I like my mystery like a Rubik's Cube

I like my mystery like a Rubik's cube

                                                     


For those of you who missed the decade between 1975 and 1985, the Rubik's Cube is a 3-D combination puzzle and toy. Ernő Rubik invented in 1974. He was an Hungarian sculptor and professor of architecture. Originally its name was "the Magic Cube." Multiple squares in different colors line each side and move independently of each other. Rows can be moved as a unit in the north-south direction or the east-west direction. By twisting and spinning the rows, using differing axes, you can create a cube that has only a single color of squares on each side. They have invented computer algorithms to figure out the solving process. Of course, that is cheating the same way, reading the last chapter of a mystery instead of starting at the beginning of the book and reading straight through to the end is.

As in my favorite mysteries, the solution should be hard to reach, but it should in retrospect be logical and almost obvious when all the facts are considered from the right point of view - via the retrospectoscope. Every pertinent fact must ring true. They must fit like jigsaw puzzle pieces.

Red herrings viewed from the book's conclusion should have been discountable, but somehow are not dismissed immediately by the reader. The process of solving must be not so hard as to discourage the reader from trying, and yet, not so easy so that the reader needs no effort to reach the right conclusion. Certainly, the final answer of whodunnit, should not be so obvious as to make the story unable to hold the reader's interest, but at the finish, the reasoning and logic must stand out like a single color on each side of the Rubik's Cube.

I love colorful characters. I love wonderful setting that bring me into the picture to stand next to the detective, but most of all, I want to struggle to figure out who killed the victim, so that I have a feeling of accomplishment when I reach the conclusion. I want lots of pieces that I must move around and align just right so that I can conclude who dunnit.

If I accuse the wrong character of being the murderer, that is better than if I know who the killer is before the middle of the book. Those type of manuscripts fit into the genre of suspense, where we know who is the bad guy, but we don't know if he will be caught. I'm a mystery fan, not suspense.

Think about it. Suspense by nature is more about the procedural part of crime apprehension, and mysteries were more about the mental aspects - deducing from facts, and using logic to reach the conclusion. Often they have physical apprehension, but just knowing who the killer is represents the goal in murder mysteries.

In a good mystery, like the Rubik's cube, all the facts are on the table before the end of the book, and we, the readers, have the opportunity to succeed, but it takes perseverance and brain power to reach the goal of who, how and why - to align all the colors on their side.

-- L.A. Preschel



The art work for this essay was taken from non-copyright Rubix Cube Clip Art.

Literary Writing is Rembrandt; Noir Mysteries are Rubik’s Cubes

Sometimes I wonder why people “look down on non-literary writing.” To dismiss such people as literary snobs diminishes them, and at the same time, you diminishes the value of your opinion on the subject of writing. Why do they debase the mystery novel as an art form, as if it were a feeble step-sibling of the writing family. 

Professor's pat answers  - the tried and true response - never explain the problem or get an honest answer. They are repetitions of the Great Wiz, don't look at the man behind the curtain. The Great Oz has spoken, accept it at face value and move on.  Yet it is only through producing a transparent thought  process showing the reasoning to your conclusion, that the conclusion becomes significant and reproducible. By the way, it is the reasoning and logic that a reader performs to solve a mystery that makes that form of literature interesting to the reader and involves them in the story.  The reader's participation makes a mystery superior. 

Still, the fact that "literary snobs" look down on pulp fiction, diminishes the snobs and their opinion, for the reasons cited above. It excludes further discussion, because they post it as accepted fact. I don't accept it. Let's forget them, and discuss the merits of Noir mysteries.  

Each genre has a deserved audience, but the audience reads them for different reasons. Occasionally someone like the wonderfully talented James Lee Burke combines flowery expressive language with a good mystery or thriller plot, but the literary audience probably avoids his writing. They ignore an author that holds two Edgar Awards (for two different detectives.). He creates a world the reader can feel, see and live in, as well as any author. Oh and by the way, as per wikipedia: He taught at five different colleges before getting on the tenure track teaching creative writing at Wichita State University, during the 1980's. Not bad credentials for a mystery writer.  

In literary novels, the milieu and the setting are often the greatest character – augmented by the “emotions” portrayed in the story. “Heathcliff” anyone? Historicals make statements about society and life the way it was. Some literary fiction opines about the way life still is. The audience lives in the past or see the light about today universe from the observer’s position. Inert, inactive, passive. The reader trespasses inside the body of the author - as if the author was a pod from the Invasion of the bodies snatchers, and the reader's soul crept inside that pod for the duration of the book.         

Literary writing excites me the way some Broadway shows equate the scenery to a character. Oh wasn't that scenery fantastic, worth the price of admission ($250), i.e. Phantom of the Opera or Cats comes to mind. Great scenery is not a strike against a well-written play, but should the audience really notice the scenery? How much character arc can a curtain go through during a performance? I think My Fair Lady probes the human psyche more than Phantom, while not needing the support of spectacular visual aids.

In mysteries, the reader comes with an agenda. He or she will solve the problem. Setting and milieu may contribute but it is the humans - the characters - that run the show. The reader gets involved finding clues and making conclusions, as if he or she were turning the sides of a Rubik’s cube to align them. Psychology, motive, emotions are inspected and probed to learn about human nature, and in so doing, solve the crime. The emotions are not on display, but felt by the reader, if the author is talented. 
The journey offers an education in a way that literary fiction could never do. The reader does not sit back and imagine the green velvet of the trees’ leaves swaying in the breeze, over the placid azure lake while Heathcliff rows his paramour to an islet off shore. And he certainly does not wait four pages to see if they might argue or kiss. The reader in a mystery wonders, what does this action mean? Does he really want to kiss her? Get her alone? Why? What will he do?   

In crime fiction, the reader competes to solve the mystery before the detective. The difference in expectations of the literary reader from the noir mystery fan is the difference between watching Pilates and getting out of breath, or doing Peloton and sweating from the workout competing against the unseen people peddling just as hard on their bike. The high from strong exercise, in my opinion, beats the spectator's awe of watching others compete.    

I may be biased, but that is my take on the two genre, and if you want your mind to get fat by sitting inside a literary character body and watching the story happen, that’s find with me. I’ll be pedaling along on the dark road to the unlit house at the top of the hill in a thunderstorm, looking for ghosts and attempting to survive while finding the next clue.

Oh wait, did I just become literary? 

I’ll sit in the corner for ten minutes until this mood passes. I'll be back.   

L.A. Preschel