Reading the Detectives discussion

I'm curious what people consider most important in a mystery. Of course, many things are needed to make a good mystery, but how do you rank them? Which are most important to you, and which a bit less important? I've listed a few things, but if there are others you feel are also important, feel free to list them, too!

Fair play -- that is, all the necessary clues are given and the solution could be worked out from the information given, no hidden information or illogical leaps not justified by the facts given.

Excellent writing.

Interesting, well drawn, and believable characters.

Plausibility -- events that one could imagine really happening even if not likely.

An interesting and well drawn setting and scene descriptions.

Plot twists and turns.

A detective in whose company it is enjoyable for you as reader to spend time.

Other things???

For me to enjoy a mystery (rather than definitive for all readers) I want humour, and good humour rather than bleak despair.

I prefer for my killers not to be deranged, torturing serial killers with a fetish.

Such a great question to think about.

Number one for me is the detective. He or she has to be especially clever, someone I trust to figure out what I can't. That promise keeps me reading. Amateur or professional, the mind of the detective is key.

There are so many other things, will keep checking in.

I think it depends what mood I am in. I like dark, depraved crime as well as the more gentle type. I enjoy European crime - not only Nordic Noir, but there is a lot of good crime fiction coming out of France, Germany, etc. at the moment.

I enjoy a good setting and I think that is often important to me. If I come across a crime novel set on a cruise ship, or in a school, or another 'closed' community, that really appeals to me personally.

The detective needs to be interesting, although I don't need to like him/her necessarily.

A plot twist, or two, is often a good thing. So long as it doesn't become utterly unbelievable or predictable, such as in Jodi Picoult novel, where you get the 'big reveal' at the end and are waiting for it.

So, I think the place the novel is set and the detective is key for me.

Great question, Everyman. I like both the detective and the rest of the characters to be believable and for the motive to be interesting - not just the most unlikely person suddenly flying into a rage!

I also find the setting a big part of the appeal of these stories - country houses, trains through Europe and historical periods all come under this heading for me.

I read quite a few mysteries so the believability of the characters and the plot are important to me. That is one reason I have virtually given up on cozies. However, I have also noticed that even procedurals are starting to add more and more about the private lives of the detectives involved. I don't mind some information, but too often they go overboard so the mystery is lost in the problems of the detective. In fact, one plot device that seems to be current is the death of one of the team members.

One other thing that bothers me is that some authors seem to feel that their detectives need to be perfect, with abilities that 'astound' their colleagues or hunches that always prove to be right, but I prefer the detectives who can admit to being wrong occasionally. I am sure authors do this to move the story along, but as stories (regrettably) become longer and longer, I tend to lose interest and just want to get to the end. In fact, I sometimes just look at the end, and call it a day.

Betsy wrote: "One other thing that bothers me is that some authors seem to feel that their detectives need to be perfect, with abilities that 'astound' their colleagues or hunches that always prove to right,"

Perfect in their intuition and deductions, but so very imperfect in their own lives. I don't want every detective to be an alcoholic loner, with PTSD and a shady romantic liaison ... Who, as you say, will probably be fridged to raise the stakes.

Good one, Rosina!

And excellent question, Everyman. I like detective novels to challenge me emotionally and ethically, but to reach a satisfying resolution in the end. I like justice to be served. It helps if I like the detective personally, and if he or she shares my passion for justice, even if it’s (or perhaps, especially if it’s) not stated explicitly. For instance, I feel an attachment to Lord Peter, but Dalgliesh leaves me cold.

Good question Everyman - & I agree with your requirements.

Not essential but especially in Golden Age I like learning about a way of life long vanished.

& in spite of my fondness for Georgette Heyer, I prefer my mysteries not to have a romance tacked on - or, at least, for the romantic couple to be "fair game" as suspects/victims!

I'm not sure how setting affects my interest in a mystery, I'm so open on this question. I like mysteries set in other countries, other time periods, but those set in familiar settings can be equally engaging. Here it must be the writing that determines whether I am engaged. Lots of details that feel real...that's what I like.

I'm not big on violence and yet... I love the mysteries by Dashiell Hammett...because they are set in LA in the 40s, and since I grew up there in the 40s, I recognize the setting, rich and poor. The hard-boiled detective is not so much smart as savvy. He sees right through the other characters and knows how to handle them and uncover motives. I'll put up with the guns and fights just to read Hammett's ironic, witty text.

Rosina wrote: "I prefer for my killers not to be deranged, torturing serial killers with a fetish."

Funny how you mention this because just the other day I came across an article titled "What Happened To The Old-Fashioned Detective Story?" and this stuck out:

"But today, no one's satisfied with anything less than a serial killer [. . . .]. In these old whodunits, no one drew pentagrams in blood and invoked Beelzebub on full-moon nights and went out with a specially desecrated hatched. Regular people killed for property, passion, revenge. That's the way it still is in the real world. Except that that's not exciting enough anymore for us. We need identifiable derangement to excite us. . . ."

It seems that the "thing" today is to write mysteries that contain more "realism" where the dead body is described in full detail which gives a realistic and horrific effect and lean a bit on the psychological? It's okay to have these but what about the classical, traditional mysteries where justice and order prevails, where more focus is on the puzzle and where the dead bodies aren't described in full detail? Is this kind of style still used and in a way that is serious to the reader?

It seems that anything written in the classical, traditional style today are considered pastiches, parodies, or homages to the Golden Age Mysteries. Is it possible write an Agatha Christie-type of mystery that can be taken seriously for readers these days?

LovesMysteries wrote: "Rosina wrote: "I prefer for my killers not to be deranged, torturing serial killers with a fetish."

Funny how you mention this because just the other day I came across an article titled "What Happ..."

Dennis Wheatley wrote The Devil Rides Out in 1934 so there were some crime books written back then that included the occult.

I am not totally against peripheral occult and uncanniness, even if it's not clear that it's all rubbish.

Reginald Hill's books, even the Dalziel and Pascoe novels have stuff that can't quite be explained - particularly the message from the dead girl, with her aunt as medium, which Sgt Wield taped, in A Killing Kindness. It doesn't help them solve the crime, but does provide an unexplained frisson when the culprit is unearthed!

Everyman, when you say excellent writing you're not saying that it has to be "literary" like what P.D.James does. James is known to have said that Agatha Christie is a bad writer and I was thinking she said that because Christie doesn't wax eloquently as she does. But to speak poetically and eloquently doesn't always mean well-written.

I like a mystery where I can distinguish all the characters and not have to keep referring back to check who someone is. Your mention of Agatha Christie reminded me of this because for me all her characters are distinct and easily recognisable.

She also gives you little reminders as you go along about who the characters are.

LovesMysteries wrote: "Everyman, when you say excellent writing you're not saying that it has to be "literary" like what P.D.James does.

Not necessarily literary, but writing that is a pleasure to read. Some non-literary mystery writing which I consider excellent, for example, includes Rex Stout, Robert Parker, John Mortimer, Dick Francis, Ross McDonald.

Ruth wrote: "She also gives you little reminders as you go along about who the characters are."

Yes, I really appreciate that. I tend to lose focus on who's who because I read several books at a time. So it's nice to have refreshers stuck in.

This is a bit off topic, but I have recently come across two good crime podcasts. One hosted by Mark Billingham and the other by Luca Verde and Steve Cavanagh. I will include links if anyone wants to have a listen:

https://www.acast.com/astabinthedark

https://twocrimewritersandamicrophone...

Susan wrote: "This is a bit off topic, but I have recently come across two good crime podcasts. One hosted by Mark Billingham and the other by Luca Verde and Steve Cavanagh. I will include links if anyone wants ..."

Thanks Susan. I particularly like the look of the Mark Billingham one, so I'll give that one a go.

The Billingham one covers television dramas and books, Ruth.

I like distinct characters both detective and suspects. Pure mysteries--such as the Golden Age and like Ellery Queen were focused on the murder(s) itself. There wasn't much of a background on the detective. I like the Leaphorn/Chee mysteries because get to know the detectives and the mysteries they solve become intertwined with their lives. On the other hand, I don't mind a pure mystery with fair play and everything that is expected because then it is a puzzle to me. Good mysteries can be literary. I just read "Red Harvest" again by Dashiell Hammett, which must be blueprint for every private eye novel, and event though are several mini-mysteries in the book, the detective does undergo a change in the book which to me is closer to literary. I think Ross McDonald's Lew Archer books are both mysteries and literary because of the observations he makes and the people he encounters.

I like an engaging story. Good writing. Attention to detail. I do like noir.

We should know something about the lead detective but not necessarily everything.

I also like some wit. So I like Hammett, Chandler and also Crais.

Susan wrote: "The Billingham one covers television dramas and books, Ruth."

Perfect! I saw an advert for it on the Drama Channel this morning. Currently listening to the episode about how female sleuths have evolved.

Glad you like it, Ruth :)

The one thing I have noticed in recent mysteries is that every character is unhappy, even those that are not the main protagonists. Too much angst gets a little tiring after a while.

I love the golden age books which are pretty straightforward stories but don't give me a book full of coincidences.....that is a cheap way to wrap up a case. I also enjoy a detective who has some quirks, such as Nero Wolfe, Ellery Queen, or Lord Peter Wimsey .Some of the British police procedurals also appeal to me as well.

Let's face it, I love a good mystery!!!

Yes, that is a good point, Jill. Too many personal problems with the detective can get tiring at times; although it depends how it is done.

I quite like to find out more about the detective and don't mind a bit of angst - or even a lot of it sometimes, but I agree it has to be done well!:Also if the detective has a complicated home life, it can be hard to keep track of both that and the actual mystery plot.

I enjoy Nordic Noir, but they often have some of the most angst ridden detectives, in my opinion.

Susan wrote: "I enjoy Nordic Noir, but they often have some of the most angst ridden detectives, in my opinion."

I've just listened to the episode of the podcast A Stab in the Dark where Mark Billingham talks to Anne Cleeves and Yrsa Sigurdardottir where they discuss Nordic Noir.

I have Yrsa Sigurdardottir's new novel on my TBR and reviewed pile, so I should listen to that, thanks Ruth.

Susan wrote: "I have Yrsa Sigurdardottir's new novel on my TBR and reviewed pile, so I should listen to that, thanks Ruth."

I hadn't heard of her before but it was very interesting. I don't know how Mark Billingham remembers all the pronunciations though - he didn't stumble at all!

Everyman wrote: "I'm curious what people consider most important in a mystery. Of course, many things are needed to make a good mystery, but how do you rank them? Which are most important to you, and which a bit le..."

Fair play is pretty important to me, though a very good writer can make me like one which doesn't include this. Good writing re: plot and characters (not necessarily literary in style) is important and can make me put up with somewhat implausible scenarios that would bother me in another's writing.

Twists & turns are fun but the main thing is that the culprit isn't obvious. I like to be kept guessing up to the end!

As has been mentioned by someone previously, I don't like a lot of angst about the detective's personal life. And in the same vein, I prefer the book to focus on the case and not have a lot of extraneous stuff so I prefer them to be on the short side - 180 to 250 pages rather than 400+!

I guess that the main feature that is important is a book that I can't put down, that absorbs me -- but what makes a mystery do this for me I find hard to pinpoint!

A puzzle with a fair solution, i. e., a story that develops in a surprising and realistic manner.

Marcus wrote: "A puzzle with a fair solution, i. e., a story that develops in a surprising and realistic manner."

I like that definition. Both surprising and realistic, but fair to the reader, too. Perfect!

Jill wrote: "The one thing I have noticed in recent mysteries is that every character is unhappy, even those that are not the main protagonists. Too much angst gets a little tiring after a while..."

This seems to be the case not only with mysteries but with most mainstream fiction as well. Seems like nobody is able to write a happy book, or if they do, nobody will publish it.

Ah, for the days of D. E. Stevenson and Elizabeth Goudge! Happy books all.

Ruth wrote: "Susan wrote: "I have Yrsa Sigurdardottir's new novel on my TBR and reviewed pile, so I should listen to that, thanks Ruth."

I hadn't heard of her before but it was very interesting. I don't know h..."

I spoke too soon! Just listened to the last 5 mins of the show and he stumbles right at the end but I have a feeling he did it so he could say her name a few times to make it more familiar to the listeners.

Abigail wrote: "Ah, for the days of D. E. Stevenson and Elizabeth Goudge! Happy books all."

I'd love the trend for their sort of books to come round again!

Marcus wrote: "A puzzle with a fair solution, i. e., a story that develops in a surprising and realistic manner."

Good point,Marcus......a fair solution. Some writers have a tendency come to the solution in a very convoluted manner, one that the reader could never guess. Others repeat in many of their novels that the villain is always the person you would least expect, so you can figure who it is almost from the beginning. That's no fun...I like to work through the clues just like the detective does. And don't spring some unexpected fact on the last couple of pages and wrap up the story.......that is not a fair solution.

Another thing that irks me is when a book doesn't conclude properly. Just finished reading a crime novel, Nowhere to Run and there are loose ends. The author obviously wants you to read on, but I do think every novel should finish properly, even if there will be a sequel...

Everyman wrote: "Jill wrote: "The one thing I have noticed in recent mysteries is that every character is unhappy, even those that are not the main protagonists. Too much angst gets a little tiring after a while......"

A few years ago (during my Celtic phase!) I wrote two mystery novels---my "detective" was a Druid and his sidekick a former Roman slave. Historically as accurate as possible, but still a rather off-the-wall cozy type mystery. With the help of a former professor friend, I got an agent, and finally some serious interest from a major publisher. I was over the moon, until I got the suggestions for adjustments. More blood, more gore, more in-depth sex and violence. In other words, they liked my premise and story, but wanted something "more modern". I couldn't do it. Friends were telling me to just give them what they want---but not everyone can write everything any more than any flower can bloom anywhere. Thus was flushed my great chance.

Abigail wrote: "Ah, for the days of D. E. Stevenson and Elizabeth Goudge! Happy books all."

Ooh, yes. It's a sort of mystery, so I can mention her Goudge's marvelous book "A City of Bells." Not to be missed. Superb.

Lynne wrote: "A few years ago (during my Celtic phase!) I wrote two mystery novels---my "detective" was a Druid and his sidekick a former Roman slave. Historically as accurate as possible, but still a rather off-the-wall cozy type mystery. With the help of a former professor friend, I got an agent, and finally some serious interest from a major publisher. I was over the moon, until I got the suggestions for adjustments. More blood, more gore, more in-depth sex and violence. In other words, they liked my premise and story, but wanted something "more modern". I couldn't do it. Friends were telling me to just give them what they want---but not everyone can write everything any more than any flower can bloom anywhere. Thus was flushed my great chance."

I think it's good not to compromise your story or any story for that matter for the sake of "being modern" because at the end of the day when you add all those things to the story first off, will you be satisfied by it and secondly, will it serve your story? That's why I don't read many modern day mystery/psychological thrillers because the amount of violence, unnecessary profanity, and in-depth sex and brutality described in those books. I don't believe you need all those things to have a good book and one that can sell. Mystery writers of old didn't have that stuff in it and their books sold well. I don't read many modern day mystery authors aside from Anne Perry and I'm thinking about reading Charles Finch but that's about all I can think off the top of my head at the moment. If my friends told me to just give the publisher what he/she wants and just give them something more "modern", I would move onto another publisher. If your work is well-written, has interesting characters and a plot to boot, a publisher will accept it based on the story alone and not take it only if you add something modern just to appeal to the masses . . . . for the moment. Because that's what it will do, appeal for the moment until the next book becomes the next craze. Your great chance will come if you keep on working at the craft, willing to learn and being persistent

Lynne, I have so much sympathy for your situation. I think it’s dreadful what agents and acquiring editors feel they can demand of their authors—and their utter lack of a sense of adventure or discovery in fiction! As a person who has worked around the edges of the publishing business my entire adult life, I firmly believe that agents and publishers should agree to publish something or not, but almost never recommend major revisions. Copy editing and polishing, sure; but the rest is just imposing their own ego on the manuscript, usually with no more real sense of what readers might actually want to read than a flea.

As a reader, I hate that with the vast majority of books, you can tell what you’re going to get from the cover and the blurb. You know what the plot twists are going to be. You know what the characters are going to say. Faugh! Books that surprise me are the books I treasure.

I love the concept for your novel. If you decide to self-publish it, I hope you’ll let me know because I’d like to read it. In my late teens, I tried to write a novel set in that era, so it’s an interest of mine as well. And no in-depth sex or violence works for me!

Abigail wrote: "As a reader, I hate that with the vast majority of books, you can tell what you’re going to get from the cover and the blurb. You know what the plot twists are going to be. You know what the characters are going to say. Faugh! Books that surprise me are the books I treasure."

Have read any recent mysteries or psychological thrillers that have an unexpected plot twist or characters that are unpredictable?

Sadly, I have little time for reading beyond Goodreads group reads these days—though I'm currently reading the third in a cozy series by Jim and Joyce Lavene, Putting on the Witch. The cozy-mystery norms are all there, but the subject matter has original elements that keep me reading. I read a certain number of witch-themed cozies and like the Lavene ones the best (though the plots are sometimes inconclusive). Sad to read in this book that the Joyce half of the pair has died.

Not so recent, but I also like the Joanne Dobson mysteries set in a fictional New England college town. Good characters and thematic development, though she does lean on the climactic gunpoint scene where the perp explains him/herself, a feature that bores me silly.

For a non-mystery set in the mystery-writer milieu, I can recommend Pen and Prejudice by Claire M. Johnson. It’s a pastiche of Pride and Prejudice with the main characters all second-string mystery authors. Has a lot of sharp things to say about the publishing world! (Though, as a romance novel, it has to be optimistic about high-minded indie publishing.)

I just read an odd little book (hardly more than a novella) that surprised me continually; I still can’t decide whether I like it or not. It might qualify as a psychological thriller, though there isn’t the nonstop action you’d expect from that label: The Fine Point of His Soul by Julie Bozza. Set mostly in Rome, with the English Romantic poets as main characters. I certainly enjoyed being surprised by it.

Mostly I like spare, elegant books like those of Tony Hillerman, Robert B. Parker, or Sara Paretsky (but I also adore the Allinghams and Inneses and Sayerses of the golden age). Those seem to me to rise consistently above cliché. The Laurie King series with Sherlock and Mary Holmes is uneven but when it’s good, it’s very very good for me.

Abigail both Joyce and Jim Lavene have died now - her husband I think managed 6 months and then passed as well :(

Oh, I'm so sorry to hear that, Hilary! Thanks for letting me know. They had so much youthful vigor in their writing, for all they wrote about older people. I shall have to backtrack into some of their other series, by way of memorial.

Abigail wrote: "Oh, I'm so sorry to hear that, Hilary! Thanks for letting me know. They had so much youthful vigor in their writing, for all they wrote about older people. I shall have to backtrack into some of th..."

I just read Murder Fir Christmas