Do scenes, sequels, and MRUs apply to mystery novels?
I'm in the process of writing a mystery novel/novella and it conforms to the traditional/classic mystery novel, emulating that of Agatha Christie or A.C. Doyle. I'm having doubts as to the proper way to structure the mystery plot. I know the general principles regarding the incorporation of common plot structures such as Freytag's Pyramid, plot twists, subplots, etc. to mystery novels. But, my question involves the use of scenes, sequels, and MRUs (motivation reaction units).
It is intuitive to use generalized plot elements in a mystery novel such as exposition, rising, middle, climax, and resolution as outlined by Freytag's Pyramid. But, on a microscopic level, it does not make much sense to structure a mystery novel with alternating sequences of scenes and sequels which is composed of MRUs. I bring this up because the sequence of events in a scene is Goal, Conflict, and Disaster. And a sequel consists of Reaction, Dilemma, Decision. This structure is, in my opinion, not compatible with a traditional mystery novel. I don't know if contemporary authors use repeating scenes and sequels in non-traditional mystery novels written today, but in the traditional style mystery novels written today, I don't see this type of plot structure as being conducive to writing an effective mystery or deriving a pleasurable reading experience.
The issue I see is that mysteries and traditional/classic style whodunit mysteries in particular cannot have disasters at every turn. And I don't see how MRUs apply conveniently to mystery stories. How can you have motivation and reaction driving every minute action of the detective? The MRU structure, in my opinion, just doesn't play well with a typical mystery novel, especially traditional style mysteries. I also don't see how sequels fit in nicely with the plot structure of a mystery novel. Moreover, A mystery is like an intellectual game between the reader/detective and the villain/detective. It is race to see who will solve the puzzle first and a game of cat and mouse before the detective brings the antagonist or villain to justice. It is purely an intellectual exercise, and disasters at every turn dilute the main effect of a mystery novel. So are scenes, sequels and MRUs actually incorporated into mystery novels, especially traditional mysteries? If so, how is this done effectively. I haven't been able to find anything online on this topic. Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/48662. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
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.
The answer is no. Simply because there are no elements that should or should not be included within a novel, mystery or otherwise. There are no correct formulas. This is evidenced by Dwight Swain's inability to write a successful work of fiction.
Most mysteries / thrillers rely on skills such as misdirection, selective POV and psychological manipulation of the reader.
There would be no mystery about 6th sense if it was revealed the protagonist was dead in first scene.
I strongly suggest you read a few Agatha Christie novels and analyse them, if that is the writer you wish to emulate.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/48666. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
0 comment threads
... it does not make much sense to structure a mystery novel with alternating sequences of scenes and sequels which is composed of MRUs.
I agree, I dislike this formulaic MRU theory, I don't think it applies, or if it does, it stretches too far the meanings of goal, conflict, disaster, reaction, dilemma, decision.
I do believe there are elements you have to include in a mystery, but you already know that. There has to be tension in figuring it out, there has to be some urgency in getting this done and catching the bad guy, there should be some misdirection or red herrings that seem absolutely plausible but fall apart when pursued.
At the "microscopic" level, your scenes have no particular demands except they matter in some way, even if they are just an example of your theme, or just build a character. Is a sex scene between willing partners supposed to follow an MRU? Is climax a "goal" that causes a "conflict" and then a "disaster"? Does this produce a "reaction", "dilemma" and "decision"? I don't think so, not without stretching definitions until they are unrecognizable, but sex scenes can be absolutely crucial to the plot, they change people. They may relieve sexual tension between two characters, or create an obsessive burden that gets in they way of existing plans, or even be the motivation for abandoning previously made plans. If they consummate love, they may solidify devotion to the point of one character sacrificing their life, something they would not have done without this consummation, or if their partner dumped them for somebody else.
As a more general formulaic rule, you can implement the six elements of the MRU across several scenes. Characters do have Goal, Conflict, and Disaster. Then those are plausibly followed by Reaction, Dilemma, Decision. But those could be six different chapters, or scattered across many chapters.
Trying to drive that kind of overall story structure down into the scene structure is, in my mind, overdoing a good thing. Every scene (or pair of scenes) is not a story in itself, just like every part of a car is not a car in itself.
It is like saying the only way to build a wall is by mortaring together uniform bricks. But you can build a perfectly functional and more interesting wall by mortaring together randomly shaped stones. It might even be stronger than a brick wall.
Different scenes do different work. The rule I would follow is that a scene DOES some kind of work, in character introduction or development, in setting exposition, in plot development, as a turning point (character epiphany or despair or whatever), as proof of something (somebody the reader likes dies, proving this is dangerous territory).
Have a story purpose in mind for your scene, that isn't just "its fun to write".
Do not use MRUs unless you believe a scene-pair written that way makes your story stronger, don't do it because somebody told you it makes your story stronger. When it doesn't make sense, revert to good writing: Sustain reader tension (keep them wanting to see "what happens next" on four levels: What happens by the end of the scene? By the end of the chapter? By the end of the Act (about 25% of the story) and by the end of the Story? Otherwise they get bored and start to skip ahead looking for tension.
Some scenes are naturally "payoff" for this tension, tension relieving scenes. A sex scene is like that, a battle is usually like that. But usually something happens in such scenes, one tension is relieved but the next tension on the same level is introduced: The battle IS what happens next, it has an outcome, and that has repercussions, and those ARE the source of tension moving forward.
The sex scene relieves the tension of sexual suspense (are these two ever going to get naked?!), but creates a relationship that is the new source of tension, moving forward.
The rule to follow, for now and all time, is don't bore the reader, pay attention to sustaining tension on all these four levels. And don't think every scene is formulaic, create scenes that seem like the plausible "next thing" for some characters to do, and accomplish something without boring the reader.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads