Mysteries, mysteries...

[kira]

I was just writing this as a response to Boots's post elsewhere in the forum, and then I realized it was more bloggy than responsey, so I started to post a blog post about it, and finally I decided it'd make a better discussion topic, so now I'm plopping it here.

I'm a major mystery fan. It's the genre that's comprised the bulk of my reading material since college, and it is probably the biggest influence on my writing. Not just ASF, but in my other material. Even when writing a straight-up romance, I noticed myself following the tricks and guidelines I learned as a mystery fan. And now as a book editor, I am highly aware of authors who don't appear to have asked themselves: what's the underlying 'rule' I'll be using in weaving my plot? It may seem odd, especially if the writer isn't actually writing a strict "mystery" plot (like "who killed Character X?"). But many, many plots have elements of mystery to them. Determining the rules from the outset could give you a new way of planning your storyline.

So off the top of my head, I can think of three main schools of thought when it comes to writing mysteries:

1) The Arthur Conan Doyle/Sherlock Holmes school. The clues to the underlying mystery are primarily discovered by the lead character, usually a detective, and understood or analyzed only thanks to his/her brilliance and/or knowledge of obscure facts ("I happen to know this brand of cigar is only purchased in a tobaccanist's near St. James's Park, so the killer must live near there!") or insight ("I noticed the Countess wept during the performance of Madame Butterfly, and suspect that her mother committed suicide due to the abandonment of a lover, which gives the Countess motive for murdering the notorious rake Sir Charles!")

Alternately, the clues may be hidden entirely from the reader until the last minute ("Ah, Watson, you clearly didn't notice the tiny telltale footprint in the soot, which showed the thief's right foot was heavier than his left, indicating that this was clearly the work of a clubfooted dwarf!"

These are fun to read and watch (for a non-book example, see House) to admire the quirky genius and audacity of the main character, and perhaps to learn some surprising things about rare tobacco plants. If you want the audience to 'ooh' and 'ah' in surprise at the magician pulling a rabbit of a hat, this is the route to go.

I don't use this all that often in ASF. A few times I'll hide some info from the readers and reveal a character's brilliant ploy at the last minute, but even then I tend to give folks a heads-up. Jem is the character I use most often for this gimmick.

For example, the fire at the Record; there were some tiny hints before the fire that Jem was planning something (and that he making sure Elaine would leave work early), but the fact that the newspaper building was heavily insured was only revealed after we all knew Jem had paid an arsonist. Ditto with Jem's coming up with the scheme to call Charles pretending to be Chelsea's kidnapper. We didn't really see Jem get these ideas, he just whipped 'em out and surprised the audience with his gall.

2) The opposite scenario, where the 'solution' is known to the reader. We know early on who the murderer/criminal is and how the crime was committed. The interest in the story relates to the suspense of how he or she will be caught, or if s/he'll be caught at all.

This lends itself to classic nailbiting Hitchcockian suspense that often focuses more on psychology than other storytelling methods. These tales also tend to have a darker edge, since often you're put in the position of being inside a criminal's mind -- and at times possibly even sympathizing with him or her, rooting for the baddie not to get caught. Think Rope, Shadow of a Doubt or Strangers on a Train. Or I believe Dexter on TV and in the books. I used this format in ASF's second season in the Nora plot.

Spoiler

We saw Nora kill Philippa 'on-screen' toward the end of the first season, and soon discovered this was only one of Nora's murders/attempted murders of her husband Doug's mistresses. The second season's major arc involved Nora's daughter, Daphne, finding a box of mementos relating to the dead women. Daphne suspected her father, and her subsequent investigation inadvertently triggered the curiosity of Maxine, a private detective whom Nora had hired years back to follow Doug in the first place. The audience watched the slow destruction of Nora's perfect little family -- which she'd been trying to preserve in the first place -- and the noose tightened around Nora's neck throughout the season. She started to suffocate from guilt, and the whole mess blew up when she finally discovered the damage she'd done to her daughter.

3) Then there's the "playing fair" method, a la Agatha Christie: you lay out the clues in full view of the audience, who have a fair shot of solving the mystery if they just correctly interpret/understand what they're seeing. Needless to say, in order to surprise the audience, this type of plot requires clever use of smoke and mirrors, so that the clues are still hidden or ignored or otherwise dismissed even when they're right in plain sight.

I think this is the toughest device to use, at least successfully -- assuming you're trying to surprise people so that they're not always five steps ahead of the characters. But I find it the most rewarding, both as a writer and a reader/viewer. My favorite author, Rex Stout, usually falls into this category (although his detective, Nero Wolfe, does have moments of Holmesian, out-of-this-world genius).

So that's usually what I go with, as in the first season, where the solution to the murder(s) was hinted at in the third episode and peppered throughout the season.

Spoiler

...With Camilla's torn necklace being a crucifix. C'mon, people.

And that's what I wanted to use with the Tristan plot in s03, which I've elaborated upon in this blog post and, if you want some examples, in this article.

Anyway. While there are other permutations of the above methods, and some different ones entirely, these are the three most common formats I've found in my twenty-five years of reading mysteries.

So to anyone reading this: what's your favorite? As a writer, do you prefer any of these methods, or have you not given it much thought yet? Do you think this might be useful in your planning? If you follow ASF, do you get the sense that I've played fair? Would you like another spider-catching-the-fly look into the mind of a baddie and/or nutcase (like the Nora plot in s02)?

[Allan]

What an interesting read, Kira! I've been wanting to do a big mystery on H&S for a while now, but all of my attempts at planning have not really worked out too well...this has definately given me inspiration to review some earlier plans and make them more elaborate!

[Ira]

This was an interesting read, Kira. I usually come at stories through "mystery" too, even if they're not strictly set up as one to the audience. There's always something to discover. I suppose as a reader, I enjoy all of them. I love what I can get from Dexter, but I also love Columbo figuring things out at the end. The latter is sort of a mix of #1 and #3, I think. Some of them, if you're smart enough, you can figure things out.

I will say I've given a lot of thought to this for my own murder mystery this year, and I definitely want to use a #1 option, because it's something I haven't tackled. I think there's a difference in an ongoing #1, as opposed to, someone is hit by a car and we find out the next episode someone was planning to do it. It's much harder to sustain #1 for several episodes. If I'm using my writing as an example, I'd say the majority of my stories that are more fun for me to write lend themselves to the #2 method (such as the audience knowing Aaron molested Alec on GC, but none of the characters knowing), or a condensed #1 (someone is being stalked, an episode or two later we discover who it is).

[Andy Eckles]

Yes, very interesting topic. I am a fan of mysteries myself. I was a big Edge of Night watcher in its later years because it blended mystery with classic soap opera elments. I often want to write a mystery serial but not sure that I could pull it off. I have, however, blended mystery elements into the Blackthornes since the beginning. One full-on whodunnit I thought panned out fairly well. I'd say I went with the Agatha Christie M.O. (#3). The problem I seem to have with that is in my inability to judge my readers' intelligence correctly. (Intelligence isn't the right word - maybe perceptiveness?) I put the clues out there, but sometimes feel they're too minute and there's no way anyone could possibly pick up on it. Or alternatively, my clues are too obvious and the entire setup is discovered all too quickly. Any words of wisdom, Kira?

I love big mysteries where at the end the reader gets to see what happened in chronological order while the character who solved the mystery lays it out for a group of spectators. The "ah-ha!" is the payoff.

[Ira]

Andy, I came up with a response to your question, but thought it would be better served in the Blackthornes forum, so I made a new post there. Hope that's okay!

I didn't want to hijack Kira's thread.

[kira]

Thanks for the responses, guys. I figured it was a potentially useful topic, since we usually don't discuss the technical aspects of mystery plotting much.

Andy, I guess my advice would be not to underestimate your readers' intelligence/perceptiveness.* I mean, if you want to play fair I wouldn't make clues incredibly obscure, since that's little different than method #1, but in general, people who are likely to pick up hints will do so and will appreciate that the writer respects them enough to be subtle and fair; those who aren't will just get swept up for the ride, and by the end -- when things are revealed -- they'll smack their heads in rueful amusement at having missed the signs. That's been my experience, anyway, having been in both positions (i.e. as the reader who figured things out and the reader who was perfectly fooled).

* Actually, that's always true, no matter what kinda plot we write. I can't think of any time it's a good idea to assume my audience isn't as smart or eagle-eyed as I am. If nothing else, it really keeps me on my toes.

Edited to Add: Oh I don't think it's a hijack, Ira. I did invite the discussion!

[JAYJAY1979]

I enjoyed reading your thoughts and breakdown of each of the three types of mysteries that seem to be used by writer's. To answer some of your questions:

what's your favorite?

My favorite would be #2 because I like knowing who the bad guy is and how the hero/heroine figures it out for themselves. (i.e. Columbo who would figure out the killer by the smallest of details missed by the general public).

As a writer, do you prefer any of these methods, or have you not given it much thought yet?

To tell you the truth, while I enjoy reading mysteries I don't have the talent for crafting/writing a mystery. Mainly because I lose focus quickly and I lack the ability to naturally create action/suspense. I much perfer old school 1970's soaps (ala Another World pre-80's Luke/Laura fandom which ultimately harmed the genre in the long-run). If the readers could stomach it, I'd write much longer scenes of spoken word between the character then action. However, in this day and age, that doesn't always fly

Though I repeat I do love mysteries

[Ira]

Originally Posted by JAYJAY1979

To tell you the truth, while I enjoy reading mysteries I don't have the talent for crafting/writing a mystery. Mainly because I lose focus quickly and I lack the ability to naturally create action/suspense. I much perfer old school 1970's soaps (ala Another World pre-80's Luke/Laura fandom which ultimately harmed the genre in the long-run). If the readers could stomach it, I'd write much longer scenes of spoken word between the character then action. However, in this day and age, that doesn't always fly.

I keep cutting into this topic...but Jayson, I hear you say this a lot and I don't personally understand it. For one, I think the 80s and early 90s were the heyday of soaps, and I certainly don't think that they were ruined as a genre in those two decades. But another, you seem to say that you wish you could do longer scenes of spoken word and because that's "old school." I've seen old school clips, read stories, and the way you talk soaps were people sitting around a kitchen table talking about nothing. I come from a theatre background, and I love dialogue and I love scenes of characters talking. Even in my own series, which is a lot of action, a lot of things going on, I rely heavily on dialogue. I'm a dialogue writer, it's why I've been drawn to television and film. Footprints is a great series that relies on characters discussing events a la old school soaps, the same even happens in About Schuyler Falls when buildings aren't being blown up.

The reason that kitchen conversation was so interesting in the 1970s is because someone someone cheated, someone ran someone over with their car, someone got pregnant from their rapist. I find that Another Place and Time is often people discussing...something. There's been no action, no forward movement. If nothing has happened to Sally and Sue, why would I care to listen in on their conversation in the kitchen? I'd love for you to be able to embrace the genre fully and truly realize that a series can be character driven without the entire script being a conversation.

[kira]

Originally Posted by Ira

Footprints is a great series that relies on characters discussing events a la old school soaps, the same even happens in About Schuyler Falls when buildings aren't being blown up.

Oh sure, blow up two little buildings in a season and suddenly a girl gets a reputation!

"Having one building blow up is unfortunate; blowing up two looks like carelessness." -- Not Oscar Wilde.

Originally Posted by Ira

The reason that kitchen conversation was so interesting in the 1970s is because someone someone cheated, someone ran someone over with their car, someone got pregnant from their rapist.

There weren't quite as many rapes in those days (the eighties were the Decade O'Rapes), but ... yeah. Anyway, now this is offtopic!

Jayson, I think it's good that you feel strongly about your strengths and preferences. Mysteries -- well, good mysteries, anyway -- require a lot of tough work, and sometimes it's all too easy to kill someone off and pick a murderer/motive without really mapping out the bigger picture of how the mystery will play out. I read and watch a lot of stories (books, TV and webseries alike) where it just seems the writers are improvising things as they go along. If there's one type of story where this won't work, it's a mystery. (Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with vamping a plot; I blush to admit how late the solution to the Chelsea kidnapping arc came to me. But a mystery -- one that's intended to be an ambitious, plot-twist-filled nailbiter -- is a whole 'nother ball of wax.)

That's partly why I started this topic, because while I was rereading a past season, I remembered how intricate a tapestry a well-plotted mystery arc is. It's not just about the whodunnit and why and how; I think writers are well advised to think carefully what kind of mystery they want to tell. To decide this is to determine what kind of relationship you want to have with your audience.

"What do you mean? I write, they read/watch/listen!" Well, that's true, but there are all sorts of ways your audience can engage with your tale. And IMO, story methods #2 and #3 give the audience a more active role to play.

With #2, where they're just as informed as certain characters (or sometimes even more informed), they become a sort of cheerleader or advisor. They want to shout: "Don't go in there, we saw the villain sneak in the back door!" "Ask him how he got the victim's sweater when he says he's never been in that house!" "You idiot, why did you just admit to being allergic to chocolate when you already claimed you were the intended victim of the poisoned cocoa??" The tension becomes palpable when they know disaster is looming for someone, and they're just dying to get some kind of resolution!

With #3, it's a battle of wits. The audience member who likes this type of mystery wants you to challenge them, even though they also want to find the answer to the puzzle; they respect the subtlety and manipulation and cleverness and deception, because they sense that the answer is somewhere right in front of them ... assuming you've established yourself as a "play fair" type of writer who respects them. Once you've earned their trust, the audience will be alerted, on guard, aware of the importance of each word, of each supposedly unimportant setting description, of each line of dialogue. Suddenly everything has heightened meaning. They become partners in a tango, where you're leading all the while. You push them backward, you pull them in a new direction, and they go willingly, delightedly, wherever you take them. Though you're always in control, it's absolutely a team situation; you're nothing without them, and they know it.

I described method #1 as being the equivalent of a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat. If so, then method #3 is like Penn & Teller or Harry Anderson, who'll tell you, "Get ready. I'm about to trick you. Watch. See this coin? I'm gonna tell you it's going in my hand, but it's actually somewhere else. Can you guess where?" It's a whole different relationship with the audience; it's still deception, but it's honest deception, if I may use that term.

[Ira]

Originally Posted by kira

There weren't quite as many rapes in those days (the eighties were the Decade O'Rapes), but ... yeah. Anyway, now this is offtopic!

Hah! Yes, to be fair the only one I'm really aware of is the one that birthed Mike Horton on DOOL back in the day.

[Boots]

Coming late to this, but thought I would throw in a couple of pennies:

I agree that all stories have aspects of the mystery or mysterious in them, but oddly enough I'm not a fan of that particular genre, so I generally choose door no. 3. I like having the opportunity to figure it out along the way and see how the characters unravel it as well. In this way, I think I come from a very (gad, I'm going to say it) Joyceian school of both reading and writing. If I can share an epiphany with the characters (whether the mystery is some internal revelation or external whodunit), I am a pretty ecstatic camper.

I also agree that no. 3 is the most fair. I learned this from reading both Sherlock Holmes and Encyclopedia Brown. I was always frustrated by the former, charmed by the latter. And okay, those two are a hard comparison, but when you're 8, Holmes just seems, himself, too far-fetched a character to buy into. I probably feel that less now, but I still enjoy Holmes spoofs more than the real deal.

: D

[Michael]

Originally Posted by Boots

I also agree that no. 3 is the most fair. I learned this from reading both Sherlock Holmes and Encyclopedia Brown. I was always frustrated by the former, charmed by the latter. And okay, those two are a hard comparison, but when you're 8, Holmes just seems, himself, too far-fetched a character to buy into. I probably feel that less now, but I still enjoy Holmes spoofs more than the real deal.

Agreed. I'd rather be able to play along -- whether through the suspense of waiting for characters' knowledge to catch up to mine, or the excitement of discovering clues along with them -- rather than waiting for a surprise that I couldn't have reasonably caught onto. That option (#1 above) feels awfully passive. Maybe it's just how I am as a reader, but if all the following along and guessing in the world won't get me anywhere until the penultimate chapter or scene or whatever, then I become much less invested in the scenario.

Kira, the blog entry and your perspectives in this post have been fascinating. I love, in particular, your points about using the written medium to tell a story that couldn't be told in a visual format. And if you weren't this into planning and detail, you wouldn't have nearly as good a product, so don't apologize for it!

[kira]

Originally Posted by Boots

I also agree that no. 3 is the most fair. I learned this from reading both Sherlock Holmes and Encyclopedia Brown. I was always frustrated by the former, charmed by the latter. And okay, those two are a hard comparison, but when you're 8, Holmes just seems, himself, too far-fetched a character to buy into. I probably feel that less now, but I still enjoy Holmes spoofs more than the real deal.

Encyclopedia Brown!!! OM freakin' G I loved that series! That and the similar (maybe even by the same author?) Two Minute Mysteries books. Yes, those were hugely influential on me... I can't even believe I didn't think of them, but they're the very definition of 'playing fair' and were even sorta examples of 'interactive fiction'.

I think the primary enjoyment out of the Holmes books and their ilk isn't the puzzle or mystery at all, mainly 'cause you have no shot in hell of solving it yourself. They're pretty much all about the atmosphere and characterization. The lead characters tend to be very quirky, highly idiosyncratic, and quite often a hot mess, psychologically speaking. Again: think House. So the mysteries, such as they are, often evolve to reveal as much if not more about the main character(s) as they do about the victim(s)/criminals. I definitely don't have a problem with that, I just sometimes find that the mysteries are so incidental that I'd rather see a straight-up character exploration than the half-assed mystery trappings.

Originally Posted by Michael

Kira, the blog entry and your perspectives in this post have been fascinating. I love, in particular, your points about using the written medium to tell a story that couldn't be told in a visual format. And if you weren't this into planning and detail, you wouldn't have nearly as good a product, so don't apologize for it!

Whew, thanks, Michael! Sometimes I read my stuff and scare myself. And yeah, I think it's a shame that text-based webseries (and, for that matter, video ones too) think of the web medium as 'fake' or lesser than the allmighty television, which is considered "real" entertainment. There's certainly a big place for serials that are either satires of TV or those that use the trappings of TV, like scripts or even stage directions. I just think it's a shame to relegate this entirely new medium to the status of a wannabe lady-in-waiting. There's so much that can be done to utilize the uniqueness of text and/or the interactive, nonlinear nature of the internet. I do very little of that myself, but it's still something I keep in mind. the Banny storyline was one miniscule way of taking what's considered a so-called disadvantage of text (the lack of visuals) and turning it into a plus. It was perfect for this particular plot, which wasn't even a crime-based mystery, but more a character mystery. Sort of Vertigo, continuing with the Hitchcock analogy.

[Boots]

I loved those Two Minute Mysteries ~ yeah! And yes on House as well.

: D

[JAYJAY1979]

Originally Posted by Ira

I keep cutting into this topic...but Jayson, I hear you say this a lot and I don't personally understand it. For one, I think the 80s and early 90s were the heyday of soaps, and I certainly don't think that they were ruined as a genre in those two decades. .

Well you are correct that the 80's and early 90's are thought of as the "heyday of soaps", what I was referring to was the loss of soaps individual identities and the need to jump onto the collective bandwagon. Before Luke/Laura became so popular, each soap had their own identity (I.E. Guiding Light/ATWT/SFT were old fashion family dramas, Love of Life was about the fight between good and evil in the form of two sisters, EON was a mystery drama, Doctors/GH were medical dramas, and AW was more a character-driven broadway play shown on screen). However, once GH became popular all other soaps rushed to jump on the bandwagon with their own supercouple and action adventure story. For example, Ryan's Hope was known as a soap about a large Irish family in New York City involved in realistic character driven situations. Once GH exploded and ABC took ownership of RH, you had out there stories like a hunt for treasure, Gorillas, over the top situation not associated with the show. Yes, while the 80's are thought of as the heyday of soaps, it hurt each show's individual identity and forever prevented the genre from ever being taken seriously (come on, Ice Princess, Dreaming Death, Satan, Passions?!?!?!).

Originally Posted by Ira

But another, you seem to say that you wish you could do longer scenes of spoken word and because that's "old school." I've seen old school clips, read stories, and the way you talk soaps were people sitting around a kitchen table talking about nothing. I come from a theatre background, and I love dialogue and I love scenes of characters talking. Even in my own series, which is a lot of action, a lot of things going on, I rely heavily on dialogue. I'm a dialogue writer, it's why I've been drawn to television and film. Footprints is a great series that relies on characters discussing events a la old school soaps, the same even happens in About Schuyler Falls when buildings aren't being blown up.

The reason that kitchen conversation was so interesting in the 1970s is because someone someone cheated, someone ran someone over with their car, someone got pregnant from their rapist. I find that Another Place and Time is often people discussing...something. There's been no action, no forward movement. If nothing has happened to Sally and Sue, why would I care to listen in on their conversation in the kitchen? I'd love for you to be able to embrace the genre fully and truly realize that a series can be character driven without the entire script being a conversation.

I knew I was walking into a critique of my little show the moment I posted but it's all good I'm known as all talk and no action, I admit it. While that might work in my real life, in the world of soap operas that can lead to a quick demise LOL I am making efforts to move the plot along. In some cases, I've succeeded quite well and in other cases I haven't. If you don't notice that then I guess I have my work cut out for me LOL

Again thanks for your honest, but sometimes brutal, replies