What makes a good mystery?

[Passacaglia]

So I'm reading a mystery now, and I'm about 10% of the way through it. It got me wondering, what makes a good mystery novel? I've read probably half a handful of mysteries in my time, so I don't have much experience. But I'm feeling like if I can't figure out the mystery, then that means the author didn't put in enough clues to solve it, but expected the reader to intuit the solution. On the other hand, if I can figure it out, then that means the author made it too easy, and what he or she thought was some difficult puzzle was actually pretty obtuse.

Anyway, I thought I'd throw it over to the minds of FOFC -- seems like a good time for it with the literature draft going on, and no mystery category included.

[Kodos]

Nobody really knows. It's always been a bit of a ... well, you know.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

So I'm reading a mystery now, and I'm about 10% of the way through it. It got me wondering, what makes a good mystery novel? I've read probably half a handful of mysteries in my time, so I don't have much experience. But I'm feeling like if I can't figure out the mystery, then that means the author didn't put in enough clues to solve it, but expected the reader to intuit the solution. On the other hand, if I can figure it out, then that means the author made it too easy, and what he or she thought was some difficult puzzle was actually pretty obtuse.

Anyway, I thought I'd throw it over to the minds of FOFC -- seems like a good time for it with the literature draft going on, and no mystery category included.

Depends on what you are reading...

[albionmoonlight]

I think that a compelling and interesting detective is the #1 requirement.

For example, Lord Peter and Dave Robicheaux are what make those series classics.

[BrianD]

I think you need a mystery that readers don't figure out but have enough clues that they could have figured it out. There should be enough false leads and extra information to make the outcome uncertain, but in the final reveal it should become clear that it "should" have been figured out. Whenever you do this, you will be able to keep some people in the dark, but you won't get everything. Those you don't keep in the dark will probably not be happy, but those that stay unaware will really enjoy the ride.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I think that a compelling and interesting detective is the #1 requirement.

For example, Lord Peter and Dave Robicheaux are what make those series classics.

Although I haven't read the series in question, I agree absolutely with the requirement being #1.

[st.cronin]

The same thing that makes any other type of novel good. I don't think there is any special aesthetic theory that applies only to mystery novels.

[BrianD]

Sounds like he is interested more in the mechanics of the mystery itself rather than just general literature suggestions. Clearly the literature surrounding the mystery needs to be there, but there are still good and bad mysteries within the literature.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Sounds like he is interested more in the mechanics of the mystery itself rather than just general literature suggestions. Clearly the literature surrounding the mystery needs to be there, but there are still good and bad mysteries within the literature.

But I think that my argument applies especially to mysteries. Unlike most literature, a mystery forces you to travel, almost in the hip pocket, of one and only one character. You see things through that character's eyes (in varying degrees depending on how limited the third person narration is); you make some deductions as the character makes them. Details (essential in a mystery) come to life or die through the eyes of a character. And, most importantly, you are with this person through the whole dang book. If the journey is a chore rather than a pleasure, it does not matter how good your plot is. The reader won't enjoy the experience.

So, while I understand that the question might have wanted more of a "should I mention that the table looked like it had been moved or is that too much of a giveaway" type answer, I can't help but note what I think is, far and away, a question that comes first: through whose eyes will we see the table in the first place?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

But I think that my argument applies especially to mysteries. Unlike most literature, a mystery forces you to travel, almost in the hip pocket, of one and only one character. You see things through that character's eyes (in varying degrees depending on how limited the third person narration is); you make some deductions as the character makes them. Details (essential in a mystery) come to life or die through the eyes of a character. And, most importantly, you are with this person through the whole dang book. If the journey is a chore rather than a pleasure, it does not matter how good your plot is. The reader won't enjoy the experience.

So, while I understand that the question might have wanted more of a "should I mention that the table looked like it had been moved or is that too much of a giveaway" type answer, I can't help but note what I think is, far and away, a question that comes first: through whose eyes will we see the table in the first place?

I agree with what you're saying about the main character, but I'd argue that a different result arises. Since we're seeing everything through the eyes of the main character, it's important that the author has a well-organized view of what the main character experiences, since we're supposed to integrate ourselves into him. I agree, though, that if we don't find the character interesting, we won't particularly want to experience the world as he or she sees it, but I think that's true of any novel with a main character.

I wasn't looking for any particular answer, really -- just wondering what would come up. I guess I was thinking that the author can basically make you think anything about the mystery by dropping clues, but then give a different "answer" at the end. I agree that there are the same concepts that apply to any other literature, but I guess I'm looking at it as a novel with a puzzle attached.

[albionmoonlight]

I agree with those points.

I guess, to try to get to ways of hiding information in plain sight, I think that it can be done well if a plot device has a major and a minor reason of happening. Like, for instance, if a side character has a hurt arm, which causes our detective to have to help the side character move boxes around, which causes the detective to be in a certain place and see certain things and get the plot moving in a certain way . . . and then 250 pages later, we learn that the side character has a distinctive and important tatoo on her wrist that she was covering by faking the injury and wearing a cast/bandage.

That's a bad example, but you get my drift. If something is there for no reason, a reader gets suspicious. If, however, it has a valid reason for being there, the reader might miss the bigger implication.

[terpkristin]

I don't know what makes a good mystery. Though I do wonder if anybody here has any recommendations for a good mystery to read (or mystery series)....

/tk

[st.cronin]

I have always thought that the mystery was not something the reader is intended to solve or not solve on his own. Instead, the mystery is something which confounds the protagonist(s), and that conflict is what makes the mystery story compelling. I have read good mysteries where the solution was perfectly obvious to the reader.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I have always thought that the mystery was not something the reader is intended to solve or not solve on his own. Instead, the mystery is something which confounds the protagonist(s), and that conflict is what makes the mystery story compelling. I have read good mysteries where the solution was perfectly obvious to the reader.

That's interesting -- I don't know why I'd thought of it my way, but wikipedia agrees with you:

Mystery fiction is a loosely-defined term that is often used as a synonym of detective fiction — in other words a novel or short story in which a detective (either professional or amateur) solves a crime. The term "mystery fiction" may sometimes be limited to the subset of detective stories in which the emphasis is on the puzzle element and its logical solution (cf. whodunit), as a contrast to hardboiled detective stories which focus on action and gritty realism. However, in more general usage "mystery" may be used to describe any form of crime fiction, even if there is no mystery to be solved. For example, the Mystery Writers of America describes itself as "the premier organization for mystery writers, professionals allied to the crime writing field, aspiring crime writers, and those who are devoted to the genre".[1]

That said, the book I'm reading, Swing by Rupert Holmes (yes, that Rupert Holmes), is definitely of the puzzle variety. Also, the puzzle extends to an included CD of "musical clues" -- so far it's just a handful of big band songs, which is fine, but maybe it will become more as I read on.

[BrianD]

A round about way of getting your answer might be to look at some bad mysteries (bad in terms of providing a satisfying puzzle to the reader/viewer) and trying to decide what makes them bad. Watch any Law and Order or CSI type show and pay attention to their formula. They like to have the camera linger on important clues and provide one innocent suspect before showing the real killer. With only an hour (or really 40 minutes) to tell their story, that is all they have time for, but it gives you a good idea of what makes an easy puzzle. On the other hand, look at a movie like The Sixth Sense, or The Prestige. They tell what looks to be a straightforward story, but hide the mystery in the background. Clues are given, but they are masked by a different story.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I have always thought that the mystery was not something the reader is intended to solve or not solve on his own. Instead, the mystery is something which confounds the protagonist(s), and that conflict is what makes the mystery story compelling. I have read good mysteries where the solution was perfectly obvious to the reader.

That was the deal with the Colombo movies. They always showed the crime in the first few minutes so you knew what was being solved and who did it. The chase was what they focused on.

That said, I was never as big a fan of Colombo as I could have been for that reason. I like trying to solve mysteries along with whoever the protagonist is from Hercule Poirot to Jessica Fletcher to Gil Grissom.

SI

[Pumpy Tudors]

DON'T BE DISSING COLUMBO

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by terpkristin

I don't know what makes a good mystery. Though I do wonder if anybody here has any recommendations for a good mystery to read (or mystery series)....

/tk

I'm not a big mystery reader, but I devoured the Fletch series by Gregory McDonald. I also enjoyed his "Flynn" series of mysteries, but not as much as his Fletch books.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I'm not a big mystery reader, but I devoured the Fletch series by Gregory McDonald. I also enjoyed his "Flynn" series of mysteries, but not as much as his Fletch books.

what kind of name is poon anyway?

[JasonC23]

Comanche Indian.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

what kind of name is Noop anyway?

Correct.

And to answer a damn good one. Beecth!