Mystery Lovers! discussion

Here's a discussion from a while ago which might provoke some fresh conversation round these parts (here)

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

What do YOU think.

In a mystery, you don't know "who done it" until the end.

In a thriller, the reader often knows who the villain is early on. The tension of the plot is whether the detective or other hero will prevent whatever disaster the villain is scheming -- blowing something up, releasing a plague. It's basically will-he-untie-the-damsel-tied-to-the-railroad-tracks-before-the-oncoming-locomotive-hits-her?

I think the mystery is more cerebral than the thriller, which is more action driven. Amounts of this ingredient and that vary with book and author, of course.

There's something in what you say.

I like these definitions but I'm wondering if we need to flesh out 'suspense' more. I'm thinking here of authors like Daphne Du Maurier. She wasn't a thriller or a mystery but a true suspense featuring a brooding intensity of something about to happen that didn't always start off or end with a bang.

Good question. But with her (and other writers like her), the first puzzler I think is this: are they writing romance? gothic romance? romantic thriller? romantic suspense? Mystery? Romantic mystery? There's too many nuances to pin down

Ah, right you are. I suspect she'd fall into the 'romantic suspense' category and yet I still see suspense as being distinct pt from mystery or thriller, though many works have elements of of all three. I need to fish for a better example.

Thanks. We can probably say that 'suspense' is LIKE 'mystery' in that the culprit is not known to the end of the story (UNLIKE: thrillers).

But suspense is not quite like mystery in that there is usually a strong suspect who emerges very early on. Or sometimes, several strong suspects.

Then there's just the classic mechanics of suspense as worked out by Hitchcock. Elements of foreboding and foreshadowing, but with the payoff always held to the very last moment.

Except that in 'suspense' the payoff is not always whether-or-not the #1 suspect is a villain/culprit/murderer. The 'big reveal' is whether the heroine is in love with him or not! He may be a villain but that doesn't mean he doesn't get the girl.

Its a bizarro world in goth-rom.

Feliks, do you see suspense as in only romantic? I don't, though I confess to having written romantic suspense. Generally, I prefer romantic elements as subplots while keeping the main story's mystery slightly more cerebral.

In the books by duMaurier et al, I think suspense takes second-fiddle to romantic suspense and atmosphere.

I can't name any romantic suspense book where a female heroine is killed at the end instead of allowing us to savor her decision toward the villain/hero once he is revealed as either a good/bad guy. Her feelings are the emotional payoff of the book.

A female protagonist almost always 'shares her feelings with the reader' about the men confronting her in the story, and so this is a kind of suspense in itself and it is always gratified by book's end.

A female protagonist is almost never chosen as the lead character in the story if she is feelingless; and just another 'action figure' to be battered about by guns and bombs.

These are murky waters. Not sure if I have a firm conclusion to draw.

Are mysteries becoming less powerful...JUST BECAUSE we are losing our faith in the justice system? I don't think so. When the detective figure shares our moral compass and then reveals the who, when, why of the crime, and engages with the killer (resulting in a confession and/or death) is not this the most powerful moment for the reader? Everything else...the lock-up, handcuffs, arrests...is just material for the screen.

But how are we to believe that the detective-figure is at all valorous anymore these days? How can we go to him without need for heroes and our craving for morals and rectitude, knowing that such figures have all but disappeared from real life?

I'm still here
Greg

I agree with M's two definitions. Suspense can be added to almost any genre when there is tension beyond the daily grind.
Mystery does, or should, mean a collection of clues that that the reader can use to see if they can solve the murder before the ending. I favor the traditional mystery to read and write, however too often people still think they are cozies. I believe cozy mysteries make too many demands that the protag be mundane (the correct definition, not the SF version). There are exceptions, and they do make the bestseller lists.
Patg

Suspense as a genre, to me, requires the POV of the "villain" while mystery generally avoids it. The mystery reader doesn't know who the villain is; the suspense reader sees the villain stalking, sneaking, planning.

I never knew I read mysteries craving morals and rectitude. Maybe I do. But I've enjoyed some where the protagonist bent a few rules, as well as those where this doesn't happen. Enjoyed some where the criminal actually got away, as well as those where justice is served.

Wasn't the crave comment made about detective fiction, which doesn't necessarily have to have a mystery where clues are followed by the reader. And, sorry, not me. I don't crave anything but a good puzzle in mysteries. The back story, fluff and time frame come and go at will.
Patg

You crave it at a deeper level; a subconscious level. You've gained it by dint of all the experience you've ever had of reading mystery books growing up in the safety of this culture. Even if it is not in the forefront of your thoughts or attention *now*, --or so you think--you can hardly be a member of our western civilization without having an affinity for and a proclivity towards ideas of justice, stability, and order. The only readers who do not enjoy --at least on some level--the emotionally satisfying resolution of a crime are either anarchists or the mentally disturbed (for instance, Hitler). Humans in groups, need some kind of organization around them. Otherwise you could never relax at all.

Feliks wrote: "You crave it at a deeper level; a subconscious level. You've gained it by dint of all the experience you've ever had of reading mystery books growing up in the safety of this culture. Even if it is..."

True. Even in a couple of James D.Doss's mysteries in which the end is not exactly conventional justice, there is a resolution to the story that is essentially moral.

Thanks. The way I see it, all moral choices are presaged by one's having built up an 'emotional history' within oneself. Our choices often flow from that base.

Ask a child whether to kill a pesky mouse caught in a glue-trap or go to some great effort to set it free safely. They approach the problem without reference and are temporarily stymied, looking up at us for direction. We have to explain it to them.

Ask an adult to confront the same situation and they will recognize the issue implicit in the choice they are being asked to make but they will also (swiftly) consult their backlog of feeling in the matter. Our feelings tell us what to do.

In short: mature human beings can't stand fully erect without 'leaning' one way or the other.

Oddly enough, that mouse decision reminds me of the ethical dilemma in Doss's The Night Visitor
The decision Charlie Moon makes at the end isn't about a mouse, though.

Aside: I once tried to liberate a glue-trapped mouse outside at night and an owl immediately came and took it.

The Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg hypothesized that narrative is rooted in hunting societies, derived from the hunter reading the clues of his invisible prey: scat, spittle, trails, fur, odors, entangled feathers, broken twigs. In deep forests or vast prairies, the hunter must instantaneously recognize and decipher from the track such subtleties as the trail’s age, the animal’s gender and even its emotional state. The hunter had to assemble the whole from the part, a complex and demanding process that the historian found traceable to “the narrative axis of metonymy.” The hunter told a story based on the all-but-invisible signs, a sequence of causes and effects that was nothing less than a plot. In a nutshell, Ginzburg argued that the hunter’s story told over the millenniums led to the invention of writing, which generated the myriad forms of the reading of shit, blood, piss, pus, guts, fur, feather and stink. From piss to Proust, but never escaping that old tale: No mystery, no narrative.

If this were Facebook I would hit "like." :)

Thankfully, it is NOT!

I like Ginzburg's theory because it is true to the accretionary manner in which our behaviors build up over time. We know that the way the eyes vs the ears of hunter-gatherers developed is still with us; in the way we recognize patterns and the way our reactions continue to be triggered.

But I feel that even without Ginzburg's elaboration, that anytime one of the village's males went out for any reason, (and something happened, half-happened, or even failed-to-happen) this would have resulted in a story. Just coming back to your seat by the fire, demands the story of where you were, why were you away?

I think storytelling is part of basic human consciousness, emerging even when we are doing next-to-nothing; simply being-in-the-world as Heidegger describes with his term 'Dasein' (intrinsically *caring* about what goes on around us even in an abstract way). Another term for this is our 'qualia'.

I agree. I'm feeble at FB chat.
Once in a while in a GR discussion I see something I agree with and to which I would like to respond--but it's been said so well I have nothing to add. In live conversation I would be nodding and looking thoughtful and appreciative. I would be giving Alex that look.

Aye. These Facebook myrmidons are thoroughly creepy and frightening. Like termites in a dark, underground maze or hive. All waving their antennae at one another to send and receive signals as one, 'group mind'. This is not the internet as originally designed by the nation's top universities for military communications, not the tool intended to enable scientists in far-flung physics laboratories to securely communicate with one another.

Interesting to see comments above on suspense, notably romantic suspense. Here's another thought. What about the difference between legal suspense and legal thriller? John Grisham's work is usually classified in the latter category, probably justifiably so because the action content will leave the reader thinking "This is gripping - I hope it ends with a bang" rather than "I wonder how this will end? I can't work it out..." (think of how a Robert Goddard novel unfolds).

I do plead a vested interest here - I have written two of my own novels (and am working on a third) that I would probably not be able to call legal thrillers in the Grisham sense, but would certainly describe as legal suspense by analogy with Robert Goddard. How annoying it is to find that there is no way to make that fine distinction when seeking the best Amazon/Kindle category.

I am fascinated by people’s responses above. You’ve given me some new ways to think about this topic. Here is how I have attempted to distinguish the three genres. For me mysteries have always been about the puzzle – figuring out who did what to whom, how, and why. As noted in a post above, there is an interval in between the initial disruption of order and the ultimate intervention of the legal system. Although the detective may be in a rush to solve the crime, there is not necessarily a sense of urgency on the part of the reader. Thrillers, in contrast, thrive on a sense of urgency and action; a sense that things are moving quickly, perhaps too quickly. There might also be a puzzle embedded in the thriller, but the emphasis is on engaging the reader emotionally. Put another way, a mystery engages my problem solving mind while a thriller engages my fight-or-flight response.

Suspense is a harder one. It seems to be about uncertainty. Mysteries and thrillers have specific goals: to solve the puzzle and bringing the criminal to justice in the case of a mystery, and to prevent some catastrophic event from occurring in the case of a thriller. With suspense it seems like the readers and characters are not on solid ground, such that it isn’t clear what the goal is beyond dissipating the built up tension. Characters and readers may constantly be asking what is going on or what is real. In suspense part of the mystery might be whether or not there is a mystery at all, or if the person is imagining things or overreacting to something.

Tiffani wrote: "I am fascinated by people’s responses above. You’ve given me some new ways to think about this topic. Here is how I have attempted to distinguish the three genres. For me mysteries have always been..."

Good analysis. I just finished a mystery When the Tide Turnedwhich did keep me curious and turning the pages, but not nail-biting on the edge my seat (pardon the clichés). I was satisfied that I had solved one of the puzzles but not the other in the double-layered plot--the right sort of intellectual workout for a mystery. Then I started a thriller The Body Market and I was jolted into a world where all I want to know is: can these people survive?

I like Tiffani's definitions of the three categories, especially suspense. Oddly, the name "suspense" because it has come to mean "edge of the seat" for readers/audiences seems to lead away from the genre's essence, which (as Tiffani points out) is "suspending" the characters and readers within the story. Nothing is certain. No one ever gets to set down, find secure footing. Like life.

What about cozies??? You left off cozies. They are the nicest mysteries of the lot and often the funniest (so I declare!) You can have suspenseful cozies, but and maybe even thrilling cozies, but they are a subgenre in and of itself.

My favorite cozy author is Elizabeth Peters.

In the cozy subgenre the reader is still trying to solve the puzzle that the protagonist is also trying to solve.

I loved Elizabeth Peters' Die for Love. Very funny satire on romance publishing before the indie movement.

Amber wrote: "In the cozy subgenre the reader is still trying to solve the puzzle that the protagonist is also trying to solve.

I loved Elizabeth Peters' Die for Love. Very funny satire on romance..."

Agreed!!

The anatomy of mysteries is largely pre-defined, by other factors than its theme or style. The way the mystery is solved is the dominating measure.

That's why the numerous sub-genres are often passed over; they're not 'separate enough' in themselves to warrant special regard. Its not a matter of how many people enjoy a particular style; the question is one of taxonomy and classification.

I can steer you to an authority right here on Goodreads who wrote a well-regarded nonfiction book on just this issue, if you're interested.

How about a continuum from cognition to action, with mystery, suspense, and thriller in that order?

Alternatively, what if all 3 sub-genres have blurred together, and there are fewer and fewer clear examples of one but not the other?

Great thread, great ideas!

Well its like this. Let's say I have a box here I'm holding in my hands. It happens to be full of baby chicks! All just freshly hatched, too. They're all peeping and clambering around in there, with their fluffy little yellow feathers and little orange beaks. You can hear them. They're making the box jiggle and shake in my grip.

So, am I holding a bunch of baby chicks? Or am I holding a box?

Right, exactly.