Quote:
Originally Posted by ownedbycats
honestly, the whole mystery was just kind of... all over the place. It almost feels like the author was writing before they figured it out themselves and just threw him in because none of the other suspects really made sense.
not self-published, either, so I'm surprised it got past editing.
|
Crazy.
My theory on writing conventional Who Dunnit type (there is the Lt. Colombo kind also in books before WWII were the reader/viewer is told* and you read/watch how the sleuth solves it) is to write the start and end in any order (or the crime and solution) then fill in the motivations, red herrings, characters and storyline. The writer has to know who did it and what the crime is before really writing much at all.
[* A variation is the evil villain / politician etc who even the dogs in the street know is behind what ever it is and the Government has no proof and either doesn't do frames/assassinations or thinks that would create other problems so our plucky sleuth / spy / etc has to discredit or get proof that would put the villain away for life etc, even if like Al Capone the "proof" is for some unrelated crime]
Having someone new at the end as the criminal would be like a 40 chapter romance where at the altar one party runs off with a character never even hinted at. Or is suddenly killed by lightning strike etc on last page.