Let's discuss the mystery novel for a minute or two...

[AmyStrange]

-

In my opinion, there are two types.

The kind that the reader can solve, and the kind where they can't.

My favorite is the one where they can, and after reading a couple thousand of them, my favorite technique is when the writer encourages the reader to make the wrong assumption, and if you want to solve them, you are forced to think outside the box.

The Perry Mason series by Erle Stanley Gardner used this technique in just about every one of his cases.

The Case of the Sulky Girl is a classic example.

Mason's clients are of course accused of murder, but this time there's an eyewitness that sees the murder being committed and can also identify his clients as the perpetrators.

Perry proves them innocent by proving that an assumption everyone makes, including the reader, is wrong.

ESG isn't unique in that department, because it's used extensively everywhere, from when the killer turns out to be the least likely suspect to a million other variations.

In conclusion, if you're gonna write mystery novels that the reader can solve, you've got to be able to think outside the box and exploding assumptions is one good way to do it.

Anyway, what does everyone else think, and what's your favorite kind of mystery novel?
============

[underpants]

1. The butler did it

[AmyStrange]

4. Of course...

-

that's a classic and thank you.
==========

[Backseat Driver]

2. I like clues and plenty of "red herrings"...

[AmyStrange]

6. Definitely need the red herring...

-

forgot all about that one.

The assumption and the red herring work together to misguide the reader.

Good one and thank you.
==========

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Haven't read a mystery in years, but used to devour them. Gardner, and a few others, often used...

to cheat by throwing in the new stuff at the end.

I consider a good mystery one that has all the necessary facts in the story and your own little gray cells are matched with Poirot's.

Procedurals, where everyone knows who did it and the story is about proving it, can also be exciting, but as story telling, not mystery.

[AmyStrange]

8. You're right, he does, but...

-

not always, and I also don't consider those the kind that the reader can solve.

I also like to know who the sick fuck is and how they catch the bastard.

Another good post and thank you for sharing.
===========

[murielm99]

5. I like the Sherlock Holmes type of mysteries,

where he uses reason and observation to solve the mystery.

[AmyStrange]

7. I love Sherlock Holmes, but...

-

those books always made me feel stupid, but I also learned a lot.

Good post and thank you.
========

[forgotmylogin]

9. A writing term I've heard for mysteries the reader can solve is "Fair-Play".

https://www.sunday-guardian.com/bookbeat/fair-play-and-the-detective-story

One of the detective fiction conventions established by the Detection Club, a group for British mystery writers that included Dorothy Sayers and Agatha Christie and Baroness Orczy and G.K. Chesterton and other genre greats, was that of "fair play". Information was not to be withheld from the readers, who ought to, if smart enough, have a chance at solving the crime themselves. There were to be no bizarre twists, the solution could not be a supernatural one; unforeseen identical twins or doppelgangers could not suddenly be revealed to have existed the whole time. The detective must not commit the crime, and the thoughts of the "Watson" figure must not be hidden (the rules were "codified" by Ronald Knox in 1929 after the publication of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd).

I can recall an instance of "Fair-Play-Foul" - at least with the movie The Bone Collector: The movie comes across as a twisted serial-killer procedure flick like Silence of the Lambs kinda, but at the end the reveal is like "Aha! The culprit is THIS PERSON! What a shocking twist that nobody could have predicted!"

Well...I couldn't have predicted because I had no idea who this character was. Maybe it made more sense in the book, but they did a big reveal that a minor character with like four lines in the opening scene was the bad guy all along and the response is "Who is that? Did I miss something? I didn't even know I was supposed to be curious about WHO it is..."

[AmyStrange]

10. Well said, and...

-

thanks for sharing.
========

[beveeheart]

11. Just watched Netflix series Safe and The Stranger

(Harlan Coben) and had no clue how either was going to end. I even watched Safe a second time, enjoying it as much as the 1st time to see what I missed.

[AmyStrange]

12. I'll have to check that out...

-

Even though the twist ending is usually unsolvable, in my opinion, I still like some of them, unless it ends up being a dream... now that is so freakin' lazy writing.

Needless to say, I hate them, unless of course, it's like the ending of the Newhart TV series. That was classic.

My first three books had a twist ending (in the third) that changed everything.

At first, I was stumped on how to end it, and I actually toyed with the idea of turning it into a dream.

One day, while I was mulling that over, I smoked a few bowls and came up with the best twist ending ever, and it was based on exploding an assumption that I had created for myself.

If I do say so myself, it's brilliant.

Anyway, thank you for sharing that interesting post.
==========

[Tetrachloride]

13. I'm a red herring person in my writing. Looking to improve either

in "red herring" group or other.