  Mystery
This week: Leave Enough Clues Edited by: NaNoNette  
More Newsletters By This Editor 
1. About this Newsletter
2. A Word from our Sponsor
3. Letter from the Editor
4. Editor's Picks
5. A Word from Writing.Com
6. Ask & Answer
7. Removal instructions
| I am NaNoNette and I will be your guest editor for this issue. |
| ASIN: B083RZ2C5F |
|
Amazon's Price: Price N/A
Not currently available. |
|
Leave Enough Clues
Sometimes, there is no such thing as too much information. In mysteries at least.
As a reader of mysteries during my school years, I remember feeling distinctly frustrated with Mrs. Agatha Christie. It seemed to me that both Mrs. Marple and Hercule Poirot were privy to information that I, as the reader was not given. At the end of the books, when the detective solved the crime and listed all the clues, I often thought that it was no fair that these clues were in Mrs. Marple or Mr. Poirot's knowledge when I had no memory of 'seeing' them while the mystery unraveled.
On the other hand, I thought that Sir Conan Doyle's clues in his Sherlock Holmes stories were more openly shown. They did not always make sense to me, but that is okay. Once the mystery was unraveled and Sherlock Holmes listed the clues he used to solve the crime, I thought that I had 'seen' the clues throughout the story even if I was no clever enough to put them together and solve the crime.
As a mystery writer, you should always put enough clues in there that allow the astute reader to figure out who did what or where the missing brooch is. But not so many clues that the solution is known before the last part of the story. You can dangle several decoy-clues to the reader to mislead them, just how the detective is misled in the story. In the end, those clues that lead to the solving of the crime have all had to have been available to the reader.
It is frustrating to read the conclusion of a story where the solving of the puzzle is based on information that you did not give the reader. It is so much more satisfying, even when the reader's conclusion was wrong, when they can remember the clues and have the classical 'face palm' moment when they realize it was all right there in front of them.
|
| |  | Invalid Item
This item number is not valid.
#1955164 by Not Available. |
| | | Invalid Item
This item number is not valid.
#1960586 by Not Available. |
| | | Invalid Item
This item number is not valid.
#1954412 by Not Available. |
| | | Invalid Item
This item number is not valid.
#1952219 by Not Available. |
|
Have an opinion on what you've read here today? Then send the Editor feedback! Find an item that you think would be perfect for showcasing here? Submit it for consideration in the newsletter!
https://www.Writing.Com/go/nl_form
Don't forget to support our sponsor!
| ASIN: 0997970618 |
|
Amazon's Price: $ 14.99
|
|
I got the following comments for my last Mystery Newsletter "Red Herring and Chekhov's Gun" :
Quick-Quill  wrote: It took me a couple of readings to figure out the difference between a red herring and Chekhov's gun. If I understand it, If you want a gun to be red herring, you need to have at least 3-4 people with a gun or opportunity to the gun. If you are going to have someone shot, you better have a gun in the story! I hope I got it right.
Yes. No. Maybe. Can you repeat the question?
A*Monaing*Faith  wrote: edit: reading your comments I felt the need to add The Boxcar Children (TBC) mysteries, I always hear about the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew, but I devoured TBC series
think I've heard about Chekhov's gun but I definitely forgot about it...why do you HAVE to use the gun if you mention it? I don't like that rule....
According to Checkhov, you have to use the gun if you show it. According to Red Herring, you should NOT use the gun. What? I know ... it's a mystery. 
Joto-Kai  wrote: The principle of Chekov's Gun is the same with the Red Herring.
Anticipate what every item evokes in the reader; compose accordingly.
That herring gun will have an impact on the reader. The critic should claim to know why you left it in- even if you do not.
Critiquing the writings of another, putting sense into the words and "interpreting" it has always annoyed me. I guess I'd rather have Chekhov's gun go off than an English professor lecture me of the Freudian meaning of a Red Herring.
BIG BAD WOLF is Howling  wrote: Some mysteries are greater than we know. "White Sheep of the Family"
You would know.
Mark Allen Mc Lemore  wrote: This was interesting because I get a daily email from The Write Practice in which we are given an idea and then we write for 15 minutes. We are encouraged to comment on other writers if we write something.
Anyways, earlier this week the heading was- Chekhov’s Gun and the Art of Foreshadowing. In here it also stated how playwright Anton Chekhov once stated, if there is a gun on stage in act one, rest assured it is going to get fired in Act 2 or 3.
Maybe this is pointing me in some direction. Thanks for the newsletter!
Mark A. McLemore
Yes, this gun thing is fascinating. Especially since it could be another item all together. For instance, if you show a microphone, somebody will have to sing in act 2 or 3.
|
| ASIN: B083RZ2C5F |
|
Amazon's Price: Price N/A
Not currently available. |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, click here for your newsletter subscription list. Simply uncheck the box next to any newsletter(s) you wish to cancel and then click to "Submit Changes". You can edit your subscriptions at any time.
|
Mystery: November 13, 2013 Issue [#5994]
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
