Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Can a mystery novel have more than one mystery in it? And does it have to be a "who dunnit" concept?

+0
−0

I am writing a novel and it goes something like this: In the first half of the novel, the protagonist knows who is doing the killing, but they are trying to make sense of it as in "how are they doing it?" and "why are they doing it?" In the second half of the novel, the protagonist finds out there's an object that can stop the killing altogether, so the main question is "where is the object?"

Would this story classify as a mystery?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/37876. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

2 answers

You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.

+0
−0

As long as both mysteries are resolved, I don't see a problem with it.

+1 Ash for Columbo. Also, there was recently some miniseries on TV about a woman, a young mother. In the opening, she inexplicably attacks a man and murders him in front of many people. The mystery is not who did it, or how to prove it, but why: Even she does not know why she did it, and has no motive.

I did not watch it (short on time for other professional reasons), but it is an interesting premise.

So yes, investigating "how and why" can be interesting, and once "how and why" is figured out, investigating how to stop it can be the rest of the story.

Yes, that can still be called a mystery. Much of the motive in investigating any murder is punishment, but a healthy part is also to get a danger to society in jail, in order to prevent future murders. Presumably the first murder is the one they hesitated on the most. This is just a logical extension of that same motive for the investigator.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

+1
−0

Most mysteries don't exist in isolation, but rather they are manifold, take one of my favourites, Roanoke, there are several mysteries within the mystery of the Roanoke disaster:

  • where did the colonists try to go?

  • where did they actually end up?

  • when did they leave?

  • and most "interestingly" what on Earth does "CROATOAN" mean?

So multiple related mysteries certainly have a place in a single piece.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/37879. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »