About Mystery

After watching this video by Just Write today, I have been thinking back to the post about the 20 Rules I wrote ages ago for this blog and decided a few more words on the topic of mystery stories might be in order.

But before we dive into the mystery story, a few basics should be cleared up.

I’m referring to the mystery story as a story where a mystery needs to be solved. It’s not necessarily a crime story (although all crime stories are mystery stories at heart).

There must be someone who sets out to solve the mystery. I will call this person the detective, even if they’re not one by profession and don’t consider themselves one.

And I will refer to the person consuming the story as the reader, even though mystery stories can be found in almost all forms of media.

With that out of the way, on to the thoughts. The first rule S.S. van Dine put out was that the mystery must be fair. The reader must have the same chance to solve the mystery as the detective. This means all clues must be in the story. It doesn’t mean they need to have a little neon sign close to them or have to wave a red flag at the reader. They are supposed to be hidden and not in plain view. They are supposed to be disguised by means as discussed in the Just Write video:

• Occasionally Vague: subtle hints are dropped, often by the absence of something. Instead of outright saying ‘this is important,’ the reader gets to realize that this is missing and should be there. Or the clue is a reference to something, a quick remark upon the victim’s past, for instance.
• Mute Culprits: the culprit stays in the background by not talking much. They’re usually seen around - they need to be visible for the reader -, but they are just that, they’re around. They might turn up under suspicious circumstances, they might mope or show other signs of discomfort or anger, but they will not voice them.
• Buried Clues: the clues appear, but the reader’s attention is directed elsewhere. Clues are mentioned in lists of things which are there or in half-sentences where the other half of the sentence seems more important.
• Signature Descriptions: a specific person or object is always described with the same words, so the reader knows it’s meant, even if no direct name is involved. Like this, specific objects or characters are firmly rooted in the reader’s mind - and those are normally important for the story and, in a mystery, for the solution.

The 20 Rules do not list those devices, they’re more concerned with what is allowed and what is not. Some of the views are outdated by now, such as ‘no romance’ or ‘servants shouldn’t turn out to be the culprit.’ But the basics are still there. A mystery story must be fair. A mystery story needs a detective. The culprit must play a major role. The mystery must be solvable by scientific means (so no supernatural or invented means). The mystery must not be solved by accident or coincidence. There must be a murder (read: high stakes) and the mystery can’t turn out to be an accident of sorts (or suicide, in case of a dead body).

What else is there to say? Well, quite a bit.

Mystery stories are meant to challenge the reader, to make them try to solve the mystery just as well as the detective. Hence the rule of fairness. All clues must be out there to see, if you look closely enough. If you look back at the story or reread it after you know the solution, you must be able to find all the clues, even if you didn’t see them all the first time.

And there must be a detective who pits their mind against the culprit. The reader, essentially, works against both, the culprit and the detective. Whether the culprit is caught, is not important - that is very much down to taste. In some cases, the culprit might escape, because they’re faster, because they’re influential, or because they have some form of immunity (think of diplomats or royalty). But there always must be a detective who uncovers the mystery. The usual ‘and I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for those…’ rant is not mandatory, either, but can be a nice touch.

While a mastermind who pulls the strings behind the curtains is interesting, a culprit in a mystery must be visible. They must be around, they must be introduced to the reader. Of course, they shouldn’t come in twirling their moustache and billowing their black cloak, that would be far too obvious. But they should be around, the reader should be as aware of them as they are of the others. Having a group of suspects doesn’t only challenge the detective, it also gives the culprit a place to hide in plain sight.

The mystery itself must be based on scientific means. There must not be magic involved or a poison never seen or heard of before. The detective and the reader must be able to put the case together from what they can see, hear, feel, smell, or otherwise detect. That is why murder methods like stabbing, shooting, or strangling are still common in mystery stories - they are easy to detect.

And the mystery must be solved through detecting. The culprit is not allowed to suddenly come clean, because their nerves are giving. The culprit can’t be unveiled through a coincidence or an accident. Cheating isn’t allowed (such as holding a false séance to draw the culprit out), the detective (and the reader) must solve the mystery through honest work.

What do all of these things tell us about mysteries? They are hard to write, especially if, like me, you’re a discovery writer. I usually write as the story develops in my head. It’s very hard to write a suitable mystery like this. If you prefer planning everything first, writing mysteries is much easier, I imagine. Of course, you can also do an outrageous amount of editing to get everything straight afterwards, but I’m pretty sure I don’t want to do that.

Yet, my John Stanton stories (first volume to be published in May) include mysteries. John is an investigator first and foremost, going in and looking for clues where others can’t (or where he already happens to be). And I have to admit I know who did it from the beginning in those stories, so I don’t have it too hard to write them.

On the other hand, they’re novellas, not novels, and much shorter. When John is bringing down a modern Bluebeard, chasing a socialite who is pretty alive for being dead, and hunting for a fish which has long been extinct, he is applying the methods of a detective. He is diving into mysteries, but the stories are no full-fledged crime stories as a such.

I was aiming for a bit of pulp much more than for a true crime or mystery story with them. Although, crime and pulp are not juxtapose to each other. John, a nobleman himself, is working with a former professional killer in a Steampunk environment. For me, that sounds like a nice pulp setting. He’s facing people who have plotted their crimes well and have their own motives for what they do. And he’s maintaining the harmless face of the young, bookish fifth son in public, too.

Mystery stories are fun to read and might be fun to write, if you like to plan them out first. If you want to try it, keep the techniques and the rules in mind, then you should end up with something truly interesting.