Showing posts with label Detectives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Detectives. Show all posts

Sunday, 21 May 2023

Murdle: 100 Solve 100 Devilishly Devious Murder Mystery Logic Puzzles


Every Murdle includes a list of suspects, murder locations and murder weapons. There is also a list of clues. All suspects were only in one location with one murder weapon, but only one of them committed the murder.

Use the clues to fill in the deduction grid. When, for example, you work out what weapon a suspect had, put atick in the box. At the same time, put a cross against the other weapons for that suspect because you now know they did not have those. When you have enough information in the grid - who had what, and where - use the clue in red to work out whodunit. 

Good luck, gumshoe!

Murdle: 100 Solve 100 Devilishly Devious Murder Mystery Logic Puzzles by G.T. Karber (Souvenir Press) Out 6 July 2023, creator of Murdle.com.

From G. T. Karber, the creator of the popular online daily mystery game at www.Murdle.com, comes this fiendishly compulsive and absolutely killer collection of 100 original murder mystery logic puzzles. Join Deductive Logico and pit your wits against a slew of dastardly villains in order to discover: - Who committed the ghastly deed? - What weapon was used to dispatch the victim? - Where did the dreadful demise occur? These humorous mini-mystery puzzles challenge you to find whodunit, how, where, and why. Examine the clues, interview the witnesses, and use the power of deduction to complete the grid and catch the culprit. Packed with illustrations, codes, and maps, this is the must-have detective casebook for the secret sleuth in everyone. Are you the next Miss Marple or Hercule Poirot? You'll soon find out, if you dare to Murdle! Perfect for fans of Sudoku, Wordle, and other logic games, Karber’s Murdle is a brand new utterly addictive new puzzle for armchair detectives.




Friday, 9 March 2018

M.J. FORD on The right woman for the job (choosing a protagonist)


Who's story is this? It's a question story creators have to ask themselves. Looking back a hundred years, the protagonist of almost every book for adults was an adult, white male of some financial means. And there was an obvious correlation, in those regards, between the authors and their main characters and their readers. Thankfully, that tradition has been eroded. The barriers to being a writer have shifted for the better, and the novel as a form has developed in myriad directions as the reading public have democratised, while becoming more sophisticated and liberal in their tastes. There's nothing shocking, or risky, about a female protagonist, a child, an animal, an alien being, a werewolf, or even, in a recent remarkable first, an unborn foetus. The rise of the anti-hero is a case in point – the reader doesn’t have to have a great deal of empathy for the main character, but to stop a novel being simply an exercise in detached voyeurism, sympathy is crucial. We need a degree of psychological insight into a character to follow them for umpteen hundred pages.

When I’m not writing, I work as a story-creator with an editorial collective, and one of the questions we ask ourselves most often, as we brainstorm ideas, is: ‘Are we telling this story from the right point of view?’ Some times the main character we begin with just doesn’t have the dramatic potential we hoped. He or she can be retro-engineered, of course, so that inherent personality traits or personal circumstances take on more resonance within the broader themes of the story. However, sometimes we’re just looking through the wrong eyes. Perhaps the sidekick is a better choice, or even the villain of the piece. It’s an interesting exercise to consider how famous works of fiction might completely alter in tone and texture if told from different points of view: for instance, Brett Easton Ellis’s American Pyscho through the eyes of the detective (Kimball) would make a fairly good mystery yarn, though it would have almost nothing in common with the original.

When my publisher Avon came to me, a self-confessed man, with the rough idea for Hold My Hand, I didn’t have any misgivings about the prospect of the point-of-view character being female and therefore in some way outside my purview. And it shouldn’t really matter, should it? I’ve written novels for children where the main characters are girls and boys. Some of them have been vampires. Some of them have been dead. Some have been soldiers or slaves or super-powered. The point is that in fiction it’s almost always an imaginative leap into another person’s head, and a gender switch seems unremarkable compared with other mental contortions. And with Hold My Hand it makes sense for Detective Masters to be Josie rather than Joseph. From a creative perspective, it’s a no-brainer. Traditionally, most detectives have been men, both in fiction and reality. We want our characters, our heroes, to stand out and struggle against the status quo, so a female lead is an obvious choice.

Also, one of the major themes that emerged as I was writing the book is one of motherhood and the maternal instinct. This bond is tested and twisted in the novel, and Jo’s own character struggles echo and reflect the main plot strands. If she were a man, this dimension would have been shallower, and perhaps non-existent.

Finally, there’s the commercial argument, which is the least compelling to me; I’m not sure it’s even true! The majority of readers are women, across almost every genre, and a female protagonist provides a readily identifiable character. Sure, but I think the reading public are more canny than that. Do we really read to see reflections of ourselves? Or do we read to escape and to immerse ourselves in other worlds. Perhaps a bit of both.

It’s such a strange thing creating a character. I know writers who map out every detail of their protagonist’s life in advance in an effort to immerse themselves in the point of view, from their taste in music, to when they broke their arm at age eleven, to the circumstances of losing their virginity.  Even if these titbits aren’t pertinent to the plot, they’re pertinent to the character, so the argument goes, and thus they inform the writing. It’s almost a sort of ‘method’ approach, to borrow the term from acting. I don’t go to such lengths, but I’d say that in the course of getting to know one’s protagonist within the limited confines of a novel, with its action on page, its sketches of backstory, the trials undergone, the scenes that end up on the cutting room floor, one comes to know that person intimately. Perhaps even better than we know other people in our real lives, because this is a head we see inside. It’s one of the reasons I’m looking forward to starting on a sequel. I might not know Josie Masters’ favourite colour, or what grades she got at A-level, but I’d recognise her straight away across a crowded room.

Hold My Hand by M J Ford published by Avon Books
How long do you hunt for the missing? A horrible vanishing act.  When a young Josie Masters sees a boy wearing a red football shirt, Dylan Jones, being taken by a clown at a carnival, she tries to alert the crowds. But it’s too late. Dylan has disappeared.  Thirty years later, Josie is working as a police officer in Bath. The remains of the body of a child have been found complete with tatters of a torn red football shirt. Is it the boy she saw vanish in the clutches of the clown? Or is it someone else altogether?  And then another child disappears.


Thursday, 31 August 2017

Call for Papers: A Study in Sidekicks: The Detective’s Assistant in Crime Fiction

Editors: Dr Lucy Andrew (University of Chester), Samuel Saunders (Liverpool John Moores University)

I am lost without my Boswell’, Sherlock Holmes says of his trusty sidekick Dr John Watson in ‘A Scandal in Bohemia’ (1891). Biographer, narrator, observer, assistant, companion, conscience, foil, fool, audience surrogate – the role of the detective’s sidekick is multifaceted, complex and continually evolving.

This collection aims to explore the changing representations and functions of the detective’s sidekick across a range of forms and subgenres of crime fiction from the nineteenth century to the present day. Forms may include: magazine short stories, serial or non-serial novels, ‘penny dreadfuls’, juvenile story papers, dime and half-dime novels, comics and graphic novels, radio drama, stage plays, film and television, video games. Genres may include: sensation fiction, the locked-room mystery, Golden Age detective fiction (including the clue puzzle and the hard-boiled detective novel), the police procedural, historical crime fiction, supernatural crime fiction, the serial killer thriller, the psychothriller.

The collection aims to pose and explore a number of questions, including:
* When did the detective’s sidekick first appear and why?
* How do we define the sidekick? What is the distinction between the partner and the sidekick?
* What functions does the detective’s sidekick perform?(How) do these functions change over time?
* (How) does the representation of the sidekick vary between different forms and subgenres of crime fiction?
* At which point in crime-fiction’s development was the sidekick’s importance at its peak?Is the sidekick tradition declining in the twenty-first century?
Topics may include but are not limited to:
* The origins and development of the sidekick
* The functions of the sidekick
* Detective/sidekick relationships
* The female sidekick
* The child sidekick
* The animal sidekick (e.g. Jerry Lee (K-9); Diefenbaker (Due South); Pedro the bloodhound (Sexton Blake); Snowy (Tin Tin); Flash (Valerie Drew))
* The sidekick in sensation fiction (e.g. Gabriel Betteredge/Ezra Jennings (The Moonstone); George Talboys (Lady Audley’s Secret); Captain Wragge (No Name))
* The supernatural sidekick (e.g. Bob in The Dresden Files)
* The criminal as sidekick (e.g. Dr Hannibal Lecter)
* The sidekick as suspect/villain (e.g. Dr James Sheppard)
* The sidekick as narrator and/or biographer (e.g. Dr John Watson)
* The sidekick as hero(ine)
* The sidekick as victim (e.g. George Talboys in Lady Audley’s Secret)
* Multiple sidekicks (e.g. Mervyn Bunter, (Chief) Inspector Parker and Harriet Vane)
* Modern interpretations of classic sidekicks (e.g. Joan Watson in Elementary)
* The sidekick’s comic potential
* The sacrificial sidekick
* The corruption of the sidekick
* The marginality of the sidekick
* The absence and/or loss of the sidekick
* Romance, sexuality and the sidekick
Sidekicks under scrutiny may include:
* Gabriel Betteredge/Ezra Jennings
* George Talboys
* Dr John Watson
* Captain Arthur J.M. Hastings
* Mervyn Bunter/Chief Inspector Parker/Harriet Vane
* Robert ‘Robbie’ Lewis/DS James Hathaway
* Robin (in his various incarnations: Dick Grayson; Jason Todd; Tim Drake; Damian Wayne)
* Maddy Magellan, Carla Borrego, Joey Ross, Polly Creek (Jonathan Creek sidekicks)

Please submit an abstract of 300-350 words and biography of 50-100 words to Lucy Andrew (l.andrew@chester.ac.uk) and Sam Saunders (S.J.Saunders@2014.ljmu.ac.uk) by Monday 13th November 2017.


Completed essays of 7-8,000 words will be due by Monday 4th June 2018.

Saturday, 1 April 2017

Kjell Ola Dahl on writing

I write across many genres: fiction, non-fiction, scripts and crime fiction. But always, when I board the Oslo Detectives Series rollercoaster, together with Gunnarstranda and my other police characters, I know I am going to have fun exploring Norway’s capital – researching its various neighbourhoods and discovering aspects of the city that have previously been more or less unknown to me.

Another thing I find interesting in these books is exploring the many sides of of my characters’ personalities. Faithless is part of this series; and while the story is still essentially a police procedural, in this particular book I wanted to put some pressure on my characters. In this novel my detective, Frank Frolich, learns how small the world is, and how this fact affects both his work and his private life. Overall, I wanted the story to demonstrate how people's actions always depend to some extent both on their personal history and on circumstances they cannot fully control.

As a police officer Frolich is a man with power and position. He meets a woman as part of a routine task, and suddenly realises that she is connected to him through other people, through his own history, and soon also his work. When she is killed, he is therefore involved, whether he wants to be or not. And he is forced to make some choices, some of which, inevitably, are wrong. Like everyone, he carries his personal history with him, but this situation makes him face it in an uncomfortable way.

I have to confess I wanted Frolich to sink. And I wanted this psychological sinking process to be reflected in the plot in a physical way: so, to solve the mystery he has to go underground. One important character in the story works as a municipal engineer, looking after Oslo’s sewage system. Researching this aspect of the book was fascinating: I spent days with engineers and workmen – walking down tunnels, wading through shit (literally) and driving through the city’s subsurface maze. I collected a huge amount of facts about what really goes on down there, under the city. But in the end, I was writing a book, so everything had to come down to the story. The usual ‘killing of darlings’ therefore meant that I used only small parts of this research in the novel.

Another thing I wanted to do in this novel was explore the personality of the female police character, Lena Stigersand. She plays only a minor role in earlier books in the series, but this time I wanted to get to know her better. I am afraid I am rather hard on her in Faithless (don’t worry – she gets her revenge on me in the next novel): she wants to be out in front, to make choices, and she has to face the consequences of this. Ultimately, she is forced to realise she is not able to fully control her own life. She learns that all it takes is to forget some small detail, or for things to change slightly, and sooner or later her plan fails.

The last one to learn new things in this novel is Gunnarstranda himself. He is in fact the most stubborn character in this universe. But, at the same time he is as solid as a rock – the centre around which all these stories circle. He has changed in some minor ways over the years, but his wit and intelligence make it very difficult for me to provoke him into any surprise moves. Neverthelss, this time I did manage to force him to reflect on the phenomenon of what you might call ‘unknown energies’. And in that, he surprised even me.


Faithless by Kjell Ola Dahl (published by Orenda Books)
Oslo detectives Gunnarstranda and Frølich are back … and this time, it’s personal… When the body of a woman turns up in a dumpster, scalded and wrapped in plastic, Inspector Frank Frølich is shocked to discover that he knows her … and their recent meetings may hold the clue to her murder. As he ponders the tragic events surrounding her death, Frølich’s colleague Gunnarstranda investigates a disturbingly similar cold case involving the murder of a young girl in northern Norway and Frølich is forced to look into his own past to find the answers – and the killer – before he strikes again.

Thursday, 11 June 2015

Partners by Lev Rosen

Today's guest blog is by author Lev A.C. Rosen who is the author of the critically acclaimed All Men Of Genius (Tor, 2011), which was an Amazon Best of the Month, on over a dozen best of the year lists, and has been nominated for multiple awards. Locus described it as “mixing genres with fearless panache.” His work has been featured in Esopus and on various blogs including Tor.com. He lives in Manhattan.


When a man’s partner is killed, he’s supposed to do something about it. It doesn't make any difference what you thought of him. He was your partner and you're supposed to do something about it.”
                -Sam Spade at the end of The Maltese Falcon
  
Detectives in classic noir often have a partner of some sort.  Not always an actual partner – sometimes it’s a friend on the force, or a lawyer—but there’s usually someone there the detective can talk to and feels a certain loyalty to.  The Maltese Falcon is the most interesting example to me, because that partner gets killed early on, and the rest of the movie is Spade trying to find his killer.  This despite the fact that Spade was sleeping with his wife.  And when he finds that killer – a femme fatale he may have fallen for – he turns her in.  This is one of the more fascinating relationships in noir – loyalty in some ways, but not others.  The partner almost becomes a stand-in for the sort of code Spade is trying to live.  The partner represents what it means to be a detective. 

The way men interact with each other – whether partners or enemies – is the underlying fuel of noir.  But when I set out to write Depth, I knew I wanted to explore those relationships differently – I wanted to see how it looked through women’s eyes.  Not just a female detective in a world full of men.  I wanted a detective and her partner and her enemies all to be women.  I wanted to explore the way a noir world can be built not through male interactions, but through female ones. 

Which isn’t to say, of course, that there are no men in the book.  There are hommes fatales, a boy Friday or two.  But my detective, Simone, spends a lot of the book dealing with women – whether they be gun-toting blondes or angry police chiefs, or, most especially, her partner, Caroline Khan. 

Caroline is a politician – deputy mayor, specifically – who knows the workings of the city in and out – at least, the larger, legal ones.  Simone, on the other hands, knows the underbelly of the city, the criminals, the cops.  They’re both natives, and they’re both excellent in their fields – an impressive thing considering this is a New York City of the future, when the ice caps have melted and it’s just building tops and bridges. 

The relationship I tried to build between them was one modeled on the idea of the noir partner.  That is, someone you trust, but at the same time don’t quite.  Someone you rely on, and that makes you nervous.  Someone who has your back… which gives them ample opportunity to lodge a knife there.  Caroline and Simone can’t tell each other everything about work because of their need for confidentiality. They know they do things differently and see the world differently, but they also know that they’re extremely close, and have a genuine friendship.  On some level, this isn’t any different than your traditional male friendship in noir – they trade barbs, drink, check out women, and talk about how stupid other people are.  They bounce ideas off each other.  To one another, they represent the best parts of the city they live in.  And there’s not many best parts left.  But having the relationship be between two women makes it different.  Usually, in noir, a woman is a solitary figure – she interacts with the (usually) male protagonist, but not many other people.  Even Lauren Bacall, in my all time favorite film The Big Sleep, doesn’t spend much time on screen talking to anyone but Bogart – discounting the telephone scene, where she’s talking to someone else but she’s still talking at Marlowe.  Women appear to interact with men.  You still see this even in noir fiction with female detectives.  Women appear, but usually only interact with the protagonist.  A large part of this, of course, is because noir relies on a sense of isolation, on one-on-one interviews and interrogations.  But men still seems to have more to do in these films and books.  They seem to have more complex relationships with other men.  Women don’t have relationships with other women.  Not in noir.  They’re even more isolated than the men.  In The Big Sleep, for example, Vivian and Carmen are sisters, but never interact, even though to an extent, the whole story is about the lengths Vivian will go to protect her sister. 

That trust/not-trust tightrope of noir friendship, though, can apply to any combination of sexes, so why is it so rare to see it between two women?  And why did making female friendship so central to Depth make it feel different than other noirs? Is it just that noir –so often historical – is still a bit logged in the past?  Is it just that a really noir woman is one who operates within a traditionally male sphere, and having more than one of those makes it seem less unusual, and so, possibly less noir?  I think maybe it could be any number of those things, or some combination.  But I also think that writing a noir world in which it’s the relationships between women that form a large part of the world feels more authentic. It’s something we should be seeing more of.  And with a noir set in the future, I had no excuses. The idea of mystery being a primarily male sphere is something we’re in the midst of taking down, but in the future, it would be gone.  And women-oriented noir has a lot of time to make up for.  So I’d like to see a lot more of it – not just lady detectives, which have been around forever, or women’s friendships in more traditional mystery, but women interacting with other women in the noir world – women chasing women, women helping women, women partners, in any sense of the word.  We’ve had enough bromance in noir.  Let’s try something new. 

More information about Lev Rosen can be found on his website, you can also find him on Facebook, follow him on Twitter @levacrosen and read his blog.

Depth 

Depth combines hardboiled mystery and dystopian science fiction in a future where the rising ocean levels have left Manhattan twenty-one stories under water and cut off from the rest of the United States. But the city survives, and Simone Pierce is one of its best private investigators. Her latest case, running surveillance on a potentially unfaithful husband, was supposed to be easy. Then her target is murdered, and the search for his killer points Simone towards a secret from the past that can’t possibly be real—but that won’t stop the city’s most powerful men and women trying to acquire it for themselves, with Simone caught in the middle.

Depth is by Lev Rosen and is out now (Titan Books, £7.99)