This is a question I’ve been asking
myself about recently as I finished writing The Monk the latest in my series of
DS Cross novels. I had read a review on Amazon where a reader said he’d guessed
correctly the killer in one of my books before the actual reveal and that it
wasn’t the first time in one of my books. This was obviously a deficiency for
him in the book. But it isn’t for me. As a writer I obviously want to hold onto
the identity of my killer for as long as possible, but this is by no means the
be-all and end-all for me. It’s simply not the most important thing to achieve
or aim for when writing. It doesn’t bother me if the clues my investigator
uncovers along the way allow certain readers to guess the identity of the
culprit before it is confirmed. (As long as they continue to read till the end
of the book obviously!) For me it’s actually a sign of successful and credible
plotting if they are able to do so. I myself am not a fan of crime novels where
the killer suddenly comes out of nowhere in a surprising fashion. This is a bit
of a cop out to me. A con. Anyone can do that bring in a character at the last
minute who the reader hasn’t had a chance to know and assess.
I would also hope the reader who is
able to divine the identity of a killer early might be imbued with a
self-congratulatory sense of satisfaction rather than disappointment. For me describing
the path to finding the killer is one of the most enjoyable parts of writing a
crime novel. The unique and often left field process by which my literal and idiosyncratic
hero George Cross investigates his cases and comes to his conclusions is what I
hope my readers respond to. For the case to be plausible the pool of suspects
has to be readily available to the reader. This means the reader has every
chance to come to their own conclusions, even if a little early, because of the
evidence afforded them. My hero George Cross however would never be in such a
rush to decide who the guilty party is. He has to be sure to the very last
detail, constantly questioning what is in front of him, forever considering
other possibilities and not charging a suspect until he is absolutely convinced.
Confident that the evidence is solid enough to persuade a judge and jury to
convict.
But it’s an interesting question and
I think readers are interested in the process as opposed to just the procedure.
This explains the current popularity of true crime alongside crime fiction. The
fact that more often than not the viewer or reader will know who the killer is and
doesn’t impede their interest or enjoyment is testament to this. They are more
intrigued by the when and how rather than just the who. Truman Capote’s In Cold
Blood is of course the classic example of this, where the reader knows before
they open the first page who the killers are. It is the examination of the
circumstances, the characters and the timeline that draws the reader in and
holds their attention.
In a sense the idea that crime fiction is some
kind of game between the writer and reader to keep the identity of the killer
secret right until the end is quite old fashioned. It harks back to the closed
room plots of the Golden Age nowadays reflected in the popular TV series Death
in Paradise. The entire object of this kind of murder mystery is solely to
guess the killer and the job of the writer to mislead the reader with red
herrings and tangents.
I myself don’t write this way. I am more
interested in the character and the method. To an extent the crimes in the
Cross series are unsensational because I believe that is closer to the truth of
murder in this country. The minor details that can so often be overlooked, that
seem trivial, but often lead to a life taken, are what grip me. That’s why
George Cross is obsessed with people’s routines and the patterns of their
lives. When he sees these routines broken, patterns changed is often when he cracks
a case.
For me crime fiction is more than just a literary version of Where’s Wally or Spot the Ball. In The Monk the first question everyone asks is “Who would do this to a monk?” For Cross this is the wrong question. For him the most important first question is “Why?” and I think this must in some way be a reflection on my priorities when it comes to writing crime. It’s about the why, which in the end leads to the who.
The
Detective DS George Cross has always wondered why his mother left him when he
was a child. Now she is back in his life, he suddenly has answers. But this
unexpected reunion is not anything he's used to dealing with. When a disturbing
case lands on his desk, he is almost thankful for the return to normality. The Question
- The body of a monk is found savagely beaten to death in a woodland near
Bristol. Nothing is known about Brother Dominic's past, which makes
investigating difficult. How can Cross unpick a crime when they don't know
anything about the victim? And why would someone want to harm a monk? The Past
- Discovering who Brother Dominic once was only makes the picture more
puzzling. He was a much-loved and respected friend, brother, son - he had no
enemies. Or, at least, none that are obvious. But looking into his past reveals
that he was a very wealthy man, that he sacrificed it all for his faith. For a
man who has nothing, it seems strange that greed could be the motive for his
murder. But greed is a sin after all...
No comments:
Post a Comment