HALLIE EPHRON: Today I'm posing a wonky writing question.
Mystery writers write genre fiction. Genre. Which means there are a ton of expectations we need to meet or address. And two of them have always seemed to me to be in conflict with one another.
#1: Play fair with the reader.
This translates to: whatever the narrator knows, the reader should also know. If the narrator sees something, the reader should "see" it, too.
In other words, it's not kosher for the narrator to say, "I couldn't believe what I saw!" or "There, in the corner, I saw something that made me realize what was going on." And then not, right then and there, when the narrator has the realization, reveal it to the reader.
The reasoning here is that readers want a fair crack at solving the mystery along with the sleuth. They don’t want to feel cheated because the sleuth hid key clues.
#2: Create suspense by posing unanswered questions and delaying the answer.
This can involve saying something like, "I couldn't believe what I saw!" and then waiting three more chapters before revealing what that seen thing was.
The reasoning here is that suspense will keep reading. Turning those pages. Looking for the answers to those unanswered questions.
So I feel that push/pull when I'm structuring my tale: how to create suspense by posing unanswered questions and delaying the answer, on the one hand, and playing fair with the reader on the other?
So todays queston: How have you reconciled those competing goals to create a page turner? Or do you you just ignore both "rules" and let the chips fall?
DEBORAH CROMBIE: What a tough question, Hallie! I think I'm cheating a little bit because I write in third person with multiple viewpoints, so sometimes the reader may know things that my detectives don't.
But I absolutely play fair–my detectives never make a big discovery that the reader doesn't learn, too. I think scene and chapter breaks as the characters are ABOUT to learn something go a long way towards creating tension, but no cheating by keeping that information a secret allowed.
JULIA SPENCER-FLEMING: When I teach my seminar on suspense, one of the works I reference is, believe it or not, Cinderella.
Everyone knows the story, and it points out the underlying basics of suspense: the reader needs to CARE about the character and the character’s goal needs to be desperately important to them. (I could go into a whole ‘nother seminar on why caring is different from liking, but I’ll save it for another day.)
I don’t think the suspense is in “I can’t believe what I saw,” because the answer to “what did the sleuth see?” should immediately lead to another question, or another obstacle blocking the sleuth from racing their goal.
An amazing example of this is K.J. Erickson’s THE LAST WITNESS, where the detective knows the victim’s husband murdered her. But he doesn’t know how and he can’t find the body. It’s a great example of the suspense coming from the character’s goal, not the solution to the murder.
HANK PHILLIPPI RYAN: I think suspense is the way authors can use time. We have control over whether time passes quickly or slowly, and can play with that to tease out suspense.
In my classes, I teach suspense with—-Baseball! It’s the bottom of the ninth, tie game, two outs, bases loaded, and the guy comes to the bat.
The ballpark is full. But! Half the people are rooting passionately for the batter to score–and the other half is rooting just as passionately for him to fail. Two groups rooting passionately for the OPPOSITE outcome! ANd it’s good guys and bad guys, depending on where you sit. It’s the highest moment of the highest stakes in baseball. We all hold our breath. WHAT will happen? In seconds we will be cheering or devastated. And the batter will be running! Or slinking back to the dugout.
But it’s the moment BETWEEN that’s the jewel of suspense. The moment before the pitch and the swing. In real life, it’s an instant. But in a book, in that intense moment of the book’s real life, the author can pause. Put the action on hold. And, depending on POV, tease that moment out while the reader is holding a hope in their minds. And then boom, come back to it.
And yes ,as a result, it’s all about motivation. What does someone want, and how far will they go to get it? Will they get it? What will happen if they fail? That’s suspense.
JENN McKINLAY: I’m a let the chips fall sort of writer. I always leave a trail back to the killer but I throw in a lot of misdirection.
I write in first or third but only one point of view so the reader is the sleuth and learns everything the sleuth does. There are no “I can’t believe what I just saw” moments as I feel that’s unfair!
RHYS BOWEN: it’s all a question of who do we trust, isn’t it? Who is good and who is bad.
I do like to play fair with the reader. Writing mysteries mainly in the first person we learn clues at the same time as the sleuth. But this is also useful for suspense if the reader puts two and two together quicker than the sleuth. She goes into a house of a person we don’t think we can trust.
HALLIE: So, as a reader, does it drive you nuts when the writer plays fast and loose with the "play fair" rule. Do contrived "cliffhangers" drive you bananas? Or do you just let yourself go with the flow if everything else is working?
I'm perfectly content to go with the flow and don't particularly care [or maybe I don't notice] if that "play fair" rule gets into a bit of a grey area. But please don't give me one of those crazy contrived cliffhangers that make me want to toss the book across the room . . . .
ReplyDeleteCliffhangers that are obviously contrived make me stop reading, too.
DeleteI'm with you, Joan. When there's a cliffhanger, I often feel manipulated. And then, of course, there's the writer's assumption that the plot is so compelling that we can easily be led along that path of curiosity. I have the same problem with online newspapers. The SF Chronicle gives us teaser headlines: Why is This Town Leading the Country in Drive-by Shootings? Then, we're expected to click on the headline to find out which town. I've given up clicking. Give me the info at once or lose me. So... when a detective walks into the bistro and realizes the body is someone he knows/loves/hates, tell me now!
DeleteI'm saving this post as a class in suspense.
ReplyDeleteAs a reader, I am willing to go with the flow but only IF EVERYTHING ELSE IS WORKING, as you put it. If I'm invested and entertained, I overlook a lot. But if I feel like I'm being jerked around and played for a fool, nope. On to the next book.
As a writer, I love to write multiple POVs. One character makes a shocking discovery, but then we're off to live in another character's head--a character that doesn't have the same information as character #1 (and the reader). Or maybe they learn conflicting information. As Rhys says, who do we trust?
Right, multiple viewpoint is is a great way around the challenge. But sometimes what you need is a single viewpoint... especially if you're writing an unreliable narrator. So complicated...
DeleteA lot of readers detest unreliable narrators. If an author does it too much, I quit reading their books.
DeleteIt depends on the type of book I am reading. If I know there's an unreliable narrator in the story, I don't expect them to "play fair". But if it's a traditional puzzle-type mystery, I want to be able to solve the mystery with the clues provided.
ReplyDeleteWhat I CANNOT STAND though, is when the author kills off a long-standing character in a series with no warning. And the death had nothing to do with the main story in the book. I was shocked and traumatized when those deaths happened. I stopped reading Elizabeth George & Karin Slaughter for years because they did that.
Yes, I do not like when they kill off a main character and I also stopped reading Karin for that reason.
DeleteI too was shocked when Helen died, and quite possibly sat there gob-smacked. It was dramatic and so unexpected to say the least. Then I read “What Happened Before He Shot Her”. Not having access to the author’s mind, I have no idea if she had the 2nd book in her head as she killed Helen, and so it was deliberate, or it became a chance of fate because now that Helen was dead, she could write this book, BUT I loved and devoured the 2nd book, and consider it one of the best in the series. Agreed, she does just slightly refer to the original series in “What Happened”, but it was such a good portrayal of a troubled mind, a troubled child, a troubled mother and a very troubled social system. Maybe she should have not used Helen as the portal into a very social comment book, but using the book’s premise, how many people would have picked it up and read it? The second question that arises for me is, had Helen lived, would the series have died of boredom?
DeleteMARGO: I did read that next book, too tk find out WHY SHE DID IT. But I was still not happy with Elizabeth George putting Lynley and Sara Linton (Karin's character) through a multibook arc of traumatized spouses dealing with their grief.
DeleteI too was absolutely gob-smacked by Helen's death--(and Fran's death in Ann Cleeves' Shetland series). Many of my friends hated What Came Before He Shot Her, saying it was too dark or they couldn't finish it. Like Margo, I loved it and thought it was a very powerful explanation of how the system can break down and how well-meaning liberals can really screw things up.It didn't really make me feel any better about the series going forward though.
DeleteNote to self: don't kill off a a beloved character
DeleteI was also stunned by Fran's death, Gillian. I asked Ann why she did it. She said, well, if they went on, I'd want them to have a happy marriage, and that doesn't make for much tension. Wha?! I adore Ann Cleeves, but...
DeleteMany years later, I did see KARIN speak on a panel about why she abruptly killed off Jeffrey Tolliver (Sara Linton's husband). Karin said she was weeping as she wrote the death scene (a pipebomb in the family mailbox). She wanted Sara to deal with the unbearable grief, like her. GRRR.
DeleteI firmly believe that tension and suspense can occur in otherwise happy marriages, especially given the occupations of the main characters in most mystery series. I think it's harder to write maybe. What I dislike is infidelity played out over the course of a series--that may create tension and suspense, but I hate it.
DeleteA master class in suspense! Perfect. Years ago when I was starting out, I took Hallie's one-evening class in suspense at Grub Street (remember, Hallie?) I still remember some of the lessons.
ReplyDeleteAs a reader, I need the author to play fair, and I try to do that as a writer. Drawing out the suspenseful moments and delaying the answer is fine, but ultimately don't withhold information the sleuth knows.
That's a great rule of thumb, Edith.
DeleteI tend to go with the flow but the author should play fair. I am not a fan of cliffhangers.
ReplyDeleteI despise "too dumb to live" scenarios, particularly when they involve a rickety flight of stairs to a dark cellar full of spiders and other creepy crawlies.
ReplyDeleteA problem I've encountered in my own writing: the main character notices something out of the ordinary but doesn't mention it, either in dialogue or deep third. Later, when she's putting the puzzle pieces together, it becomes significant.
Hopefully that's the kind of thing you'd catch (if you were the writer) when you edit the finished manuscript. The early CLUE should be there but maybe camouflaged or overshadowed by other stuff going on.
DeleteOK, so if the MC is looking at tree damage after a violent storm and glances at a front door which is missing its wreath and registers the fact that the wreath is gone while more concerned with huge tree limbs on the ground. Like that? Thanks!
DeleteI hate it when about 2/3 of the way through the book the tall handsome stranger AKA the killer turns up and lo and behold it is that character. NOT FAIR! There are two or three authors that regularly try that trick, and I have to remember to not read any more of those books as they frustrate me.
ReplyDeletePosting this at 8:39 Atlantic time on Saturday – will see if it stays. My luck has not been good this week! Just like in a bad book: here one moment – the next gone poof!
Still here!!! 9:05 EST. I think a good rule of thumb is for the "killer" to be in the book from Act I... not show up late in the game. But but but but I'm sure there's authors who've made it work by HINTING that there's a character not yet on the page early on.
DeleteNo going with the flow for me. I want fair play all the way through. I view the reader as partner to the writer -- without me (reader) bringing to life the story that's (been put on) the page (by the writer), it may as well never have been written. For me to do my part, the writer needs to have done theirs: create characters I care about, craft a believable plot, and use cliffhangers only if they make sense inherently to the story and are not used as pure device to keep me turning the page.
ReplyDeleteBrava, Amanda! I do agree.
DeleteI also tend to go with the flow if everything else is working and I’m not a fan of cliffhangers.
ReplyDeleteAs it is first the attachement to the character(s) that keep me reading, I like how Deborah and Julia described how the writer can maintain the suspense .
Exactly, Margo! If a character comes along and you can figure out immediately that they're the killer and their motive, where's the suspense? And if I've carried along far enough to get to the end of a so-so book, I'll never pick up another book by that author if a) some miraculous revelation/clue/divine intervention reveals the killer, or b) they kill off a main character for no other reason than that they want to change up the protag's love life in the next book. Yes, I'm looking at you, Elizabeth George! I don't care how many books you write to justify the killing of Helen and the baby; everything that happened to Lynley after was just plain boring.
ReplyDeleteSome cliffhangers are okay, in a series. Where the current investigation is resolved satisfactorily, but the characters' lives are disrupted in some manner. Now I'm looking at you, Julia--Kevin! Haley! Sniff! And you, Deborah--Melody!! Andy!! Double sniff!! In these cases, and others, I'm so invested in the characters that the suspense is killing me! And I can't wait to dive into the next book. Also, when--again in a series--there is some over-arching plot-line that carries through several books. One of my favorite examples of this is Louise Penny's series leading up to book #10--HOW THE LIGHT GETS IN. Had she stopped writing the series at that point, I would have been okay because it was such a great wrapping-up of one of those plot-lines.
Flora – yes to Louise Penny and (spoiler alert), her treatment of Gabri and Olivier which comes back in later books. We were both shocked at the first book (I will not say for spoilers), but the consequences were resolved in the next book, but still resonate as her stories continue. There are however other characters who I formed a bond with, who seem to have just gone missing…
DeleteJulia Chapman has an annoying ‘quirk’ (can’t find the right word to say what I want to say), where everything is important in every book, but you don’t know in what book that follows that important tip will turn up. When you meet the important tip, you almost need/want to go back and read the previous book to see how she maneuvered it. Is it a good trick for writing a series – I don’t know, but I think I would not like too many other writers to adapt the same technique.
Oh, Helen and the baby... makes me sad just thinking about it. We do get attached to our characters.
DeleteI tried to give Elizabeth George the benefit of the doubt, and stayed with the series for several more books after Helen's death. (I did not read "What Happened Before He Shot Her.") But I ultimately left that series because even after that one big death, George couldn't seem to allow either lead character a moment of happiness. Every time one of them seemed to get some small ray of sunshine in his or her life, it would be ripped away. I liked Lynley and Havers far too much to keep watching them get tortured! Reading those books became almost physically painful to me.
DeleteFLORA & SUSAN : re: Elizabeth George killing off Helen. Yes, that is exactly why I stopped reading her Lynley books!
DeleteI love a tale told in first person. Love it! Rhys, Georgie not only tells us everything she sees, but everything she thinks about the situation. She's a terrific narrator. My very favorite of Jenn's series is the Hat Shop Mysteries. Scarlet is a wonderful and trustworthy storyteller. She is sarcastic and snarky and I love her! But most mysteries are not told in first person so we have to rely on the observations of a third person telling us what everyone else thinks and feels. That usually works out fine.
ReplyDeleteI am less concerned with the issues of revelation, and more concerned with smart, engaging characters who aren't running around doing things and asking questions that no one with half an ounce of sense would do.
Here here!! I love first person, too. Because the narrator gets to misinterpret stuff. As long as the writer addresses the question: Why didn't she just call the police?
DeleteThis was such an interesting discussion. I find it easy to go with the flow most of the time. I enjoy the parts of the story where the characters are living their lives and doing their work as much as the suspenseful scenes. Too many cliff hangers and dangerous situations can leave me feeling exhausted.
ReplyDeleteRight, it's all about proportion. We need enough daily life to make the characters/situation believable. but not so much that it turns into "quotidian day to day blah" (not a great subgenre)
DeleteHmm. What I have learned over time is that the kind of authors who "cheat" the reader aren't very good when it comes to the craft of writing. Maybe they think they are being clever and then pull out a 'ha ha! fooled ya!' When that is the case I might wonder if I missed something somewhere along the way so I will read some other reviews to see if they had the same experience. Ultimately I probably won't go looking for more books by that author. Life is short and there are a lot of wonderful books out there! Thank you Reds!
ReplyDeleteJudi, sometimes in those "gotcha" cases, an author has to write an entire chapter of explanations in order to make the whole thing make sense. I usually won't bother reading anything else by those authors. At the end of the story, I should be able to understand all of the connections before Uncle Sid shows up to explain it.
Delete... and we want readers to smack themselves in the head and think: I should've seen it coming. (Remembering the lines from (Act I of) THE SIXTH SENSE: "I see dead people. And some of them don't know they're dead."
DeleteExactly, Judy!
DeleteHallie, I truly wish I could see THE SIXTH SENSE again for the first time! I know that sentence really doesn't make sense but you probably know what I mean. And could say it better!
DeleteSixth Sense - I heard that line and knew the 'surprise" - the rest of the movie was boring. That applies as well to books where you know the culprit by the end of the 2nd chapter and it is just a usually boring matter to get there. Jodi Picoult starts to do that to me.
DeleteThis has been a fascinating discussion! In answer to one of the questions from the post, I HATE contrived cliffhangers. I have read just a few mysteries where every chapter ends with a cliffhanger. Or as I prefer to look at it, they arbitrarily end each chapter in the middle rather than following the arc of natural scenes. I will not pick up a second book by an author who does that. I also despise it if there's an added on chapter at the end of a book that sets up the tension for the next book in the series. I consider that unfair, too. It's fine if there are lingering loose threads out there, but I mean specifically moving action forward to reach a big unresolved tension point.
ReplyDeleteThis didn't really come up in today's discussion, but I am also NEVER interested in living inside the killer's head. I can think of one or two very famous suspense authors who I dropped after one book where most of the action was inside the head of a serial killer or other kind of sociopathic mind. No thank you!
Susan, I totally agree about not being in the mind of a sociopath. Not a country I want to visit. Shudder.
ReplyDeleteThis is such an interesting discussion, Hallie. Food for thought, indeed. Truthfully, I don't think about this when I read, unless the mechanics are just so blatantly, hamhandedly obvious. I tend to focus on the story, on the characters, and just "go with the flow", unless rudely pulled away from it.
As long as it doesn't feel contrived or too coincidental, I'm happy to go with the flow.
ReplyDeleteI love this question since I wrestled with this exact issue in my last book! It's great seeing the different approaches--they're all helpful. As a reader, I'm not a fan of the whole "I can't believe what I saw" technique, especially when we've been in the character's head for the majority of the book and suddenly we're locked out. It always strikes me as a bit inauthentic, particularly if it goes on for several chapters. As Julia says, I like when the information is revealed, but I still care enough about the character to want to keep reading.
ReplyDeleteGosh, it is so fascinating to hear the things that absolutely make a reader stop reading everything else by an author. Whoa. Very educational!
ReplyDeleteI don't like it when author's kill a prominent character or one that I've become invested in. I don't like it. And it isn't like a soap opera where the actor sometimes moves on.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
DeleteDiana
Yes, yes, and yes ti all three questions.
ReplyDeleteDiana
I am a cliffhanger lover. I admit it! I remember reading the Gregor the Overlander series to the Hooligans when they were young and I had to stop reading in the middle of the chapters because H2 would absolutely loose his mind over the chapter ending cliffhangers. Thank you, Suzanne Collins. LOL.
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoy books that switch back and fort between time periods, but I think the reason a person might not is that cliffhanger sort of ending to a chapter, like a "I can't believe what I saw," and then the switch to another time period. I have never been a person to read the end of a book before reading the book, but I will confess that occasionally I will skip ahead to where the time period ended in a chapter to where it starts again in another chapter because I can't stand the wait, even though I'm equally interested in both time periods. I don't do it often, but it's my guilty little secret that is now out.
ReplyDelete