mysteries should be a little predictable

let me play along

I love reading a good mystery. It’s fun to play along, try to examine evidence, and find out if you were right. There’s a possibility to predict the outcome, allowing you to play alongside the characters. Then, during the reveal, you can see what you guessed correctly and what you might’ve missed. It shouldn’t be obvious, but it should be doable.

This means when I read a mystery that pulls something completely out of left field, I’m a little bit disappointed. There are some books with good plot twists, but there’s absolutely no way you could reasonable guess it. Examples are when the culprit is someone who isn’t even part of the story. How am I supposed to guess the culprit if they’re not even a character until the reveal? It’s not as fun as if it’s a character I’ve known the whole time.

I think Gillian Flynn says it well at the end of the Sharp Objects mini series: “I like a twist that’s earned. You look back and think, ‘this was all laid out.’ You can’t just do it for the shock value of it.” If you’ve read that story, you know that it’s possible to guess the killer. There’s still a twist, but it’s planted right into the story. It’s sort of like a screen door; it’s easy to look right through it, but if you have the right perspective you can see it perfectly well. So I guess I think a mystery should be like a screen door.

There’s also a point where there can be too many twists, so it’s hard to keep everything straight. I think this is the case with The 7 1/2 Deaths of Evelyn Hardcastle. It was interesting, but the ending felt so chaotic with all these insane reveals that wouldn’t end. I liked the story, but I was a little disappointed that the killer wasn’t necessarily someone I would’ve guessed. I originally thought maybe I was being a little too daft, but I read similar sentiments online from others who read the book. It was interesting, but I also kind of felt like I just got punched in the face at the end. There were too many theatric reveals for any of them to sink in as effectively as a more subdued version of the story.

Another upside that’s lost with left-field mysteries is the satisfaction of watching all the evidence build up when you re-read or re-watch the mystery. When I watched Sharp Objects with the ending in mind from having read the book, I enjoyed being able to see more of the small details that would eventually come together to create the reveal. I can see what I missed because it was there the whole time. However, when something feels much more random, you’re not going to have the same experience of re-reading and finding out what you missed the first time. At least, there won’t be as much for you to find if it isn’t really laid out. A good mystery almost begs for another read/watch.

I sort of discussed this idea with others in relation to The 7 1/2 Deaths of Evelyn Hardcastle, but I’m curious about what everyone thinks. Do you like a little predictability? Do you prefer a more random plot twist? Also, feel free to comment any of your favorite mysteries you’ve read or watched. Along with Gillian Flynn’s work, I also loved “And Then There Were None” by Agatha Christie. I remember enjoying “In The Woods” by Tana French, but I don’t quite remember how I felt about the end, which makes it a little bit less relevant to what I’m writing. Anyway, let me know your thoughts!

ttyl,

emily