How late can you introduce the murderer?

Depends how it's handled--it's possible to write a gripping thriller where the elusive Mr. (or Ms.) X isn't discovered and exposed until the very end. I assume, though, that you're writing a cat-and-mouse story where the real killer is one of a number of suspects and the reader gets to try and out-guess the detective (and author) about which one is which?

Introduce the killer whenever it suits your story. As long as the climax doesn't end up pulling out a completely extraneous character just to contrive a 'surprise' ending, you should be ok.

late

britwrit said:

I know this is a stupid question but I'm working on a mystery right now where the eventually-revealed murderer doesn't show up until about a third of the way through a 60,000 page book. Does anyone think this is too late?

Click to expand...

That's really pushing the limit. It means the reader can't start trying to figure out who the killer is until the novel is one third finished. For me, it would be way, way too late for a whodunit mystery.

A friend of mine writes mysteries (which are sold in the romance dept) and the murder never occurs before page 100. Personally I hate this because it feels to me like the story takes forever and a day to get started (but then she's a midlist author on her 5th or 6th book, so what do I know?). I'm telling you this, just so you'll understand where the following question comes from:

When does the murder occur?

IHeartWriting said:

A friend of mine writes mysteries (which are sold in the romance dept) and the murder never occurs before page 100. Personally I hate this because it feels to me like the story takes forever and a day to get started (but then she's a midlist author on her 5th or 6th book, so what do I know?). I'm telling you this, just so you'll understand where the following question comes from:

When does the murder occur?

Click to expand...

I don't think your friend's novels are straight mysteries. Waiting until page 100 might work for those sold through romance, but an editor will stop reading a straight whodunit within a few pages without a crime.

I agree Jim. (though I think as a general rule, introducing anything so important to the story so late, is questionable)

My question is more a concern that the murderer and the murder are both introduced later on.

When I was researching mysteries, the commentary I saw on that was that your murderer should meet the detective in the first three chapters.

I did read a mystery imported from Britain where the murderer wasn't introduced until fully two-thirds into the book. As a reader, I felt cheated because it was so out of left field.

In general, with just about any genre, I think I saw a rule-of-thumb suggestion that all the main players should be introed before page 50. I don't know where I saw that one, but I've tried to play by that stipulation ever since. Anybody else see or read that one? JM would know where that came from.

Tri

Hmm, I'm the only one saying it's not too late? Maybe I'm overly optimistic, or just being an unvarnished newbie. Perhaps I should have said: "It can be done, but it's difficult to do well?"

I think if the introduction of the murderer is somewhat foreshadowed (without giving away the game) it could be done, but I suppose that begs the question of what "properly foreshadowed" means. Hmm...

If it makes you feel better, I'm having the same problem. I allude to an alien race, and I never get inside their heads (so far), and this can be a grave mistake. I think all antags must be drawn as completely as the protags--given motivation, some type of flaw, sympathy, intelligence--all the elements of a 3-D persona. As it is, I've left them hanging out there as a mysterious presence, but they are responsible for heinous crimes and butchering. At the least, my bad guys are weak and two-dimensional. It is easy to correct however, by just giving them their own chapters, as Asimov did in The Gods Themselves.

Tri

britwrit said:

I know this is a stupid question but I'm working on a mystery right now where the eventually-revealed murderer doesn't show up until about a third of the way through a 60,000 page book. Does anyone think this is too late?

Click to expand...

ok, first I'm going to hope you meant 60,000 *word* book and not 60,000 pages. Although if it's the latter, you are a god to me.

Anyhow, in my book the 'killer' is present from chapter one, but we don't really *see* him or her until much later in the book. I think that as long as his presence is there, it can work. Otherwise you have several chapters of exposition that you probably don't need.

I hope that makes sense.

Linda Adams said:

When I was researching mysteries, the commentary I saw on that was that your murderer should meet the detective in the first three chapters.

I did read a mystery imported from Britain where the murderer wasn't introduced until fully two-thirds into the book. As a reader, I felt cheated because it was so out of left field.

Click to expand...

This sounds about right. I know my editors want a crime in chapter one, early in chapter one, and a murderer no later than chapter three, and the sooner the better.

For a mystery to be a "whodunit," there must be a who and a dunit, and the earlier, the better. Without a crime, the reader has no dunit. And without a murderer, the reader has no who, so there's zero possibility of the reader solving the crime.

mystery

MarkN said:

Hmm, I'm the only one saying it's not too late? Maybe I'm overly optimistic, or just being an unvarnished newbie. Perhaps I should have said: "It can be done, but it's difficult to do well?"

I think if the introduction of the murderer is somewhat foreshadowed (without giving away the game) it could be done, but I suppose that begs the question of what "properly foreshadowed" means. Hmm...

Click to expand...

I think pretty much anything can be done, but I'm not sure why anyone would want to do this in a mystery. Reader want a crime early on, and they want some suspects early on, and they want one of these suspects to be the criminal.

Half the fun of a mystery is trying to solve the crime, and forcing the read to wait so long before this can begin begs for rejection.

Still, yes, it probably can be done, but it's sure a tough road to take.

Jamesaritchie said:

This sounds about right. I know my editors want a crime in chapter one, early in chapter one, and a murderer no later than chapter three, and the sooner the better.

For a mystery to be a "whodunit," there must be a who and a dunit, and the earlier, the better. Without a crime, the reader has no dunit. And without a murderer, the reader has no who, so there's zero possibility of the reader solving the crime.

Click to expand...

I agree with James. If it's a whodunnit the murder must come early. If the murder comes late then it's propbably a thriller, and the question is not so much whodunnit but whydunnit or howdunnit or whendunnit. Building suspense, keeping the reader scared. It's not a puzzle but a suspense story.

I just went through this with an assistant editor who felt the killer(in my book) was just plopped in my story even though the book starts off with him. He's there throughout, but she had a problem that I kept him somewhat cloaked. Like Harry Potter and his invisibility cape, he's there and then he's gone.

He is mentioned and his relationship to a future victim is explained, but she(ae) had a problem with it--so--your guess is as good as mine!


Good Luck!

aruna said:

I agree with James. If it's a whodunnit the murder must come early. If the murder comes late then it's propbably a thriller, and the question is not so much whodunnit but whydunnit or howdunnit or whendunnit. Building suspense, keeping the reader scared. It's not a puzzle but a suspense story.

Click to expand...

Yeah, absolutely. Look at Agatha Christie for an example of a whodunit. The potential murderers come thick and fast at the start, as do the murder(s). This is the essence of a whodunit - you follow the investigation and the investigator.

For suspense, you might not need a murder until the very last page. The reader is hooked by the characters, and the potential danger they're in. Will they get to survive, despite all that's happening to them?

So here's a question - the difference between thriller and suspense? Anyone?

RobCurtis said:

So here's a question - the difference between thriller and suspense? Anyone?

Click to expand...

Suspense: Suspense's primary focus is on women readers. The stories are often emotionally/relationship-based, rather than event-based. They tend to start out with heroine in trouble or trouble finding heroine. For example, she has amnesia and doesn't remember a murder that she witnessed at five, but now the bad guy is coming after her. Subgenres are romantic, fem-jep (females in jeopardy), paranormal, and serial killers (though the suspense serial killer is far less violent and bloody than the thriller version). Violence is more than a mystery but less than a thriller--and generally directed at the heroine of the story. A common problem in suspense--particularly in fem-jep--is making the heroine do something stupid because the story needs it. For example, she knows the bad guy is in the building waiting for her and goes in anyway. If you had to think of a suspense novel in terms of movies, you would find them on Lifetime Channel on TV.

Thrillers: I have a word word definition for thriller--paranoia. They're about how people can can abuse technology, medicine politics, religion, current events, lost treasure, etc. Thrillers start out with very high stakes (end of the world, nuclear bomb in Washington, DC, etc.) if the hero doesn't succeed. Stories are big, often with a lot of different elements coming into them--sometimes too many. Crime is not necessarily the central focus of the story. Stories are likely to have lots of action and be more violent, though it does depend on the subgenre. Serial killer thrillers get very violent, while action-adventure is the hardest to write because of the amount of action required. Thrillers also often take on current events. One of the most popular subgenres right now is religious thriller, and that's likely because of all the bad publicity religion has gotten from the child abuse scandals (my speculation, but the timing's right). If you had to think of a thriller in terms of movies, you would find it as a big budget action move in theaters. Most thrillers tend to be a natural fit for action movies.

Linda Adams said:

Suspense: Suspense's primary focus is on women readers. The stories are often emotionally/relationship-based, rather than event-based. They tend to start out with heroine in trouble or trouble finding heroine. For example, she has amnesia and doesn't remember a murder that she witnessed at five, but now the bad guy is coming after her. .... Violence is more than a mystery but less than a thriller--and generally directed at the heroine of the story.

.

Click to expand...

This is a wonderful explanation, Linda, and suits my own WIP to a T; if you remember, I was trying to figure out what genre it is.
I have two storylines: one is the woman in jeopardy, and the other is the woman who will investigate and ultimately save her; I was wondering, because violence is indeed "more than a mystery but less than a thriller". It's a fem-jep, I guess, with a bit of romance thrown in. Helps me a lot in wording my pitch to agents!

Linda Adams said:

Suspense: Suspense's primary focus is on women readers. The stories are often emotionally/relationship-based, rather than event-based. They tend to start out with heroine in trouble or trouble finding heroine.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the great explanations, Linda. Very succinct. I do have a problem with the above, although I don't know why. I can see what you're saying, and I can think of a number of examples of female-orientated suspense stories, but to actually say that the genre's primary focus is on women readers is quite a bold statement. Maybe you're right.

RobCurtis said:

Thanks for the great explanations, Linda. Very succinct. I do have a problem with the above, although I don't know why. I can see what you're saying, and I can think of a number of examples of female-orientated suspense stories, but to actually say that the genre's primary focus is on women readers is quite a bold statement. Maybe you're right.

Click to expand...

Linda's nomenclature is what's become accepted recently (and publishers have spent a lot of time trying to straighten this out). Both these terms were in use say twenty years ago, and meant something different. In olden times, a "thriller" was something usually based on political intrigue, while "suspense" tended to cover all crime-related fiction that wasn't a traditional whodunit mystery. So, for example, two decades or so ago when Thomas Harris' Red Dragon came out, it was considered "suspense." Now it would usually be considered a "thriller" in the serial killer subgenre.

Make that a double...

My muderer is introduced in the first quarter of my novel. From my test readers and critters, they think it's the first chapter. Though, they are still at the 'guess who did it' stages.

I think if you do it well, it can be done. As long as there are decoys in there. A couple of whodunnits (book and film) have been completely obscure characters. Saw, for example. The main thing is that the reader needs to have characters in there who might be the murderer early on.