Rules and breaking them

by Jenny Hilborne
Author of mysteries and thrillers

Someone once said (or wrote somewhere) that there are only so many plausible plot lines for writing mysteries and thrillers. When I'm watching TV, I see truth in that statement. Mysteries can be formulaic with similar and overused plot lines.

A while ago, I came across a list of mystery writing "rules" on another blog post, where one of the rules was to "not reveal the bad guy too early on, or the reader will have no reason to continue reading." In this same list of "rules", the writer was also advised to not wait too long for the big reveal, or the reader will feel cheated. It's confusing and a challenge for the mystery writer. Following "rules" can make a book or a movie predictable. I've read plenty of comments about predictability in various negative reviews left by readers.

As a mystery/thriller reader, as well as a writer, I enjoy pitting my wits against the detective and trying to solve the crime first. I also enjoy the satisfaction of seeing the bad guy get his comeuppance. However, I also enjoy reading books by writers who break the "rules" and tell me upfront who the bad guy is, or dare to write their book with mixed 1st and 3rd person points of view. Harlan Coban does this brilliantly.

At my book events, I ask mystery readers what kinds of mysteries they like. Some are clear in their answer and name the sub genre or the authors they enjoy. Others aren't as aware of the sub genres that exist within the mystery/thriller genre, which opens the door for a great discussion. For me, and a lot of readers I talk to at events, the most important part of a mystery is the plot. It has to be plausible and contain lots of fast moving action.

When I wrote Stone Cold, I had the plot in mind, and the sub plot, but I wanted to include chapters in the killer's point of view. I wanted to try something different and reveal the killer's identity early on in the book. This goes against the "rules" I've read for writing mystery, but perhaps not for writing suspense, or a thriller.

The reviews, so far, have been mixed. Some readers I talk to believe if you know who the bad guy is upfront there is no mystery. Knowing who the villain is early on is one of the differences between a mystery, and a suspense or a thriller. Stone Cold is a psychological thriller. It delves into the motivations of each of the characters. It is not a mystery and the detective is not the main character. Not everyone likes it (I knew that would be the case going in).

When we know the bad guy upfront, a book (and a movie) can still be loaded with tension and suspense. It lies partly in the chase; how will the villain be captured? Will he be captured? As one reviewer for Stone Cold wrote: "Justice is a strange commodity and it isn't always served."

Psychology is a fascinating subject. Psychological thrillers are always filled with tension. It isn't always what a villain does that's so shocking, but why they do it. What makes them behave this way? How many lives will be put at risk when they take the law into their own hands? The 'why?' was likely the most fascinating aspect of the Jodie Arias trial. We know upfront what she did. Viewers found it riveting to watch the trial. We all wanted to know why.

Villains have different motivations. Maybe Jodie Arias is plain evil, but not all villains are. When a villain has redeeming qualities, it causes conflict. In fiction, the villain is not always placed in the book to create hurdles for the hero/heroine. In Stone Cold, there are three villains, all with different motivations, and each one provokes a different level of either sympathy or abhorrence in the reader, necessary for the story.

An interesting villain should be able to fool readers into believing there is an element of good in their character. Their true intentions, and the motivations behind them, often lay hidden until much later. This creates complex layers to the story and more suspense, even when we know their identity early on. The hidden traits of the villain are still a mystery. When we know his identity upfront, we can see more easily that he is a skilled and cunning liar, and we can see his determination. He may not always win, but he will test the hero/heroine.  

Readers: how do you feel about knowing the identity of the villain early on in a thriller? Do you find the chase compelling?

Writers: do you follow the "rules" when writing mysteries or thrillers?

The Two Things Every Novel Needs

by James Scott Bell, bestselling author http://jamesscottbell.com/      

"Trouble is my business." – Raymond Chandler

So you want to be a writer. You want to sell your novel to a publisher, via an agent, or maybe you're thinking of going indie like 90% of sentient beings these days. Maybe you think if you do the latter, and do it fast, you'll rake in a boatload of easy lettuce.

Well, you won't. Unless your book has the two things every novel needs.

Without these two things, you will have no story. At least, no story most readers will care about. You might have an "experimental novel," and that's okay if you understand what experimental novel means. It means a novel that five people buy. (Please note: This may not matter to you, and that's perfectly fine with me. Experimental artists have given us some good stuff over the years. A lot of bad stuff, too. But if that's your corner of the artistic world, go for it. This is America, after all).

But if you want to sell your work and have a shot at generating income, you need to master these two elements.

They are Conflict and Suspense. 

Conflict
What is the goal of the novel? Is it to entertain? Teach? Preach? Stir up anger? Change the world? Make the author a lot of money?

It can be any of these things, but in the end, none of these objectives will work to their full potential unless they forge, in some way, a satisfying emotional experience for the reader. 

And what gets the reader hooked emotionally? Trouble. Readers are gripped by the terrible trials a character goes through. (There are psychological reasons for this that are beyond the scope of this post). 

That's where conflict comes in. While there are writers who say plot comes from character, let me say that's too simplistic. Character actually comes from plot. Why? Because true character is only revealed in crisis. Put your character into big trouble (plot) and then we'll see what he or she is made of (character). If you don't believe me, imagine a 400 page novel about Scarlett O'Hara where she just sits on the porch all day, sipping mint juleps and flirting. Gone With the Wind only takes off when she finds out Ashley is going to marry Melanie (trouble) and then the Civil War breaks out (big trouble!) 

Another way to think about it is this: we all wear masks in our lives. A major crisis forces us to take off the mask and reveal who we really are. That's the role of conflict in fiction: to rip the mask off the character. 

Now, this conflict must be of sufficient magnitude to matter to readers. That's why I teach that "death stakes" must be involved. Your Lead character must be facing death—which can be physical, professional or psychological.

Genre doesn't matter. In a literary novel like The Catcher in the Rye, it's psychological death. Holden Caulfield must find meaning in the world or he will "die inside." Psychological death is also the key to a category romance. If the two lovers do not get together, they will lose their soul mate. They will die inside and forever have diminished lives (that's the feeling you need to create. Think about it. Why was Titanic such a hit with teen girls? It wasn't because of the special effects!)

In The Silence of the Lambs, it's professional death on the line. Clarice Starling must help bring down Buffalo Bill in part by playing mind games with Hannibal Lecter. If she doesn't prevail, another innocent will die (physical death in the subplot) and Clarice's career will be over.

And in most thrillers, of course, you have the threat of physical death hanging over the whole thing.

That's why, novelist friend, trouble is indeed your business. Without sufficient conflict readers aren't going to care enough to finish the book.

Suspense

The second element is suspense, and I don't just mean in the suspense novel per se. Suspense means to "delay resolution so as to excite anticipation." Another way to say this is that it's the opposite of having a predictable story. If the reader keeps guessing what's going to happen, and is right, there is no great pleasure in reading the novel.

We've all had the wonderful experience of being so caught up in a story that we have to keep turning the pages. This is where writing technique can be studied and learned and applied. For example, there are various ways you can end a chapter so readers are compelled to read on. I call these "Read on Prompts," and it was one of the first things I personally studied when I started learning to write. I went to a used bookstore and bought a bunch of King, Koontz and Grisham. When I'd get to the end of a chapter I'd write in pencil on the page what they did to get me to read on. 

Invaluable.

Again, genre doesn't matter. You have to be able to excite anticipation and avoid predictability. Suspense technique helps you to do that.

I am so passionate about this that I wrote a book on the subject, and Writer's Digest Books published it.  

I could go on and on about this subject, but we don't want to overstuff one blog post. Suffice to say that if you were to concentrate almost exclusively on these two key elements for the next few months, your books will take a huge step toward that exalted "next level" everyone always talks about. Try it and see.     

JAMES SCOTT BELL is the author of the #1 bestseller for writers, Plot and Structure, and numerous thrillers, including Deceived, Try Dying and Watch Your Back. His novella One More Lie was the first independently published work to be nominated for a prestigious International Thriller Writers Award. Under the pen name K. Bennett, he is also the author of the Mallory Caine zombie legal thriller series, which begins with Pay Me in Flesh. He served as the fiction columnist for Writer's Digest magazine and has written highly popular craft books for Writer’s Digest Books, including : Revision and Self-Editing, The Art of War for Writers and Conflict and Suspense.
Website: http://jamesscottbell.com/

Crazy Familes=Character Conflict

Guest post by mystery author Terry Ambrose

Are these my real parents? Have you ever asked yourself that question? If not, then perhaps you’re a member of a perfect family where nothing ever goes wrong or everyone is always understanding. If you do live in that wonderful world of family dynamics where nothing ever gets misconstrued, misspoken, or feelings hurt, I say “how nice for you.” But, as a writer, I find those types of family dynamics downright boring. There’s a boatload of material that can be used as the driving force behind a novel in family dynamics. And that driving force is, of course, conflict.

Conflict. The “C” word. Many writers hate it, but others embrace it with open arms. I say, “Yippie! I found the conflict between the characters!” Let me be clear, I hate conflict in my real life, but I love it in fiction. In fact, I’m on the hunt for it constantly. And that’s why I find the differences between generations so important. Love, hate, and guilt are equivalent to little plastic shovels and buckets in my writer’s sandbox. They’re among my tools to pull out and play with.

Right now, my mother-in-law is visiting us to escape the heat in the desert, where she lives year-round. This has become an annual visit that is filled with mother-daughter rituals, just like this one at the coffee pot the other day.

“Mom, I saved the last cup for you.”

“Oh no, dear, you take it.”

“You always have another cup. I’ve had mine. I’m done.”

“I can drink instant. You don’t like instant. I do. It’s okay.”

“But I don’t want another cup! I saved it for you!”

And so it went until my mother-in-law took that last cup of coffee. If I hadn’t been laughing so hard—in the other room like the big chicken that I am—I’d have been tempted to walk in front of both of them and finish it off myself. But that would have put me in the middle of things, so no thanks.

In real life, these friction points tend to be overlooked. True, they cause a build up of sensitive points that people either dwell on or avoid, but there’s generally a cap on the level of frustration. And then, there’s fiction.

Ah, yes, the fictional world. The world where emotions run high, people harbor grudges, and things (hopefully) go over the top. Being a mystery writer, I looked at this innocent incident from a different perspective. What if this same conversation became a daily routine? What if it masked a deeper conflict? Could the daily coffee argument serve as camouflage to prevent my characters from talking about deeper problems?

When I’m reading or reviewing a book, I look for those types of character dynamics. I subconsciously categorize the different ways in which the characters become obstacles for others and themselves. I give the author extra credit when the character’s inner conflict starts overpowering her dealings with others. For instance, when the daily coffee incident causes the character to do something that creates her own personal disaster, I say “bravo!” In most cases, that is. There are, however, times when I’ll take away those points.

Creating conflict is much like building a house. Lay a strong foundation and I’ll believe that a character will do almost anything—even to her own detriment. The reverse is also true and that’s why I’ll sometimes take points away from an author. If there’s no solid foundation, if the author simply throws a big conflict at the characters, I’m not going to find the conflict, or the story, credible.

One of the best opportunities fiction writers have to gather material about building conflict is when family members are around. The daily incidents, the little things that make you crazy, but that you dismiss, that can help lay the foundation for solid, escalating conflict in fiction.

Don’t get me wrong, I love my mother-in-law. I just wish she’d have taken the damn coffee right away. But then, if she had, I might not have had this post. So, there you go—family dynamics. For me, a great source of inspiration.

Where do you find your inspiration? Do you enjoy conflict in fiction? What kind? How much?

Can Too Much Forensic Science Smother Your Fiction?

By guest blogger D.P. Lyle, author, doctor, and forensics expert (The Writer's Forensics Blog)

If you write crime fiction in any genre—hard boiled, cozy, thriller, romantic, literary—you must have some knowledge of forensic science. Even if your story doesn’t include DNA or fingerprints or toxicology or autopsies or any of the other forensic techniques, you have to know what’s out there. Failure to do so can sink your story.

You might not directly use any of these techniques in your yarn but you must acknowledge that they exist or risk losing the reader. You see, readers are smart. Especially readers of crime fiction. They know how crimes should be investigated and recoil when simple, common sense things are avoided. For example, if your killer breaks and enters and commits a murder, your investigator must consider such things as fingerprints, shoe prints, hair and fiber, tire tracks, DNA, and many other types of evidence. Okay, so maybe your little old blue-haired sleuth doesn’t use these procedures herself but she must be aware of them if she is to be clever enough to solve the confusing crime you have created for her. And the police that are also investigating the crime definitely should. Avoiding at the very least a passing mention of these techniques will cause your reader to lose confidence in you as a storyteller.

Delving into these techniques in any detail isn’t necessary but letting the results of these tests impact your characters is essential. It’s not the science that pushes the story forward but rather the effect the science has on your characters that’s the driving force.

What about the other end of the spectrum? Can too much science kill the story? If you stop for lengthy scientific explanations will the forward momentum of your story die?

Absolutely.

Remember, the story is not about the science, it’s about the characters. The science is not important per se, it’s the effect of the science on the characters that drives the story. The methods of DNA analysis are boring. The details of toxicological testing will flat out put you to sleep. But if the DNA points a finger at your innocent protagonist or the toxicology results suggest that the old man died of poisoning and not a heart attack, tension and conflict follow. And that’s what drives a story.

In my latest Dub Walker novel, Hot Lights, Cold Steel, there are many forensic science techniques in play. Autopsy findings, traumatic wound analysis, ballistics, toxicology, and time of death determination to name a few. But none of these are the story. These techniques might solve one problem but inevitable generate more questions. When one thing is figured out four more possibilities emerge. And each of these apply pressure to Dub as he tries to uncover the person, or persons, responsible for a series of bizarre murders perpetrated by someone with incredible surgical skills and state of the art toys.

Even my other new book, Royal Pains, First Do No Harm, which is a comedy/drama tied to the popular TV series and not necessarily crime fiction, contains forensic science. The testing itself is never discussed but the results, at first confusing, ultimately allow Dr. Hank Lawson to zero in on the bad guys.

Character and conflict. That’s what’s important in storytelling. Science merely adds to the conflict and ramps up the pressure. Never lose sight of the fact that it’s a character under pressure that makes readers turn pages and your stories will carry those readers into the world you’ve created.

How much forensic science detail do you like in your crime fiction?