Outlining Mystery and Detective Stories

[Sandor]

Does anyone have any advice on outlining detective and mystery stories? I'm trying to write a novel, sort of an occult take on the Nero Wolfe stories with a different, modern cast. I'm really struggling on outlining it, because I'm really out of my comfort zone writing mysteries. I love a good mystery or thriller film, old time radio plays as well, but I struggle with books of that genre. Would love opinions.

 

[CatrionaGrace]

Reread a favorite novel written by someone else, then outline that story chapter by chapter. Read a second novel; outline it. Use a real outline form, too, with Roman numerals and sub-sections that allow you to trace a pattern through the books. Yep, that's a lot of work, but it is a good way to study how mystery stories are built.

 

[Sandor]

Reread a favorite novel written by someone else, then outline that story chapter by chapter. Read a second novel; outline it. Use a real outline form, too, with Roman numerals and sub-sections that allow you to trace a pattern through the books. Yep, that's a lot of work, but it is a good way to study how mystery stories are built.

This is really good advice, tsm.

 

[Banespawn]

I find it helps to start with the crime. Figure out who did it, why they did it, and how they did it, keeping in mind that they most likely don't want to get caught.

Once you have that, you can figure out what other characters might have motive and/or opportunity to commit the crime, to be used as red herrings. You can also figure out what clues the criminal left behind. This is where you will need to be clever. You don't want the clues to be obvious. The criminal might leave certain clues intentionally either to cover his tracks or to antagonize pursuit, but there will be other clues that he didn't intend. No crime can ever be perfect.

Some of the clues may be very abstract. You may have to work to draw a connection. You can do this by working backwards. You know what conclusion you want, so take one step back to how the character gets to that conclusion, then take another step back to how the character arrives at THAT conclusion, and so on, as many steps back as you need. The final conclusion could be dependent on a series of clues.

 

[Luxuria]

I find it helps to start with the crime. Figure out who did it, why they did it, and how they did it, keeping in mind that they most likely don't want to get caught.

Once you have that, you can figure out what other characters might have motive and/or opportunity to commit the crime, to be used as red herrings. You can also figure out what clues the criminal left behind. This is where you will need to be clever. You don't want the clues to be obvious. The criminal might leave certain clues intentionally either to cover his tracks or to antagonize pursuit, but there will be other clues that he didn't intend. No crime can ever be perfect.

Some of the clues may be very abstract. You may have to work to draw a connection. You can do this by working backwards. You know what conclusion you want, so take one step back to how the character gets to that conclusion, then take another step back to how the character arrives at THAT conclusion, and so on, as many steps back as you need. The final conclusion could be dependent on a series of clues.

I like this idea a lot. Another thing to be wary of is not to make it impossible for your readers to guess who did it. It's only fun to read a murder mystery if I feel I have a chance to figure it out with the detective.

 

[Sandor]

I find it helps to start with the crime. Figure out who did it, why they did it, and how they did it, keeping in mind that they most likely don't want to get caught.

Once you have that, you can figure out what other characters might have motive and/or opportunity to commit the crime, to be used as red herrings. You can also figure out what clues the criminal left behind. This is where you will need to be clever. You don't want the clues to be obvious. The criminal might leave certain clues intentionally either to cover his tracks or to antagonize pursuit, but there will be other clues that he didn't intend. No crime can ever be perfect.

Some of the clues may be very abstract. You may have to work to draw a connection. You can do this by working backwards. You know what conclusion you want, so take one step back to how the character gets to that conclusion, then take another step back to how the character arrives at THAT conclusion, and so on, as many steps back as you need. The final conclusion could be dependent on a series of clues.

This is also really advice, thank you.

 

[X Equestris]

Another thing to be wary of is not to make it impossible for your readers to guess who did it. It's only fun to read a murder mystery if I feel I have a chance to figure it out with the detective.

Agreed.

If you’ve ever read the original Sherlock Holmes stories, most of them don’t actually do this, if only because most of them are told from the POV of Watson and not Holmes. He’s not the genius detective, so he misses the clues that actually solve the case and they aren’t revealed until the finale. There are some exceptions, but by and large, the series and a lot of other early mystery/detective fiction aren’t what’s called “fair-play whodunnits”.

Turning to OP, I think the biggest thing you need to decide is what kind of mystery you’re going to write in the first place, as there are structural differences. The “howcatchem”, for example, turns the whole story inside out; the reader sees the crime and at least some of the evidence, knows who committed it, and the mystery instead revolves around how the authorities are going to figure it out rather than the classic “Who did this?”

Cozy mysteries have fairly regimented requirements on how the story unfolds and what kind of content it can have, police procedural are meant to mimic the course of actual investigations done by law enforcement (so they aren’t always fair-play, or they’ll blend in elements of howcatchem), etc.

Fully seconding everything @Banespawn said. Working backwards is far and away the best technique for building your mysteries.

 

[SilverBear]

Reread a favorite novel written by someone else, then outline that story chapter by chapter. Read a second novel; outline it. Use a real outline form, too, with Roman numerals and sub-sections that allow you to trace a pattern through the books. Yep, that's a lot of work, but it is a good way to study how mystery stories are built.

This is excellent advice. I'd add make sure to note point of view characters and how many chapters they each have (if multiple).