Historical Mystery Lovers discussion

There is a certain trend in both historical and contemporary mysteries and police procedurals to include supernatural and paranormal elements into the plot. What do you think of this trend? Do you enjoy these elements? Why or why not?

I don't mind paranormal or supernatural aspects in a mystery as long as it does not come off corny or too far out there.

I do not like the trend toward including supernatural elements in mysteries, historical or contemporary. I will drop a series in a heartbeat if they start moving in that direction and will not pick one up if it's in the description. I don't like paranormal or supernatural fiction of any kind.

I love supernatural elements if they are based in a cultural/spiritual tradition and seem authentic to me. Just like any other element, it would need to be researched by the author to find out how it was practiced during the period.

I am not a fan of the supernatural and would not like it in my historical fiction unless it was presented as a part of history like what the people of the time believed in.

Not for historicals. I read historicals because I like to read a murder mystery set in other times, without all the forensic stuff. When you start adding supernatural elements, specially if it's to aid in the mystery, then what I like about historical mysteries goes away. It's almost like a contemporary mystery with period clothes!

DG
Well put! I agree whole-heartedly. I love the historical mystery for its time period, language and character development. I especially love the british mystery set in victorian-WWII time periods and I think the author then provides a greater story without relying on the forensic science. Therefore you are right a "contemporary mystery with period clothes!"

I'm not a big fan of supernatural, but I do love a good time-travel if the historical portion is true to history. (I don't care how they got there.) Not so sure this applies to mysteries.

D.G. wrote: "Not for historicals. I read historicals because I like to read a murder mystery set in other times, without all the forensic stuff. When you start adding supernatural elements, specially if it's to..."

Ditto for me. And I love to read stuff in the fantasy and urban fantasy genres so I clearly enjoy those fantastical elements but, as D.G. said, that's not what I read historical mysteries for.

Michell wrote: "DG
Well put! I agree whole-heartedly. I love the historical mystery for its time period, language and character development. I especially love the british mystery set in victorian-WWII time peri..."

The supernatural can be part of the time period and the milieu. An ancient Greek period mystery which includes consulting an oracle would be one example. A 19th century New Orleans mystery that involves Voodoo and includes spirit possession would be another. As I said, I'd want such elements to be authentic and well-researched.

We really need "Like" button here!

I'm okay with the aspect of it being accurate to the time period (Shomeret made some great examples) but if it goes into elements of fantasy, I'm done. I like fantasy books, but when I think of historical mysteries, I think they need to be something that could have happened in the historical time period.

I do not like supernatural elements. As much as I enjoy the Lady Julia Grey stories, Brisbane's "second sight" annoys me. Now, if the characters are going to believe in the supernatural, as might be appropriate for the time, I'm okay with that so long as there is a rational explanation.

I'm with Shomeret.

Character believes in ghosts because most people did when and where it's set? Great. Historical accuracy. But mediums actually contacting the dead for real drives me nuts. (A con artist faking a successful seance? Bring it on. You could get a good plot that way, too.)

I also like fantasy, and historical fantasy, but I read them for different reasons than historical mystery, and I don't want them all combined into one big mush.

Susanna - Censored by GoodReads wrote: "I'm with Shomeret.

Character believes in ghosts because most people did when and where it's set? Great. Historical accuracy. But mediums actually contacting the dead for real drives me nuts. (..."

I hate con artists faking seances because I think they're a cliche. There are way too many mysteries that use that plot. It's very predictable.

Let us agree to disagree about genuine mediums contacting spirits.

Susanna - Censored by GoodReads wrote: "As much as I enjoy the Lady Julia Grey stories, Brisbane's "second sight" annoys me."

Now that didn't bother me perhaps due to his gypsy lineage or the fact that it doesn't really play an important role in the plots.

There are also St. Cyr's vision and hearing. I guess it makes it easier to move the plot along if the character has the ability to solve the mystery by unexplainable means. I do like how she has involved his abilities into part of his heritage in the later books.

Chris wrote: "There are also St. Cyr's vision and hearing."

There's an author's note at the end of the first book where Harris explains that these abilities are biological rather than supernatural. Whether or not this is factual or fictional, she doesn't perceive them as paranormal abilities.

Lauren wrote: "Susanna - Censored by GoodReads wrote: "As much as I enjoy the Lady Julia Grey stories, Brisbane's "second sight" annoys me."

Now that didn't bother me perhaps due to his gypsy lineage or the fact..."

Same here, Lauren.

For the most part, I wouldn't mix supernatural with historical mystery either. How would you categorize Outlander, however? I guess that would be more historical fiction, not mystery. I thought the supernatural premise to that story was interesting and had a lot of promise, but, in my opinion, Gabaldon blew it. I really hated that book and had to quit. There were just too many holes in the plot and too much gratuitous sex/torture.