Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/27334
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/27334
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

There are two versions of "the reader can't figure out the ending." One is Sherlock Holmes, and the other is _Murder by Death._

In the Holmes stories, the reader doesn't necessarily see all the details which Holmes does at the time, but he does explain them all at some point by the end, so the trail of logic is clear. (At which point the reader might ejaculate "Child's play, Holmes!" along with the good doctor.)

In [_Murder by Death,_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_by_Death) which is a parody of detective stories, the murderer complains at the end about stories which introduce impossible details, unknown suspects, and twists which are essentially authorial butt-pulls because there's literally no way the reader could have figured it out.

The _Murder by Death_ version is definitely annoying. I would suggest you don't do that. The Holmes version may work if it's something which the reader could follow in hindsight or on re-reading. A logical chain which we don't see until it's pointed out is different from "No, it was the secret identical twin you never heard about until just now!"

Part of the fun of a mystery is trying to solve it along with the protagonist. If you make it impossible because all the data isn't there, it takes some of the enjoyment out of it.

Some readers like being able to figure out the twist; others prefer it to be really hard. That's YMMV, and I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Original score: 14