Friday, September 3: Bandersnatches
Yesterday (Thursday) afternoon I met with an English teacher from the local high school who was developing a curriculum on mystery fiction. She was looking for a short, simple introduction to the genre that would provide a definition and would give kids a framework to begin reading mysteries with a critical eye. I couldn’t find one, so I wrote the following:
WHY DO WE READ MYSTERIES?
by Steven Steinbock
On any typical week, if you scan the New York Times Book Review Bestseller lists for hardcover fiction or mass market paperback fiction, eight of the top ten titles fit under the broad category of mystery/thriller/suspense. Despite the fact that mysteries are criticized, vilified, dismissed, or ignored by America’s literary elite, they outsell every other genre. How can that be?
The obvious reason is that people buy and read mysteries because people like them. But that begs the question. Why do we enjoy them? Whether browsing for fiction, whether online, on physical bookstore shelves, or at the public library, four out of five people will choose a mystery.
What is a mystery?
Before trying to explain mystery fiction’s popularity, we should clarify what we mean by mysteries. As suggested in the opening paragraph, the mystery genre is a broad umbrella that includes detective fiction, suspense, and thrillers. Spy and espionage fiction is sometimes considered a sub-category of thrillers. Bookstores will often include them with mysteries, or if they are by bestselling authors, will get stuck in with general fiction.
Technically speaking, a mystery is a story in which the solution comes as a surprise at the end. In other words, there needs to be a mystery to solve. But that excludes most of the books being published today that readers, writers, and publishers count as mysteries. If I had to propose a definition that covered the entire genre, it would look something like:
. . . any work of fiction in which the solution, prevention, or commission of a crime is central to the plot.
This definition includes standard detective stories and traditional mysteries, as well as thrillers and suspense novels (in which we often know who the villain is, but we read the story to find out how the villain is stopped), as well as caper fiction (in which the heroes are crooks, and the object of the story is to commit a successful crime, usually a robbery).
Horror writing, while often seen as a close cousin to the mystery, is outside of the realm of mystery although books like Robert Bloch’s Psycho and many books featuring serial killer villains are considered to have a foot in both genres.
Why Do We Like Them So Much?
I often find that most realms of human experience can be understood through the lens of “The Wizard of Oz” – which is not a mystery by anyone’s definition. This might be a stretch, so bear with me. If you’re unfamiliar with the story, then stop reading this immediately, rent or borrow the DVD, or better yet, read the book. When you’ve rejoined the human race, come on back and finish reading this article.
“The Wizard of Oz” – the MGM movie in any event – begins in black and white, and ends in black and white. The beginning and ending are completely clear to the viewer. The adventure itself is filmed in color.
One of the central features that distinguish mysteries from most other genres is the clear and strict structure. A mystery has a beginning, middle, and end. As the reader moves through the work there is a distinct progression forward from problem to solution. In other words, mysteries have plots, something that many modern fiction writers seem to have forgotten. At the beginning, something goes wrong: a crime is committed. At the end, everything is set right: the crime is explained, the villain is punished, and order is restored. The middle is the hero’s search for clues in spite of the many obstacles put in his or her way.
A critical approach to reading mysteries would include paying attention to how well the story follows through on this promise. Is there a crime or crisis that unsettles the world of the story? Does the conclusion provide a satisfactory resolution to the problem? And finally, does the body of the story move the characters (and the reader) in a logical progression toward the resolution?
The Scarecrow, the Tin Woodman, and the Cowardly Lion.
The three companions that Dorothy meets along her journey each represent one aspect of human experience and perception. In fact, I would argue that all human experience can be separated into three categories: Mind (thought, speech, and intellect, personified by the scarecrow), Emotion (feelings and relationships, personified by the Tin Man), and Action (or “guts” as personified by the Lion).
Some of us favor one of these realms over the others. But we wouldn’t be human without all three. When reading a mystery novel or story, we’re apt to judge its quality based on how well it appeals to our intellect, our emotion, or out guts. So one approach to critically understanding mysteries is to pay attention to how a story appeals to our inner scarecrow, tin man, and lion.
In the early days of the mystery and detective genre, the intellect was paramount. In fact, most of the more famous mysteries placed so much emphasis on the puzzle element that many modern readers find them too intellectual. Nevertheless, a good mystery will surprise the reader not just with guns and saps in the head, but with clues, red herrings, and revelation.
The emotional appeal of mysteries has two elements: moral and interpersonal. A mystery, with its emphasis on crime and punishment, is a vicarious opportunity for readers to see justice on the page even when they realize that the real world isn’t always fair. In a good mystery, the reader will care enough about the characters – rooting for the heroes and disliking the villains – that justice gives us a satisfying resolution. Related to this are the interrelations of the characters. In the past twenty or thirty years, the social lives of fictional characters have taken on increasing importance. Mystery novels are more apt to be part of a series than standalone works, and as readers move through the series, they enjoy revisiting character as they would old friends, and they come to care about the sidekicks, acquaintances, and lovers of the detective heroes.
Action speaks louder than words. But it takes a good writer to use words effectively portray action. Readers read mysteries for the excitement, the thrill, the vicarious pleasure or risk and violence for the same reason people like a roller-coaster ride. It’s probably true that male readers lean more toward action stories, which is why books written by and predominantly for men tend to emphasize action at the expense of the emotional and intellectual aspects of writing.
As you read a mystery story, take note of whether the writing is appealing to your sense of intellect, emotion, or action. Are all three areas represented? Try to recognize that your own biases may be different from those of the author. Accept those differences, and even if a story isn’t your particular cup of tea, read it for its own merits.
A good story, of any stripe, should invoke the “what happens next?” question in the mind of the reader. Conveniently, mysteries are inherently suited to this.
I think the combination of all three elements make a story good. The more I think about stories I’ve read and had that “something’s missing feeling” the more sense this combo makes.
What a terrific post! This is a “print and keep.” Terrie
You make some great points, Steve. Your definition of a mystery is similar but not identical to Otto Penzler’s, which I’ve always found so broad it would admit most of the classics of literature: “any work of fiction in which a crime, or the threat of a crime, is central to the theme or the plot.” Yours is subtly different and, I think, more precise in its recognition that mystery is a specialized genre. What do others think?
By way, congratulations on a correct use, very rare nowadays, of that useful but much abused concept “begging the question.”
I had exactly the same thoughts as Jon with regard to the similarity between your and Otto’s definitions and your correct use of “begging the question.”
Okay, Steve. Now you can answer the question of the ages for me: what’s the difference between a suspense novel and a thriller?
I’m not Steve, but I’ll take a stab at it, Rob. In the first place, we should ever remember that such labels are artificial and imprecise, of use only for convenience’s sake, but I would nevertheless put the difference thus:
In a thriller, the suspense is characterized by unrelenting action. A suspense story, to the contrary, is where extreme psychological tension builds and remains unresolved until the dénouement. Eye of the Needle is a thriller; Rebecca is a suspense novel. “North by Northwest” is a thriller; “Vertigo” is a suspense film.
I agree with JLW’s points, especially that the labels are artificial and imprecise.
But I have a simpler measuring device: it’s all about scope. In a suspense novel, the protagonist in in peril. In a thriller, a city, nation, or the world are in peril and it’s up to the protagonist to avert it. So suspense is personal; thriller is global.
The English Teacher (mentioned in the article’s epigram) here…
Great, thoughtful information to help students be active thinkers about literature including genre, story structure, deduction, reading as a vicarious activity.
Thanks for your time and expertise, Steve! This will be a great unit for my students.
The English Teacher (mentioned in epigraph)…
Great, thoughtful information to help students be active thinkers about literature including genre, story structure, deduction, reading as a vicarious activity.
Thanks for your time and expertise, Steve! This will be a great unit for my students.
I would add that the genre is changing to a more open form where social-political commentary is being added to the “thriller-suspense-mystery” formula in such a way that it is becoming a better vehicle for commenting on what is happening to society. “Forget it, Jake; its Chinatown”. That phrase says so much about a city, about the prejudices of society, about a time and a period. In my novel, “An Inconsequential Murder” http://www.untreedreads.com/?s=An+Inconsequential+Murder, I try not only to tell a “detective story” but also to give the reader an idea of the social-political-economic factors that brought on this horrible situation we call “the drug wars” in Mexico. I try not to be heavy-handed about it but rather to let the characters and the environment they move in to say so.
When I decided to write a story about the problems Mexico is suffering, and the people I have known that have been involved in both sides of these so-called “wars”, I could find no better genre this to tell it.
I think that the great classics of the mystery-suspense-thriller genre have always commented, slyly but surely, on the society of their time. Look at “Rear Window” or read “The Big Sleep”. There is not only suspense in “Rebecca”, there is a wonderfully drawn picture of the mores and social prejudices of the time.
Good point, Roberto.
I struggle with today’s issues and whether I comment wryly or slyly here, I strive to present either a neutral viewpoint or a balanced presentation in a story.
Those who’ve lived and worked in many places whether around the US or around the world can’t help but take in new information, affecting ideas and opinions. Paul Harvey said that he’d form one opinion, but after visiting another region or a different people, he often realized his original view was narrow and reached a different conclusion.
There is no shame in learning anew, and while novels shouldn’t preach, the best novels teach.
A portion of crime fiction has always contained social criticism. The late Professor Al Hutter, who was a Dickens scholar at UCLA, claimed that all of Dickens’ books (with the exception of the Christmas books) fit the profile for mysteries. Dickens, of course, was probably the most important social critic of the Victorian age.
Closer to home, the author who made social commentary central to detective fiction was Dennis Lynds, whose most famous nom de plume was Michael Collins. Contemporary L.A. writers like John Shannon and Denise Hamilton continue the tradition.