Join the authors and friends of
Not Your Usual Suspects for an
occasional series of posts about their world of reading, writing and
publishing.
Short and sweet, hopefully both informative and entertaining - join us at
I-Spy to find out the how's and why's of what we do.
TODAY'S POST: I-Spy: Writing the Gay Mystery – Clues and Red
Herrings
****************************************************************
Nowadays much of what passes for “mystery” within the m/m
genre (and indie publishing in general) is more properly described as “romantic
suspense,” “thriller” or “crime” stories. There is minimal investigation and
even less traditional deduction.
Partly this is due to a mistaken belief (mistaken, given
that all of Christie’s novels – Christie still being hailed as the Mistress of
Misdirection – remain in print and continue to sell well all across the globe)
that modern readers aren’t interested in anything but forensics and psychology.
Partly the absence is due to the fact that sprinkling legitimate clues and red
herrings throughout a story is not an easy thing to do; let alone hide them
successfully from the now-jaded modern mystery reader.
But if there is one single element that characterizes the
classic mystery novel from the rest of the crime family, it is The Clue.
In Mystery Fiction
Theory and Technique, Rodell writes:
Clues are the traces
of guilt which the murderer leaves behind him. Whether they are tangible,
material things, like a button torn off at the scene of the crime; or personal
traces like footprints or fingerprints; or whether they are intangible habit
patterns or character traits, they are the signposts leading detective – and
reader – in the right – or sometimes wrong – direction.
A single clue does not, in itself, prove guilt. Rather,
these are the breadcrumbs the sleuth gathers up along the way that then allow
him to follow the trail to the correct solution. Some clues mislead the sleuth, and those are
called Red Herrings.
The best clues appear to initially lead in the wrong direction,
but in fact ultimately form part of the final deduction.
In the Golden Age of mystery writing, and particularly the
screwball comedies of the 30s and 40s, tangible clues were often puzzling, even
crazy, minor mysteries within the greater mystery: footprints on the ceiling or
a blue rose or whistling from a sealed crypt. The sleuth would have to figure
out how the footprints got on the ceiling or how a rose could turn blue or how
a corpse could whistle – and that solution would eventually, against the odds,
lead to the identity of the murderer.
In real life, clues are more typically known as evidence.
There are four types of evidence: Statistical, Testimonial, Anecdotal, and
Analogical. But mystery fiction is not real life, and therefore our clues are
not typically DNA samples, ballistic reports or witness testimony. Although
these are all part of building a case and solving a crime. Therefore a partial
fingerprint is not really a clue UNLESS it is the fingerprint of an innocent
person, in which case it is a red herring.
Classic mystery fiction clues are personal rather than
scientific. Thus we have an abundance of overheard bits of conversation, lost
cell phones, threatening letters pasted from bits of magazines, and smashed
wristwatch dials. These are fine, as far
as they go. But ideally the importance of the tangible clue is not in the clue
itself, so much as what the clue reveals: a smudge of lipstick in a color few
women can wear; a strange whiff of smoke that turns out to be, not incense, but
clove cigarettes; a haunting melody that is revealed to be a fragment of an old
folk song.
Alternatively, the clue might not be significant in itself,
but yet triggers some train of thought or memory for the sleuth that helps him
connect the dots that form the murderer’s portrait. This kind of clue is ideal
when you’re writing a series because it helps flesh out your protagonist as
well as help solve the crime.
The challenge is to describe the clue fairly without putting
undo emphasis on it. Or to put huge
emphasis on it, thereby fooling the astute mystery reader into thinking the
clue is not important. The experienced reader now knows that any character who
seems a little too suspicious or obviously guilty is almost always a red
herring. Equally, they know that the least likely suspect is generally the one
whodunit. So the real least likely
suspect is the genuinely least likely suspect, which in fact is the MOST likely
suspect.
And if that didn’t confuse you, nothing will!
A favorite tangible clue is the clue that is not immediately
recognizable. The puzzling shard of glass or sliver of wood that, once placed,
provide a key to the solution. Again, you have to play fair with the reader and
make sure the reader has access to whatever the betraying item is.
Sometimes it is the absence of the tangible clue that is
most revealing. Rodell quotes the classic Holmes story “Silver Blaze.”
"Is there any
point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious
incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did
nothing in the night-time."
"That was the
curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.
Tangible clues, though fun, are increasingly outdated by the
advancement of science. This brings us to intangible clues. Intangible clues
are closely linked to psychological profiling. They are clues to character traits
or behavioral patterns.
Clues to character traits are generally linked to motive. Behavioral
patterns are linked to identity.
There are three basic methods for concealing clues:
1 – Distraction. Immediately after the introduction of the
clue, something exciting and dramatic should happen to distract the reader from
fully noting the significance of the new discovery. It’s a bit of literary sleight
of hand.
2 – Disguise. Bury the clue in a list of other similar innocuous
items. Better yet, include a hard to ignore item in that innocuous inventory. A
drawer contains a bunch of junk including keys and a gun. One of the keys is to
a safe deposit box, but it’s likely that the reader will notice the gun and not
the pay especial attention to all those loose keys.
3 – Delay. Present the clue in a straightforward manner but
delay revealing its possible application for a good fifty or so pages. Hopefully
the reader will have forgotten about the original item by the time the significance
of the second bit of information is clear.
Clues supply much of the fun of mystery writing, both for
the reader and the writer. The main thing to remember is that you must play
fair with the reader, even though the modern mystery reader has already seen and
read every possible trick in the, er, book.
All clues must be logical and have a believable and
reasonable function within the story. They cannot exist merely because you know
a mystery story should have clues.
Questions? Thoughts? Opinions?
**********************************************************
A distinct voice in gay fiction, multi-award-winning author
JOSH LANYON has been writing gay mystery, adventure and romance for over a decade. In addition to numerous short stories, novellas, and novels, Josh is the author of the critically acclaimed Adrien English series, including The Hell You Say, winner of the 2006 USABookNews awards for GLBT Fiction. Josh is an Eppie Award winner and a three-time Lambda Literary Award finalist
***********************************************************
FUTURE POSTS will cover:
Kindlegraph / the art of research / writing male/male romance / rejection
and writer's block / building suspense / writing love scenes / anti-piracy
strategies / audio books / interviews with editors and agents / using Calibre.
We welcome everyone's constructive comments and
suggestions!
