The appeal of genre fiction

[Hopscotch]

A creative writing teacher reports that "[t]he majority of my students prefer reading and writing genre fiction—sci-fi, mystery, romance—to literary fiction. (A loose explanation of the difference: Literary fiction generally resembles real life and focuses on characters, whereas genre fiction tends to rely on familiar themes and prioritizes plot.)...my students spoke passionately [that genre fiction] provided a sturdy vessel for their supercharged feelings, emotions that ranged far beyond the realist confines of the [literary] work I’d been assigning. They also argued that genre fiction was better equipped to capture the heightened unreality of the current moment, with its abundance of news and information, which can often feel like daily plot twists....”

– The Atlantic  July 21, 2023

https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2023/07/colson-whitehead-crook-manifesto-book-review/674775/

[TimothyEllis]

A creative writing teacher reports that "[t]he majority of my students prefer reading and writing genre fiction—sci-fi, mystery, romance—to literary fiction. (A loose explanation of the difference: Literary fiction generally resembles real life and focuses on characters, whereas genre fiction tends to rely on familiar themes and prioritizes plot.)

   

I would have said it was the opposite.

Literary is plot over character, and genre is character over plot.

There is no way anyone would call what I write 'literary' or 'literature'. And yet I write daily life in space which is totally character driven.

[Bill Hiatt]

As an English teacher, I heard this debate a lot.

Literary fiction and genre fiction can both have strong characters. But plot plays a lesser role in literary than in genre--sometimes. It's hard to generalize.

A better distinction might be what the purpose is. Literary critics tend to say genre fiction is for entertainment, and literary fiction is for enlightenment. But that's really a false distinction, too. Literary fiction does typically prioritize message--hence the perception that plot is sometimes lacking. But genre writers have messages as well, and it's hard to write without reflecting your world view, even if you don't intend for there to be a specific message.

It's probably best to say that literary fiction, on average, is closer to the enlightenment side of spectrum, while genre fiction is closer to the entertainment side, but there are exceptions, and we don't want to fall into the snobbish trap of looking down on genre fiction's intellectual qualities or assuming that literary fiction has to be boring.

Most of the literary classics are closer to genre fiction than we imagine. Shakespeare undeniably wrote to entertain, and he wrote in an age when plays weren't even considered to be literature. (He also made more money from his part ownership of the Globe Theater than he ever made from writing.) Yet, though his messages still resonate because of his understanding of human nature, his plots have resonated even more, spawning a host of retellings and reimaginings.

And Homer? Though there may be religious overtones in his work, critics have wondered whether he even believed in the gods he wrote about. But whoever wrote them down, the epic poems that bear his name started out as oral performances before (drunken) kings and their war chiefs, probably a rowdy audience who would have thrown things at a poet who held them less than spellbound. 

[cecilia_writer]

For me (not an English specialist) it's Shakespeare's use of language that resonates and this is what 'literary' means. However, as far as contemporary fiction is concerned I vastly prefer to read novels I know are in a specific genre and I think they can be just as well-written (or as badly wriiten) as the literary ones.

[Bill Hiatt]

For me (not an English specialist) it's Shakespeare's use of language that resonates and this is what 'literary' means. However, as far as contemporary fiction is concerned I vastly prefer to read novels I know are in a specific genre and I think they can be just as well-written (or as badly written) as the literary ones.

Yes, there is something catchy in Shakespeare's language, as there is in Chaucer's (though that takes more effort to get through for us). We do associate effective use of language with literary fiction. But as you quite correctly point out, the qualities we admire in literary fiction can also be found in genre fiction.

Literary fiction from a publishing standpoint is about appealing to a particular audience and usually isn't that lucrative unless a book gets shortlisted for one of the big prizes. As with movie studios, who fund some of the more thought-provoking stuff with the big, tentpole movies like superhero flicks, publishers fund the literary stuff through their big, tentpole novels. (People might sneer at Stephen King, but his books and those of people like him in a very real sense help to make literary fiction possible. There are a few literary fiction pieces that really take off, of course, but that's less common.

So perhaps the distinction isn't so much substance as audience. Genre fiction may contain profound ideas, but it's designed for mass appeal (which means relatable characters, fast-paced plots, etc.) Literary fiction is often designed for a much-more selective audience (one that would appreciate allusions to Dante, for example, or intricate parallels with the Odyssey). That doesn't mean such works lack relatable characters or fast-paced plots, but there isn't as much emphasis on them.

It's worth noting again that this distinction didn't exist in Shakespeare's time. Though his plays had their share of private performances for the monarch and for various nobles, they also played to full houses of the general public at the Globe and other theaters. Shakespeare had a unique gift of appealing with pretty much the same material to everybody, from the lowest classes to the highest. That's why his work has what would today be odd juxtapositions (like racy humor adjacent to emotionally moving presentations of great philosophical truths). (Mercutio dies with a joke, though not a racy one, and it's a clown who brings Cleopatra the asp that will kill her.) There aren't very many modern authors that would attempt quite that wide a range of content in one work, and juxtapositions like that are difficult to pull off.

I used to tell my students, "Take the time to get used to the language. Once you are a little more familiar with it, you'll see that the story is actually good." Some argued a little in the beginning, but they were generally in agreement by the end. 

[PJ Post]

I would say that literary fiction is concept driven, which could be small or epic, introspective or atmospheric, character driven or plot focused. Regardless, the narrative rarely deviates far from the central theme. It's almost like an academic argument presented with a few one-dimensional characters¹ and unnecessarily clever wording².

¹ Multi-faceted characters can raise questions that might blur the theme.
² What can be said in a few words, often takes pages because reasons.

[Broad brush here.]

___

Genre fiction, on the other hand, may make the same argument, in fact, may make it better, but it's almost certainly going to be a more entertaining journey.

___

It's my belief that in order to inform readers or to get them to question the status quo (all that literary stuff), we must first entertain.

[PaulineMRoss]

Simple rule: genre fiction ends on an upbeat note. The romance couple get their happy ever after. In scifi, the aliens are defeated. In fantasy, good triumphs over evil. In a thriller, the bad guys are caught. In a murder mystery, the murderer is uncovered.

But in literary fiction, everybody dies at the end (exaggerating only very slightly). My book club reads some effing miserable literary fiction.

[Bill Hiatt]

Simple rule: genre fiction ends on an upbeat note. The romance couple get their happy ever after. In scifi, the aliens are defeated. In fantasy, good triumphs over evil. In a thriller, the bad guys are caught. In a murder mystery, the murderer is uncovered.

But in literary fiction, everybody dies at the end (exaggerating only very slightly). My book club reads some effing miserable literary fiction.

That could be an overgeneralization, but it does certainly fit a number of modern lit fic works. When I was first exposed to lit fic, I remember being irked that there was really no one to root for--everyone was a jerk.

[Bill Hiatt]

I would say that literary fiction is concept driven, which could be small or epic, introspective or atmospheric, character driven or plot focused. Regardless, the narrative rarely deviates far from the central theme. It's almost like an academic argument presented with a few one-dimensional characters¹ and unnecessarily clever wording².

¹ Multi-faceted characters can raise questions that might blur the theme.
² What can be said in a few words, often takes pages because reasons.

[Broad brush here.]

___

Genre fiction, on the other hand, may make the same argument, in fact, may make it better, but it's almost certainly going to be a more entertaining journey.

___

It's my belief that in order to inform readers or to get them to question the status quo (all that literary stuff), we must first entertain.

But how do you really feel about literary fiction? 

It is possible to be entertaining and still meet the requirements of literary fiction.

Italo Calvino comes to mind. He might well have won the Nobel Prize for literature, if not for his untimely death in a year he was being seriously considered. So definitely lit fict. But some of his writings were enormously entertaining.

The two that come to mind are The Baron in the Trees and The Castle of Crossed Destinies

The first concerns a young nobleman with the ultimate dysfunctional family. Rather than keep dealing with their irrationality, he climbs up a tree, swearing never to come down. And he never does. He lives in a forested area and moves from tree to tree, but he never touches the ground. He inherits his father's title, discovers sex (a feat that requires some acrobatic skill, given his environment), helps the people in his barony, goes to war, confers with Napoleon, etc. There's a lot of action for lit fic and not much direct philosophizing.

The second follows a group who seek shelter in a castle. When they arrive, they find that they can't speak. The only way that they can tell each other their stories is by using a group of Tarot cards given to them by their host. (In other words, the structure is a frame story, like Ovid's Metamorphoses, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, or The 1001 Arabian Nights.) Each one in turn lays out the Tarot cards to tell his or her stories, some of which seem to take place in radically different time periods. One of the group members seems to be Oedipus. Another one seems to be Lady Macbeth. Another one seems to be Faust. Yet some of the stories also take place in the future. In the second part, the action shifts to the Tavern of Crossed Destinies. Calvino intended to write a third part, The Motel of Crossed Destinies, in which the guests rip pictures out of the comics section of the Sunday paper to tell their stories, but he never got there.

COCD is basically a series of well-written stories that anyone who likes myths or folktales would enjoy. The interconnection of the stories, however, is something that literary critics love to write about, so the book is both entertaining and literary. I find myself wanting to go read it again right now. 

[Hopscotch]

What I found most interesting in the essay is not the teacher's silly litfic vs genre argument but his students' preference for the immediately accessible story that triggers their young emotions.

[Bill Hiatt]

What I found most interesting in the essay is not the teacher's silly litfic vs genre argument but his students' preference for the immediately accessible story that triggers their young emotions.

A preference which isn't that surprising. Some readers like the intellectual stimulation, but virtually all readers like emotional stimulation.

[The Bass Bagwhan]

The discussion needs to acknowledge those who have trodden the fine line between the two, such as John Irving in his heyday with "The World Accordimg to Gump" and "The Cider House Rules", or Annie Prousts (?) "The Shipping News". These were literary books I thought would be hard work, but became utterly absorbing. But today, I think the idea of "literary" writing has been spoiled by an aim to tick all the right boxes to qualify for grants and awards without actually being readable. There is a solid theory — trad publishers can access government grants for publishing the books if they contain the right material. We need a new categorisation called "it makes you think" that's separate from the blatant tapping into the more obscure social issues that no one wants to read about.

Don't get me wrong — recording those social issues is important, although I'm not sure printed books is the best medium anymore, but couching them in unreadable and unappealing "literary" fiction isn't doing that genre any favours. So many of the major literary awards now in Oz go to titles that are like, "Yeah, who wants to read that?"

[Hopscotch]

...unreadable and unappealing "literary" fiction isn't doing that genre any favours. So many of the major literary awards now in Oz go to titles that are like, "Yeah, who wants to read that?"

Um, well, there's a fellow in my writing critique group who writes unreadable and unappealing "literary" fiction and, when we all jumped on him for it, he said he writes for an audience that enjoys unreadable and unappealing "literary" fiction.  If the prizes go there, and book sales too, then the audience is biggish and I'd say unscornable.

[Jeff Tanyard]

"Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed."
― G.K. Chesterton


I think this old quote applies quite well to the literary vs. genre debate.  Lit-fic tells readers that monsters are real and that people suck.  Genre fic tells readers that monsters can be slain and flawed people can overcome their challenges and get the job done in triumphant fashion.

One is about themes of self-pity and resignation.  The other is about themes of hope and grit and courage and earned rewards. 

Just my opinion, of course, but these are my observations.  And if my opinion is correct, then it's easy to see why genre fic would have more mass appeal.  Most people struggle through life, so they would naturally prefer stories that encourage them and give them hope that their struggles will pay off some day.

[Hopscotch]

There are 1,000 reasons, good and bad, why genre fic is more popular than litfic and 1,000 reasons, good and bad, why litfic lacks mass appeal.  Their differences can't be summed up in a line or two.  But both are on the menu (along w/nonfic and every other form of writing) for a reader to choose whichever s/he pleases whenever.  The only true differentiator in writing is quality and that is measured by impact on the reader. 

[Bill Hiatt]

Genre fiction may generally be more hopeful, as Jeff says, but there are exceptions. Horror comes to mind. Sometimes, the evil forces win. Or if not that, they at least survive, a tendency even more pronounced in horror films than in horror books. That's partially to leave room for sequels. The genre is suffering from a severe case of sequelitis. How many times does someone need to kill Michael Myers?

[PJ Post]

There are 1,000 reasons, good and bad, why genre fic is more popular than litfic and 1,000 reasons, good and bad, why litfic lacks mass appeal.  Their differences can't be summed up in a line or two.  But both are on the menu (along w/nonfic and every other form of writing) for a reader to choose whichever s/he pleases whenever.  The only true differentiator in writing is quality and that is measured by impact on the reader. 

I get what you're saying regarding genre and litfic's mass appeal, but I think it really just comes down to how accessible the writing is. Popularity, on the other hand, needs a lot more - some intangible something, which explains sequelitis. Once that something has been discovered, the studios beat it to death - no pun intended.

[Bill Hiatt]

Yes, it's popular at the beginning. Maybe not so much at the end of the beating.

There are different explanations for the declining revenues of superhero movies (relative to production costs). I think superhero fatigue is part of the problem, though. That said, Blue Beetle seems to be getting good early reviews, so maybe that will demonstrate that previously unexploited IP might do better.

Apparently, the last Indiana Jones movie was one too many. Or was it just that audiences are getting tired of older actors beings CGIed into much younger actors? The idea certainly has its detractors, and Mark Hamill now flat-out refuses to do it anymore.

Speaking of which, even the Disney properties like Marvel and Star Wars aren't doing as well. Disney has decided to produce fewer movies and make the ones they do produce better--a wise move. Let's a least slow down the beating.

[Post-Crisis D]

Apparently, the last Indiana Jones movie was one too many. Or was it just that audiences are getting tired of older actors beings CGIed into much younger actors? The idea certainly has its detractors, and Mark Hamill now flat-out refuses to do it anymore.

Speaking of which, even the Disney properties like Marvel and Star Wars aren't doing as well. Disney has decided to produce fewer movies and make the ones they do produce better--a wise move. Let's a least slow down the beating.

I think it's more in how the older characters are treated rather than audiences being tired of older actors reprising their roles.  If you want to retain original fans while growing a franchise to add new, you need to both respect the original characters that the original audience loved as well as create compelling new characters for new audiences to love.  If you try to make the new characters the heros at the expense of the originals, I think you are going to run into problems.

Cobra Kai may be a good example.  From reviews and audience reaction I've seen, it appears people feel like the showrunners have respected the original characters from the original Karate Kid film series.

On the other hand, I mean, how do you screw up Star Wars?  Well, I guess you put Disney in charge.   

[Lynn]

If you want to retain original fans while growing a franchise to add new, you need to both respect the original characters that the original audience loved as well as create compelling new characters for new audiences to love.  If you try to make the new characters the heros at the expense of the originals, I think you are going to run into problems.

That kind of thing is good for bringing in new fans but often alienates old fans. I haven't been interested in the new Star Wars movies because of this. I heard spoilers and just lost interest before I watched, and then never have bothered.

This sort of happened with Stargate Universe IMO even though they didn't necessarily assassinate the characters of the previous shows, unless you count the tone of the show as a character (and I'd argue that it sort of is). The fan groups didn't really overlap, and they lost more than they gained.

There are different explanations for the declining revenues of superhero movies (relative to production costs). I think superhero fatigue is part of the problem, though. That said, Blue Beetle seems to be getting good early reviews, so maybe that will demonstrate that previously unexploited IP might do better.

I've discussed this with my kids a few times. It's hard to bring new people in on the tail end of a long series of movies that are interconnected to the point where a casual viewer isn't even sure what's going on with the backstory, hidden story, and present story because there's so much baggage. The same can be said of a long book series. That's why it's good to have breaking points where new readers can jump in on a new arc that doesn't depend heavily on what came before.

This is why I haven't watched any of the newer marvel/dc movies. I'm not a comics fan, so all of it just got to be too much. It's good for a certain class of fans, but IMO it's not going to continue indefinitely to attract new people unless they plan it well to do just that.

[Post-Crisis D]

This sort of happened with Stargate Universe IMO even though they didn't necessarily assassinate the characters of the previous shows, unless you count the tone of the show as a character (and I'd argue that it sort of is). The fan groups didn't really overlap, and they lost more than they gained.

If I recall and also according to what was said at the time, I think that was more a network/MGM decision than the decision of the team(s) that ran the Stargate shows.

After the eighth season of Stargate: SG-1, they wanted to end the show and start a new one, Stargate Command, which would have the same setting but with the new characters and villains that were introduced in the ninth season.  Doing so would also have lowered production costs as it would have been considered a new show and not have the automatic increases associated with a long running show.  And that would probably have been beneficial to MGM which was in some financial difficulties.  But the story is that the SciFi Channel wanted to be able to claim to have the longest running scifi franchise so renewed SG-1 for seasons 9 and 10.  Then, you know, cancelled it after they got their ten years.

And, you know, announcing the cancellation right after the 200th episode, yeah, bad idea.

So, anyway, first mistake, maybe?  Then they tried to appease SG-1 fans by shoehorning Samantha Carter into Stargate: Atlantis which probably ticked off both fan groups.  That only lasted one season before they replaced Carter with Woolsey, which, IMHO, worked better as a replacement for Weir than Carter did.  I mean, having Carter there just felt like they were doing it to appease fans and not because she was a natural fit.  Dr. Jackson would have made more sense, you know?

Anyway, so then they cancelled Stargate: Atlantis in favor of Stargate: Universe and, you know, at that point, I think they pretty much ticked off a lot of the previous fanbases.  The tone was different and General O'Neill and Daniel Jackson didn't seem like the same characters in their occasional appearances.

And I think a lot of that was the networks not the showrunners because they had successfully introduced new characters before without smearing over the old ones.

But who knows what might have been.  Possibly, Stargate Command and Stargate: Atlantis could have run concurrently for a few more seasons and maybe they could have introduced Stargate: Universe while one or both of the others were still running and not had as drastic a change in tone and who knows?

Of course, MGM's financial problems loomed over everything and basically led to the whole franchise kind of fizzling out.  And now Amazon owns it, so we'll probably get something like the young hipster SG-1 team they mocked in the 200th episode.

[LilyBLily]

I'm surprised anybody tries to make sense of the Marvel movie continuity. I certainly don't bother. Usually there are one or two good lines in the entire movie and the rest is plot. The only tedious parts are the too long action sequences in which the filmmakers show off their CGI tricks ad nauseam. They should learn that being able to do a full ten-minute battle does not mean you should do one.

[Jeff Tanyard]

This sort of happened with Stargate Universe IMO even though they didn't necessarily assassinate the characters of the previous shows, unless you count the tone of the show as a character (and I'd argue that it sort of is).

I completely agree with this.  I enjoyed several seasons--not all--of both Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis.  I didn't like Stargate Universe at all.

I'm pretty sure the suits decided that since Battlestar Galactica had been such a big hit, they needed to bring that gritty, dreary, nihilist tone to the Stargate franchise.  I think even some of the camera work was the same as on BG.  They basically just wrapped BG in Stargate clothes.

That's my theory, anyway.   

[PJ Post]

I think part of the problem with newer movies, and certainly with Marvel and Disney, is that they're trying to make a movie around an agenda/theme, as opposed to a great story that also has something to say. It's not the agenda that most people have a problem with - it's the sh*t writing, imho that is.

[Lynn]

I'm pretty sure the suits decided that since Battlestar Galactica had been such a big hit, they needed to bring that gritty, dreary, nihilist tone to the Stargate franchise.  I think even some of the camera work was the same as on BG.  They basically just wrapped BG in Stargate clothes.

That's my theory, anyway.   

I agree. It felt like BSG in a lot of ways. In Universe, they lost the thing that really made Stargate different from the other SF on tv. The plot, the aliens, etc, were just the same old thing already. It was the tone and humor that really made it unique. Stargate was an optimistic show. SGU was not. Depressing as hell. I really didn't like it. Every episode was a chore to watch. The only ones I enjoyed were the crossover episodes, and the one with the time loop, and that's probably because I am a sucker for time travel.

[Hopscotch]

...that's probably because I am a sucker for time travel.

Who isn't? (sigh)

[Bill Hiatt]

I'm not a sucker for time travel.

I think the basic truth that we've hit on here is that paying attention to what the fans think is important.

The problem isn't quite the same with writers. We indies don't have others meddling in our process, so we can take time to listen to fans.  TV shows and movies have a lot of fingers in every pie, often with disastrous results.

In particular, as others have noted, sometimes a series or a franchise runs too long, often with odd changes to try to facilitate continuing. These changes are often not liked by fans. But the industry seems driven by what it thinks people want, not what they actually want.

[Post-Crisis D]

...that's probably because I am a sucker for time travel.

Who isn't? (sigh)

Where do I find suckers for time travel?  I have two published books with time travel elements and multiple WIPs with more straightforward time travel.

But the industry seems driven by what it thinks people want, not what they actually want.

I think it's more driven by what the people running the industry want and neither by what it thinks people want nor by what people actually want.

The problem isn't quite the same with writers. We indies don't have others meddling in our process, so we can take time to listen to fans.

That can be a problem too.  On one of my books that was well-received, I listened to constructive feedback from readers and used that to try to make the next book even better.  The next book got more mixed reviews.

I think the basics are that people want a good story and, in the case of established characters, they don't want their favorite characters to be ruined.

[PJ Post]

New IPs are always tricky, especially anything pushing boundaries, but existing properties need to stay in their lane, otherwise the fans feel betrayed - setups needs payoffs and characters need to remain consistent. Subversion was the big thing for a while there, but it was mostly just bad writing.

Streaming shows usually go sideways when a new showrunner gets hired in the same way that up and coming directors can mess up existing franchises. They either have 'fresh' ideas or know how to update the franchise for a 'modern' audience.

But generally audiences don't know what they want until they see it. My favorite (almost certainly apocryphal) example, which I posted here before, is attributed to Henry Ford: "If I asked the people what they wanted, they'd say faster horses."

[Anarchist]

... existing properties need to stay in their lane, otherwise the fans feel betrayed - setups needs payoffs and characters need to remain consistent.

I'm gonna forward this post to Disney.

[Bill Hiatt]

My thoughts:

Someone who has fresh ideas might better use them with a fresh premise than trying to graft them on to an old one.

Actually, there's nothing wrong with a different or updated take on a story per se. But studios might want to do a little more research on what the fans like about the story before messing with it. There's  difference between adapted something for a modern audience and making it unrecognizable, or at least, removing the elements that caused people to like it in the first place.

Now both Marvel and DC have fallen into the trap of using a multiverse model to explain the many discrepancies between stories theoretically set in the same universe. So now we can have different, discrepant storylines coexisting, all considered canonical. But the result is confusing, to say the least. Marvel was doing better with it for a while, but recent box office returns suggest that the formula isn't even working for them now.

Other franchises have fallen into somewhat the same trap. Consider Halloween. The original 1 and 2 are in the same "timeline." 3 followed John Carpenter's original intent to make Halloween an anthology series. But the general public, not knowing that, were left scratching their heads over 3. 4-6--or was it 7?--were just shameless efforts to play on the name. Along comes H20, later called a different timeline, in which only 1 and 2 existed. Halloween: Resurrection followed H20. Then we had the two Rob Zombie abominations that fans of the original 1 and 2 hated. I guess they're technically a third timeline. Then, inexplicably, Jamie Lee Curtis, who had insisted her character be killed off in Halloween Resurrection, got talked into doing Halloween (fourth timeline), which theoretically erases everything but the original 1, though it seems to allude to issues not raised until the original 2. It also changes the original, panicked but heroic Laurie Strode into a ****ing psycho who gets proved right by dumb luck. I think there was a sequel. In the end, what we have is a mess that pretty much takes a groundbreaking concept and beats it far beyond death. We're not talking about beating a dead horse even, but an undead horse.

As PJ says, using new IP can be tricky. But can it really be any trickier than navigating a mire of half-baked ideas and outright failures from the past. You want to do a new take on something? License the general idea but change the names, so it can be a standalone movie rather than a sequel or another timeline.   

[LilyBLily]

Comics and movies retcon all the time. New directors like to shift everything around, as new comics writers to a series do, too. Such things inevitably annoy some old fans and bring in new ones. How many of each is the question.

Probably the most famous author retcon of the 19th century was in Ivanhoe, when Scott killed off a popular character in the serialization of the novel (which is how it first appeared) and then un-killed the fellow in the published book that came later. Hmm. Or was there a Sherlock Holmes retcon, too? And was it in the 19th or the 20th century?

[Post-Crisis D]

Or was there a Sherlock Holmes retcon, too? And was it in the 19th or the 20th century?

Don't know about Ivanhoe, but Sherlock Holmes was killed off and then brought back.  He was killed off in 1893 and brought back in 1903.

But, there was no body and the death was written from the perspective of Dr. Watson, so the idea that Holmes faked his death is more plausible than if there had been a body found or if the books were written in the third person or something.