TuesdayTips119

In The Firing Line.
Should Your Protagonist Be The Target?

I was recently an interested observer of a debate on a Facebook group about the practise of writers placing the main character of a series at the very heart of the action. Specifically, making the detective that series revolves around the target of a serial killer.
The original poster stated that they were sick and tired of reading books where it transpires that the bad guy was targeting the lead detective personally. They felt that it was an overused trope. And that got me thinking.
In my DCI Warren Jones series, I have made Warren the target in a couple of books. Given that the series currently runs to 12 entries, I don't think I've done it too often, but it is argued by some that there are series where it is becoming a bit of a cliché. So I thought it would make an interesting discussion point


Now first of all, there are series where the central theme is the detective's ongoing involvement with organised crime, or their shadowy past. In that case, whatever else is happening in that book, readers are probably going to want that story arc to advance. It's a central pillar that the series rests upon.
I think the criticism is aimed more at 'episodic series'. Series where the primary storyline is a different case each book, like individual episodes of a TV series. In which case, how realistic is it that the motive for the killer is to make the lead detective suffer? How realistic is it that more than one book involves different, unrelated culprits gunning for our hero?
It's a valid question. Can it be overused?

I guess there are Pros and Cons.
In favour of the practise, ask why the writer is doing it.
There is no denying that it can really raise the stakes. If the reader feels that the detective is in mortal peril, because they are the specific target of the killer, that can make the audience feel the tension more than endangering a character that they have only just met. It's even better if the killer has the detectives' loved ones in their sights.
This is because the reader might feel that the detective the series is named after is 'protected' - especially if they are back in the next book. But what about their spouse, or their children? I can think of a couple of series where the author actually killed off the most significant person in the protagonist's life. It was shocking and unexpected and it completely upended the status quo. One famous writer actually used the acknowledgments to direct readers to a letter, hidden on their website, where they confirmed that it wasn't sleight of hand. Yes, they really had killed off that character, and no, they wouldn't be coming back. Absolutely magnificent!
I can also think of another writer that supposedly killed someone off, only to bring them back a few books later and reveal that it was all a ruse. I don't think that worked as well.

On the other hand, the original poster in the social media debate made a valid point. It can become a cliché. They asserted that it was a sign of desperation or lazy story-telling. I don't hold much sympathy for that argument. I think that a writer can become somewhat over-enamoured with the device, since they are incredibly fun stories to write, but I see little evidence that it has become a fall back position for a writer short of ideas. I guess the biggest argument against it is that it is a little far-fetched. How often in real life would even the most well-known detective become the target of nutters and killers, who want to either murder them, or prove that they can beat them? Sure, it's fiction, and the suspension of disbelief is part and parcel of the genre, but if it happens more than a couple of times, that seems to be stretching things a little.

My personal view is that it is a very strong story-telling device, but one that should be used sparingly. One way to dodge this might be to shift the killer's focus to somebody close to your detective. Because of that, they become more embroiled in the case than they might normally. For example, rather than having the detective in the sights of the killer, because of something murky that happened in the past, why not make their sibling the target? This also has the added advantage that you can string readers along - will the killer succeed, leaving our hero devastated at their failure, or will they save the day?

What do you think? Over-used cliché, or a heart-stopping narrative choice?
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time,
Paul.