Plotting the crime

You have to know the whole story before you start to write.
Then you have to figure out how to mislead your readers without cheating.
Ok now you can write.

You can write beautifully, tell a great story but if you don't play by the mystery rules your readers will never buy twice. My S.O. who lives on coffee ice-cream and murder mysteries just confirmed this. Says she would never buy again.

Kentuk

uncle jim talks a lot about writing first, revising and story boarding later. his recommendations are to do an outline if youd like, then write an 80% outline, by writing out the story in the form of events and key dialogue. only by writing the story will you figure out what works. and while writing you may have a visit from a muse that leads you on an interesting path, an exciting series of events, or an unanticipated but nature direction that leads to a good story.

but if youre just chilling, i like to work out the key parts of the story, maybe solidify the motivations of the characters, and finally think about how the story mind find it self unwinding.

in the end, using outlines as a guide or deviating from them, writing itself will be the best way to work it out.

I think the ends justify the means -- maybe for you personally, not knowing the ending yet as you write would help establish your tone and mood. Your protagonist would be experiencing the same feelings of doubt and second-thinking his/her current timeline along with you.

For me personally, though, I'd need to have an idea or outline of the endgame up front to execute it properly. It would throw off my crescendo to the climax to not have it previously worked out.

I'd recommend figuring out who did it and generally how the story ends before writing. Mysteries are fairly plot-dense, and it's hard to lay in the groundwork throughout the story for the solving of the crime if you don't know who committed the crime. Not to mention that if there isn't an end goal to shoot for, the story could wander around needlessly because there's no focus. That would mean lots of painful revision to fix something that shouldn't have been broken to start with. It's hard enough to get the story functioning properly without adding problems unnecessarily.

You could always do it both ways - you may end up with two different stories that way, but maybe that would work too.

Outline in detail the first story, noting major plot twists, characters, and whodunit.

Then just write - if your deviations from the original outline take you into uncharted - but exciting & logical - territory, consider using it. Then go back and see if your original outline would be an improvement or not.

This is more complicated and makes you revise greatly if necessary, but it also gives you a structured framework *and* lets your imagination run free.

Playing by the rules for any classic mystery is a must - the reader may be fooled by your placement of clues, but never made a fool of by your omission of information.

Kentuk said:

You can write beautifully, tell a great story but if you don't play by the mystery rules your readers will never buy twice. My S.O. who lives on coffee ice-cream and murder mysteries just confirmed this. Says she would never buy again.

Click to expand...

Kate Thornton said:

Playing by the rules for any classic mystery is a must - the reader may be fooled by your placement of clues, but never made a fool of by your omission of information.

Click to expand...

All good points, but I have to add to this -- readers will remember if you do this and HATE you for it. I'm not kidding. I loathe Murder She Wrote because of an ending that hinged on a pair of rubber gloves Jessica discovered during the commercial break. And implicated Cousin Joe, who hadn't been mentioned up 'til then.

I was going to type up the mystery reader's bill of rights for you, but I can't seem to find it. I thought it was in my battered copy of Murder Ink; instead I found a thirty-year-old savings bond (wondered where I put that), a sheaf of negatives I don't recognize, and a bunch of articles I don't remember reading instead.

Now I'm tempted to spend the afternoon reading instead of doing my BIC. Or maybe shopping.

S'Fool said:

In other words, how much of the crime do you plan before you start writing?

Click to expand...

I find it hard to get started without knowing who did it. That person might change as I go, but at least I know who I think it is when I start.

The villain is as important to the story as the hero, maybe even more so in some respects from a plotting perspective.

The villain drives the story. If he doesn't kill the victim, the hero never becomes involved. If he doesn't have a vested interest in keeping the crime unsolved (or passing it off as something else) and act on that interest, the story is over.

As far as the crime itself goes, I usually know who did it, who got it, and why right off the bat. Where and how reveal themselves but might need to be tweaked before the end.

plot

I don't plot any of it. Gag, puke, yuck, and a pox on plotted novels.

Look at it this way. The protagonist of my mysteries are usually trying to solve the crime. Now think of real people trying to solve a crime. Do you think anyone ever walks up to them and hands them a plot with all the details, including who did it?

Not hardly.

Just as in real life, the crime should solve itself. The protagonist's part should be solving the crime with aid of mistakes made in teh driminal act. But the crime solves itself be virtue of mistakes made by the criminal, and the protagonist's job is finding and understanding these mistakes.

I find plotting the crime in advance generally means silly mistakes are made, the protagonist finds them much too conveniently, and I know who did by the end of chapter two.

I'm firmly in the camp of Ray Bradbury and Stephen King on this issue. Bradbury says plot should never precede action, and he's right. King says "'Plot is, I think, the good writer's last resort and the dullard's first choice."

A bit too brutal, but I think he's right, as well.

Jamesaritchie said:

I'm firmly in the camp of Ray Bradbury and Stephen King on this issue. Bradbury says plot should never precede action, and he's right. King says "'Plot is, I think, the good writer's last resort and the dullard's first choice."
A bit too brutal, but I think he's right, as well.

Click to expand...

I've tried it both ways, and I feel more *comfortable* with advanced plotting and an outline -- so that I remember to salt the clues around the place where the sleuth can find them -- but on the other hand, there is a wonderful sense of freedom in writing without being hampered or hogtied by the plot. I also find that writing tends to go faster if I don't feel that I have to stay within a plot outline. It was Stephen King's comments (in "Danse Macabre," I think) that led me to try plotless writing, although I think that Raymond Chandler also mentioned that he didn't bother much about plots.

Jamesaritchie said:

I don't plot any of it. Gag, puke, yuck, and a pox on plotted novels.

Click to expand...

You shouldn't hold back so much. How do you really feel...?

Jamesaritchie said:

Look at it this way. The protagonist of my mysteries are usually trying to solve the crime. Now think of real people trying to solve a crime. Do you think anyone ever walks up to them and hands them a plot with all the details, including who did it?

Not hardly.

Just as in real life, the crime should solve itself. The protagonist's part should be solving the crime with aid of mistakes made in teh driminal act. But the crime solves itself be virtue of mistakes made by the criminal, and the protagonist's job is finding and understanding these mistakes.

I find plotting the crime in advance generally means silly mistakes are made, the protagonist finds them much too conveniently, and I know who did by the end of chapter two.

Click to expand...

I could see this if you're trying to entertain yourself by telling yourself a story you've never heard. Great way to keep the suspense.

However... you're trying to tell them a story. It seems that if you've got a situation that's any more complex than making toast, you should have a pretty good grasp of whodunit before you get started. Keeping the tension high is part of the discipline and craft in writing.

Not to say you can't create quality work flying by the seat of your pants, but it would seem to add a great deal more stress than you need.

Reminds me of the old Olivier-Hoffman method vs. acting story. It's not actually a true story, but it makes a good point...

Jamesaritchie said:

I'm firmly in the camp of Ray Bradbury and Stephen King on this issue. Bradbury says plot should never precede action, and he's right. King says "'Plot is, I think, the good writer's last resort and the dullard's first choice."

A bit too brutal, but I think he's right, as well.

Click to expand...

I tend to lean towards Clancy's camp: The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense... In this case, action doesn't happen spontaneously - there is a lead up to it, even if the audience doesn't see it. It's the burden of the author to know the lead-up without spoiling it for the reader.

Your mileage may vary (of course).

Ordinary_Guy said:

I tend to lean towards Clancy's camp: The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense... In this case, action doesn't happen spontaneously - there is a lead up to it, even if the audience doesn't see it. It's the burden of the author to know the lead-up without spoiling it for the reader.

Click to expand...

It's that "making sense" part that is the plot.

If you can write a mystery without figuring out the basic ideas of the plot, then that's terrific. But there's a lot to remember if that's how you do it - I think a little planning can save you a lot of choppiness and dropped pieces of action if you have a good idea of what's happening in your story - especially if it is a longer work (a novel rather than flash fiction.) Plotting isn't always spoiling your action or characters with a static outline. It can be a good solid framework, the story you will tell with characters and setting. If it tells itself (sometimes my short stories do that) then so much the better. But if you havenever experienced the "Minerva Syndrome" - where the work springs from your head fully developed, then plotting is going to make the writing easier, not harder.
Just MHO.

Outline...

tommy gun said:

uncle jim talks a lot about writing first, revising and story boarding later. his recommendations are to do an outline if youd like, then write an 80% outline,

Click to expand...

I agree with Uncle Jim. You have to know where you are going. Kurt Vonnegut conceptualized Bashers and Smoothers. Bashers work the text all the way through. Smoothers write, then come back and smooth it out. I fall somewhere in between, but tend to be a basher because I usually have details that tie into the number of subplots I deal with. If your work is subplot heavy, you will need to make sure that you map these out, because by the end of 100,000 words, you will have missed something.

Just one side of the cube.

JPS

S'Fool:
how much of the crime do you plan before you start writing

Click to expand...

In my WIP, I know what the crime is, who committed it, why they committed it and how they committed it. What I haven't quite figured out (and which I'm hoping will fall into place as I write it) is how my heroine discovers all these facts.

I think that it really helps if you know certain key points before you start writing because it means you've got certain touchstones in place that you can build around as you write. I don't think you necessarily have to have every little detail worked out, partly because I find in my writing that sometimes an idea will hit me that takes me off in a slightly different but more interesting direction to that originally planned.

If you do want to go into writing without plotting it out before hand, then I think it makes the revision stage more of a chore, not least because you'll have to look at what you've done 'cold' as a would-be reader and make sure that the story works in a logical way. That's not impossible, but if you don't have your touchstones worked out first, it might be difficult to untangle all of the elements (depending on how complicated your story is).

Hope that's some help.

MM

If you can, plot first, then write.
If you can't figure the plot, then write first,
plot as you go, and be prepared to go back and fix.

greglondon said:

If you can, plot first, then write.
If you can't figure the plot, then write first,
plot as you go, and be prepared to go back and fix.

Click to expand...

Man, I plot like a madman and still go back and fix...

I'm working on a mystery. I've found it helpful to know the bare facts about the murder ahead of time. Who was killed, why she was killed, who did it, and why they did it.

The rest of it just emerges as I write. Having the murder basics keeps me from tripping over my own feet.

MyFirstMystery said:

I'm working on a mystery. I've found it helpful to know the bare facts about the murder ahead of time. Who was killed, why she was killed, who did it, and why they did it.

The rest of it just emerges as I write. Having the murder basics keeps me from tripping over my own feet.

Click to expand...

True, but I would also like to add that I let my characters run the plot not plot run the characters. Some like to write the other way around. Like I don't outline, I've got my basic idea/foundation and profile my characters to run the storyline.

Riddler said:

I think the ends justify the means -- maybe for you personally, not knowing the ending yet as you write would help establish your tone and mood. Your protagonist would be experiencing the same feelings of doubt and second-thinking his/her current timeline along with you.

For me personally, though, I'd need to have an idea or outline of the endgame up front to execute it properly. It would throw off my crescendo to the climax to not have it previously worked out.

Click to expand...

The question is, is it possible to write without plot or outline preplanned? Yes. So, if that's what brings you into the scene, allows you to explore as the reader explores, then it works. I write by faith. That's what I call this process. I enter a room, the world around that room and I explore. That's the fun of it. I know my analytical mind will be able to sort it out in the end. I'll revise where I have to, plant foreshadowing retroactively where required. I think it's more important to be in the here and now, because that's how the reader identifies with the author. He's exploring right there with you. Planning everything in advance places the reader ahead of you, because it relies on preconceived notions. I hate it when I'm reading a book or watching a movie and I know what's coming. That, I believe, is what an outline tends to do, make everything predictable. Enter the room, smell the smells, draw the curtain and examine the world you have entered. Because, in the end it will be that world, the one you have created and not the murder you have enacted that will prove your success.
After all, murders in a mystery are like special effects in a science fiction movie. You can't build an entire movie on special effects alone. It's boring. Ah, but that's just my opinion.

Kentuk said:

You have to know the whole story before you start to write.
Then you have to figure out how to mislead your readers without cheating.
Ok now you can write.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree with that. I adhere to the old-fashioned rule of being fair to the reader and I like to plant clues in the book that people can extract and use to make fairly-enlightened guesses as to the identity of the killer. If you don't know the whole story in advance it's almost impossible to get your clues, times, and motives correctly established. That in turm means one hell of a lot of retrofitting. You're MUCH better off figuring it all out in the beginning.

I tried just starting and seeing where I got to once. I had the murder scene set up, got my main character there to look around - and he "turned to camera" and said "Who do you think I am - Brother Cadfael?"
He had no idea how to solve the murder, and I had to think of something else.

JDCrayne said:

I adhere to the old-fashioned rule of being fair to the reader and I like to plant clues in the book that people can extract and use to make fairly-enlightened guesses as to the identity of the killer.

Click to expand...

Good point about being fair to the reader. One of the things I dislike about some mysteries is that they spend so little time with the character who is the culprit (presumably in the quest to introduce multiple suspects or try to keep the bad guy from being obvious) that when he's revealed at the end, instead of saying, "Ah ha! That's who did it!" I'm going, "Who's he?"

Kentuk said:

You have to know the whole story before you start to write.

Click to expand...

This is the outliner's viewpoint, but blank-pagers would not agree. Write your story in whichever way suits you. You can always go back and salt your clues later. (Even so, a real blank-pager salts her clues without knowing it.)

advance

All I can say is that if you had to know the whole story before you wrote it, many of the best mystery writers out there would have to give up writing, and I never would have sold a mystery of any kind.

Theory is one thing, but I prefer looking at how my favorite mystery writers actually go about the process of writing novels that sell. I'm a big believer in looking at the real world experience of established pros whose work I love. Not one of my favorite mystery writers knows the whole story before writing it, or outlines in any way.

And I know not outlining or knowing everything in advance works very well for me. Knowing the whole story in advance may work very well for some writers, but it certainly is not something you have to know in order to write and sell a mystery of any kind. If it were, I'd still be unpublished in the mystery field, and so would a bunch of other writers.

I do it both ways. I was an outline addict. JamesARitchie was adamant about no outline. I thought he was crazy, but I gave it a try. It was fun. I now do it both ways, depending on how I feel. Sometimes I know the end and sometimes I don't. Either way can work. It really is up to you.

Plotting a crime that is the main focus of a story and plotting the story itself are two different things. I apologize if this has already been stated above; I read nearly all the replies and didn't see it.

If the crime that is the focus of your story is a spur-of-the-moment thing then there's not going to be much of a story to tell. That type of crime USUALLY gets solved pretty quickly in RL because someone who knows the person who did it blabs to somebody else, or the perpetrator left an obvious trail of clues, or something like that.

A planned crime of any type involves a LOT of planning unless the perpetrator is unusually foolhardy. Even if several guys run into a bank at noon, fire a gun at the ceiling, and yell "Everybody on the floor!"-- well, there were usually hours and hours of planning involved in that-- again, given that the criminals are not total dumbasses who just want to die in a hail of police gunfire.

A complex robbery, burglary, murder, etc., has to be planned and rehearsed or the criminal's chances of getting clean away with it are slim, especially in this day and age when there are cameras absolutely everywhere. Therefore, to write about a crime and how it is solved does involve a certain amount of planning or the whole story is gonna look slapped-together.

A crime of passion could lend itself to a story if there is an elaborate cover-up that follows-- again, someone has to do some planning.

Therefore, the writer who writes about these crimes and how they are solved DOES have to plan the crime from the criminal's point of view-- because even stupid criminals typically take measures to keep from getting caught. I don't generally read mysteries but it's easy to tell when an author has just pulled something out of his... er... thin air to help the protagonist solve the crime.

As for the narrative, the characters, how they interact, and what happens before and after the crime-- I don't suppose it's as important to graph all that out, that can be more freestyle. But if a story is about a crime, then you have to outline at least the crime and how it went down, or you'll end up with a less-than-satisfying result.

I hope this was helpful!