the spirit of the shows as well as being hack work. (By that time, I DID know the difference between a blurb and a verb.)
The Whitman hardcover tie-ins to ‘The Invaders’ and ‘Voyage’ were almost always disappointments, and even a greatly talented writer like James Blish did only fair adaptations of ‘Star Trek’ screenplays — but I guess it took care of the rent.
Similarly, when Ellery Queen went virtually mute, it’s understandable that writers from outside of the mystery field turned out merely acceptable clones of EQ (again, “on the whole” — some EQ copyists actually did a very good job on occasion).
… “I think it’s inaccurate and unfair to use those poor works to make such a broad and negative generalization about tie-ins as a whole.”
I couldn’t agree more. What you and the latest generation of TV tie-in writers represent is a qualitative improvement in this kind of fiction.
Whereas the tie-in writers from the ’50s and ’60s manifestly lacked much understanding of or even sympathy for the shows and the characters (the product, I assume, of ignorance resulting either from not viewing them because of time or sheer indifference), you and Max Allan Collins and others have shown that it is possible to raise the quality of a product that has too often been dismissed as of secondary importance.
When you get people saying they didn’t like the show much but they love the books, you’ve managed to turn the paradigm on its head.
Would it be an overstatement to say that such a development is revolutionary?
Best regards,
Mike
January 31st, 2009 at 12:18 am
I have to admit to not liking the TV series MURDER, SHE WROTE and I do realize it is a very popular show with most viewers. My dislike is based on the fact that I find the character that Angela Lansbury plays to be unbelievable for two basic reasons.
The first is because she makes the writing of good, best selling mystery novels look easy and simple, which it is not. The second is I never could believe how simple she made solving real life, violent murder mysteries look. Professional law enforcement officers do not tolerate amateur detectives or busy body ladies.
Like Mike, I had some early bad experiences with movie tie-ins and have stayed away from them ever since. But I’m glad Lee Goldberg reminded us that it is possible to write quality movie tie-in fiction.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:33 am
Walker
I’m not accusing you of anything sexist, but your reference to “busy body ladies” caught my eye.
Do you think you might have accepted or even liked the series more if the leading character had been male instead of female?
I’m asking this because if you think about it, there are many similarities between MSW and a certain other TV show produced by Levinson and Link that lasted only a year a few seasons earlier.
You probably know this already, but quoting from Wikipedia —
“Debuting September 30, 1984, Murder, She Wrote, TV’s longest-running mystery series, starring Jessica Fletcher might never have come about had producers Richard Levinson and William Link enjoyed success with their TV series Ellery Queen. The series folded after a single season, but Levinson and Link were still committed to the concept of a bestselling murder mystery novelist who solved real murders when not at the typewriter.
“By changing the gender of their protagonist from male to female and transforming the character from a good looking absentminded young pedant to a middle aged down-to-earth widow the producers were able to parlay their ‘mystery writer/amateur detective’ premise into a 12 year hit for CBS.”
If your objection is to mystery writer/amateur detectives in general, regardless of sex, then of course I withdraw all charges!
— Steve
January 31st, 2009 at 8:14 am
Steve,
If the leading character had been a man, my wording would have been something like busy body old men, etc. I have no problem with women protagonists or women mystery writers, in fact my daughter is named Christie Sayers Martin.
I am prepared to accept all sorts of unlikely scenes in mystery movies and books but I have to feel that such a scene might be possible or almost believable. With the Ellery Queen TV series for instance, I found it more likely to believe that Ellery Queen and his father might be able to work with the police and solve crimes. I never felt this way with Angela Lansbury.
By the way, a very close friend works for a local police department and has told me many stories which indicate extreme sexist behavior on the part of some police officers. These men I’m sure would have been more likely to listen to Ellery Queen’s advice instead of a lady’s advice.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:44 am
To be fair to Levinson and Link in regard to Murder She Wrote, it has been fairly well established that the network had told them going in to dumb it down,based on the fear the Jim Hutton Ellery Queen series had been too “intellectual”. As a result there was little effort put into the puzzles and much of the show depended on the charm of Angela Lansbury in relation to the guest of the week, which seemed to be enough for fans, though I thought she fared much better in an outing as Paul Gallico’s Mrs. ‘Arris called Mrs. ‘Arris Goes to Paris (Mrs. ‘Arris, though no detective, was the housekeeper for Gallico’s ghost hunter/sleuth Alexander Hero, played in an ABC movie of the week Daughter of the Mind by Don Murray). Lansbury also did at least one as Mrs. Pollifax though I never saw it.
James Anderson, who wrote most of the Murder She Wrote novelizations, didn’t have much of a chance since the books were drawn from actual episodes of the series. Anderson had a minor hit before that with The Affair of the Bloodstained Egg Cozy, a gentle satire on the Christie school and its sequel, and a couple of well done thrillers, but I’m not familiar with his career after these adaptations. Hopefully the money was good.
As stated novelizations vary from great to terrible, depending on any number of factors. And there are some surprises out there, such as Jim Thompson’s novelization of Ironside, a Man From U.N.C.L.E. by Harry Whittington, and Rockford Files by Stuart Kaminsky. Among the ones I reccommend as worth seeking out: 77 Sunset Strip by Roy Huggins (not really a novelization but three novellas that ran in the Saturday Evening Post and I think Esquire about private eye Stu Bailey, at least one of them “Appointment With Death” the basis for the films The Good Humor Man, State Secret, and one of the pilots for the series), Peter Gunn by Henry Kane, Johnny Staccato by Frank Kane(Boyd), Mr. Lucky by Al Conroy (Marvin Alpert), The Wild Wild West by Richard Wormser, and Vendetta For the Saint ghosted by Harry Harrison.
Almost any by Max Allan Collins are worth reading and Charles Grant did a few decent ones for the X-Files series. Among the little gems are novelizations of The Invaders and The Avengers by science fiction author Keith Laumer, two Burkes Law and the Fugitive by Roger Fuller (Don Tracey author of the Griff Speer mysteries and the best selling The Big Brass Ring), The Chisholms by Evan Hunter, Markham by Lawerence Block, The Time Tunnel by Murray Leinster (not to be confused with his own novel Time Tunnel), and almost all the Get Smart books by William Johson. David Fletcher did a good novelization of the BBC tv series Raffles with Anthony Valentine, which was unfortunately sold as an original novel and caused some controversy. Though not strictly novelizations Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narjeac, who wrote the novels that became Les Diaboliques and Vertigo, wrote a number of entries in the Arsene Lupin series that were tied to the numerous French television Lupin series. I recall some good novelizations of the Brit series The Sweeny by Troy Martin Smith, science fiction novelist and noted physicist Fred Hoyle and John Elliot adapted their BBC television series A For Andromeda and Andromeda Breakthrough as novels. For that matter the final entry in Nigel Kneale’s Quatermass quartet was adapted as a novel, The Quatermass Conclusion, although the other three were all publihsed in teleplay form.
Finally, my nomination for the greatest television novelization of all time … Doctor No by Ian Fleming, which was originally written as a pilot for an ABC television series to be called Commander Jamaica featuring one Commander James Gunn. When the series didn’t sell Fleming adapted it into Doctor No, the Bond book that finally put him over the top and became the first Bond film. And strictly speaking the short story collection For Your Eyes Only is a novelization since they were all scenarios for the CBS series James Bond Secret Agent that never developed.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:02 am
David,
I must correct your usage of the word “novelization” in reference to many of the books you cite.
Jim Thompson’s IRONSIDE, Stuart Kaminsky’s ROCKFORD FILES, Henry Kane’s PETER GUNN, Roger Fullers THE FUGITIVE and Harry Whittington’s UNCLE books weren’t novelizations…nor were many of the other examples you used. They were original novels based on characters from the TV shows. There’s a significant difference. Novelizations are novels adapted from screenplays. VENDETTA FOR THE SAINT and Wormser’s WILD WILD WEST book, for instance, were novelizations of television scripts. (As were the STAR TREK books by James Blish and Alan Dean Foster).
I’m also confused by a comment that you made.
You wrote: “James Anderson, who wrote most of the Murder She Wrote novelizations, didn’t have much of a chance since the books were drawn from actual episodes of the series.”
My understanding is that Anderson only wrote three MSW books, all of which were original novels (not novelizations of scripts). By contrast, Donald Bain has written ten times as many original MWS novels (and still counting), so I am puzzled how you can say Anderson wrote most of the MSW novels.
Lee
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 am
I’ll grant I am using the term “novelization” broadly to include books that were based on characters created for television series as well as based on actual episodes. I’ve been out of fandom for a while, and may have missed something, at one time the word was broadly used to refer to any book based on a television series whether original or not. By your definition very little of Michael Avallone’s television related work would be called a novelization. I used the term to refer to the 77 Sunset Strip book published by Dell even though the stories were all published a decade before the series debut. I’ve also used the term in the past to refer to the original novels Whitman published based on series like Maverick, Lassie, and Zorro (many by Steve Frazee).
It may be the word has an unfortunate connotation now, but that isn’t how I intended it. In fact, adapting an episode of a series into a decent novel is probably a tougher job in many ways than writing an original work using the characters only because of the very different structure of a novel and an hour long series episode, or at least equally difficult. In any case I was using the word in a broad generic sense, and only to point out that some very good and well known writers have worked in the field. “Original novel based on characters created for a televison series” is a rather awkward substitute for “novelization.” In either case it was far from a put down or dismissal of either those writing original books based on television series or those adapting actual episodes into books.
I probably should have used the term TV-tie in, but find that to be rather dismissive as if the book was no more than a giveaway from a burger joint or a toy. Frankly, in some cases the “novelizations” have been better than the series they were based on, though I won’t give any examples to avoid any more controversy.
You are correct about James Anderson. I meant to type most of the Murder She Wrote novelizations ‘I had read’. Something distracted me and I didn’t catch it, leaving out the defining phrase. Still, my point was I don’t know of anything he has done since although he had a fairly promising career before taking the job. As far as I know that was his last work, and I don’t know if he died, retired, or I’ve just missed later works.
I hope I haven’t left an impression of looking down on novelizations or TV-tie ins, I have nothing but admiration for good work in any field, and it is probably harder to write well about someone elses character than your own. My own most recent work, an Arsene Lupin pastische for Black Coats Press ongoing Tales of the Shadowmen anthologies (Volume 5), was much more difficult to write than anything based on my own characters. My original point was that many of the genre I’ve read were very good books by any standard, and many fine writers have worked in the field, just as many excellent writers have worked as ghost writers in the past including Leigh Brackett, Craig Rice, Ron Goulart, Theodore Sturgeon, and Robert Silverberg. Neither field gets the respect it deserves. Professional work deserves to be rewarded.
As for Lee, I’ve heard nothing but good things about the Monk adaptations, and mean to pick one up soon. The problem, for me, with the Murder She Wrote adaptations was that basing them on the rather thin material of the series average epidode gave the writers little to work with, whether Anderson or Donald Bain. The series depended heavily on the charm of Angela Lansbury and her interaction with the numerous guests and it’s hard to translate that from the screen to the printed page, just as the original Roger Fuller adaptations of Burke’s Law and the Fugitive (and I was under the impression “Fear in a Desert Town” was based on an episode of the series)succeeded in capturing the unique charms of those two series despite the problems presented by the shows structure and style.
Though it is only vaguely related, perhaps someone can answer a question for me. The novelization of the film Charade (Gold Medal) is credited to screenwriter and playwrite Peter Stone (1776 among others), but the book is dedicated to suspense novelist Marc Behm (Eye of the Beholder). I know in many cases when a book is dedicated to another writer it’s the ghostwriter signing his work (William Shatner’s Tek World books being dedicated to Ron Goulart being a good example). Since Stone wrote no other novels I was curious if the book is his work or Behm’s. Anyone know? I believe Hubin lists it as Stone’s work.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:32 am
I agree that the word “novelization” has been used loosely over the years. I understand the difference that, Lee, you are making between a novelization and an “original novel based on characters created for a televison series” as David puts it — and I’m not sure if there’s a shorter phrase to describe it than that — but (until now) I’ve probably been guilty of using the word novelization incorrectly many times myself.
After Lee left his comment above, I looked up Jim Thompson’s IRONSIDE book on Google, and most references called it a “novelization.” I could not find, however, any source that stated what episode it was based on, and at the moment I’m inclined to think that it was an original novel. (Unless I missed it, the story line as described in one place does not match any of the episodes in the first season.)
Even Al Hubin, in the Revised Crime Fiction IV, calls IRONSIDE a novelization, so as I said earlier, the term has been used loosely when it should not have been.
David is correct, however, is saying that the James Anderson MSW books were novelizations. The three books are based on the pilot film and two of the episodes telecast in the first season.
The Murder of Sherlock Holmes (n.) Avon, pb, 1985. Pilot: 30 September 1984
Hooray for Homicide (n.) Avon, pb, 1985. Season 1, Episode 3: 28 October 1984.
Lovers and Other Killers (n.) Avon, pb, 1986. Season 1, Episode 5: 18 November 1984.
David is also correct regarding Roger Fuller’s FUGITIVE book, Fear in a Desert Town, which unless I’m badly mistaken, was based on “Fear in a Desert City,” Season 1, Episode 1: 17 September 1963.
At least one of the BURKE’S LAW books, also by Fuller, was also a novelization:
Who Killed Beau Sparrow? was Season 1, Episode 14: 27 December 1963.
James Anderson, whom David asked about, died in 2007. After doing the MSW books, he did one stand-alone Additional Evidence, in 1988, and the last of his Inspector Wilkins books, The Affair of the 39 Cufflinks, for Poisoned Pen Press in 2003.
And as for Charade, by Peter Stone, David, I think you may be onto something there. I’ll suggest the possibility to Al Hubin later tonight.
— Steve
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Steve,
Thanks for the correction on James Anderson’s MSW books.
I’ve read Jim Thompson’s IRONSIDE novel…in fact, I have it right in front of me…and the publisher doesn’t credit any particular script as the basis for the story, so I am assuming it’s an “original tie-in novel” as opposed to a “novelization” (a book based on a screenplay).
Your reference sources may cite the book as a “novelization” but nowhere on the book, at least the copy I am holding, does the publisher call it a novelization. They refer to it as “a powerful novel of a crime beyond belief — introducing Robert Ironside, detective extraordinary” and “a sensational novel — a hit NBC TV series starring Raymond Burr as Robert Ironside.”
Inside the book, they have the line “based on the television series IRONSIDE created by Collier Young,” but that’s it (much like the line in my Monk books, which reads: “based on the USA Network television series created by Andy Breckman”).
I’ve also got Harry Whittington’s MAN FROM UNCLE book in front of me. It’s also not referred to anywhere on the book as a novelization…but rather as “a new suspense adventure by Harry Whittington” and “an all-new adventure based on the exciting MGM-ARENA TV series.” It is an original tie-in novel, not an adaptation of a screenplay. The publisher seems intent, as did Thompson’s, on making the distinction that this is something new rather than a novelization of an episode the reader might already have watched.
I don’t have one of James Blish’s STAR TREK’s in front of me, but I suspect those books *do* say its a novelization of STAR TREK episodes rather than, say “all-new” adventures or “a powerful novel.”
I don’t know when “novelization” came to mean a novel based on a screenplay, but that has been the accepted industry definition for it as long as I have been involved in publishing… (Max Allan Collins is more learned in these matters than me and could probably tell us exactly when the term came into use with this specific meaning).
Lee
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
PS – I should also thank you for the correction on Fuller’s FUGITIVE novel. I have one of his FUGITIVE books here somewhere and I thought that it, like the IT TAKES A THIEF, HARRY O, and CANNON novels I have from my misspent youth, was an “original” rather than a “novelization.”
Lee
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Steve,
In answer to your earlier questions…
You wrote: “You mention that your Monk books are original novels, not novelizations. Which is more rewarding and/or pleasurable to do — a novelization or an original work using already established characters?”
I’ve never written a novelization, so I can’t say. I would think that an original novel would be more rewarding and far less frustrating. Max Allan Collins would be a good one to ask about that, since he has done both.
You wrote: “But this leads to another question, this time to novelizations only: Which does comes first to most readers, the book or the movie/TV show? Any idea? Do they see the movie first, then find a copy of the book? Or read the book before deciding to see the movie?”
Usually, novelizations are timed to coincide within days of the movie’s release or TV show’s premiere. The shelf-life of a novelization (particularly one based on a movie) is short… about as long as the movie is in wide release. I would guess most people read the novelization as a way to relive and deepen the movie experience after they have seen it…but that’s just my guess.
You wrote “Am I right in assuming that readers of the Monk books, not novelizations, have already seen the TV show?”
Yes…BUT my novel “Mr. Monk Goes to the Firehouse” may be the first original tie-in novel to subsequently be adapted into an episode of a U.S. series (“Mr. Monk Can’t See a Thing,” which I also wrote). I believe it may have been done before, or since, with a “Dr. Who” original tie-in.
You wrote: “Finally, not to put you on the spot, but maybe I am: Do you have any insight into the continuing popularity of the Jessica Fletcher character and her way of tackling mysteries?”
Why do people like Miss Marple, Kinsey Millhone, or Harry Bosch? People love the character, which Don captures and expands upon beautifully from the TV version. The books are every bit as popular now…perhaps even more so…than they were 20 years ago. I believe many of the readers aren’t — or weren’t — even regular viewers of the TV shows. They discovered the character first in book form.
Speaking from personal experience, I am astounded by how many emails I get from readers, and by how many readers I’ve met, who love the MONK books but have never watched a single episode of the show.
Lee
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Lee
Many, many thanks for taking the time to give us detailed answers and information like this — very much appreciated!
— Steve
February 9th, 2009 at 4:18 am
I appreciate Lee clearing up the meaning of novelization and I understand the importance of a clear definition within the industry. I’ll try to be more careful in the future, though I’m afraid that the term “novelization” will hang on no matter what we do or say.
In any case I wasn’t referring to what the publisher or even the author called the books, but the general term used by readers. I don’t think any of us were particularly careful to define Graham Greene’s “entertainments,” though he certainly was until he finally gave up the fight (technically I suppose The Third Man could be called a novelization since the screenplay was conceived first). I have no problem with a stricter definition of the term, but I have to wonder if it will spread. I still see the term “novelization” used in catalogues and listings when the abbreviations movie tie-in or tv-tie-in aren’t used (mti or tvti).
Robert Louis Stevenson wanted to call his “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” a crawler or “Crawlie” and John Buchan prefered ‘shocker’, while there have been arguments about the term ‘thriller’ since at least the days of Edgar Wallace. Though some areas of the genre are fairly clearly defined, there are always books that either don’t fit or cross lines in ways that aren’t easy to classify. I’m not sure anyone will ever satisfy everyone with a single definition.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:26 am
Just a quick note. The Third Man reminded me there are a number of novels that were first conceived as screenplays,but probably aren’t strictly novelizations. To name a few:
Alistair MacLean’s Where Eagles Dare, Breakheart Pass (almost all of the novels written after Dare were first screen scenarios and then novels)
Ian Fleming’s Thunderball
Graham Greene’s Dr. Fisher and the Geneva Bomb, The Tenth Man
February 16th, 2010 at 8:51 am
Please update me with a list of all Jessica Fletcher/Donald Bain ‘Murder She Wrote books in hardback and paperback and any future ones as of 16 February 2010
February 16th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Eileen
See http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/b/donald-bain/
and Donald Bain’s own website:
http://www.donaldbain.com/works.htm
This should do it!
Best
Steve