A Bagfull of Non-Police-Procedurals

Other than police procedurals (and there are I’m sure subgenres of those, but though I go on occasional police-procedural binges — now — it’s not my main playground, and I don’t normally examine them that closely) there are a ton of mysteries that fall somewhere in a gray area.

They all follow the general mystery structure of opening with a crime, having the first phase of inquiry, after which you have the second murder (often killing your main suspect) then a series of interviews (I highly recommend those in which the interviews take the form of fights or other unusual means of acquiring information) and finally the denouement and restoring the world to its proper place, with the additional chapter to provide the reader with a “cigarette moment” being optional (but appreciated by this reader.)

But there are variations that influence that structure and I’ll mention some variations.

Take Rex Stout’s Nero Wolf mysteries.  Are they cozies or not?  They fail on the front of not being PRECISELY as mannered as British cozies, but OTOH they are certainly not the blood and guts type realistic mystery.

What it actually is is a “relationship mystery.”  The relationship in question is friendship between two men, and in this it follows the pattern or Agatha Christie’s Poirot mysteries.  Only in this case it is more of a Sherlock/Watson thing, in that one of them is the brain and the other the “gatherer of information/forager in the world”  Or in this case, Archie Godwin is the muscle to Nero Wolfe’s brain.

So why do I call it a relationship mystery?  Because it is. Often the precipitating incident, reason to investigate the crime, whatever originates in the two main character’s relationship, which in this case is often one of getting on each other’s nerves.

I’ll note  a lot of these, these days, are not friendships but romances, (hetero, usually) and that this isn’t a bad thing.  If you create a compelling enough relationship over several books, I have found I will read them even if the mystery is meh, because I want to know what you’re doing with these interesting characters.  I suspect I’m not the only one.  Note though that you can’t give them happy ever after on the first book for this to work.  Often the relationships that will have me binge a series are well night impossible by reasons of either personality or society.

Place/time/society mystery.  There was some years ago a woman doing Hollywood mysteries.  She might still be.  I started reading electronic and lost track of her.  The structure is still the basic mystery structure.  HOWEVER the place/time/type of society is an extra character.  Assume that your readers are reading you because they were attracted by the location or peculiarity of the setting.  You need to make sure your interrogation scenes/etc. exploit that setting to its full extent, or you’re going to piss of the reader.  For extra dollop of fun make sure the motive is something relating only to that setting.  (Yeah, Hollywood motives can be hilarious.  Or bizarre.  or both.)

Craft mystery – I think I already mentioned this.  It is not enough for your character to meet the murderer/witness the murder at a craft show.  For this to work, your character has to have special knowledge derived from the craft that enable the solving of the murder.  This is why I couldn’t do a “real” craft mystery.  While I do crochet, I don’t go to shows, and I never learned the lingo.  I just do what I see.

Supernatural mystery – instead of interviews, etc, you’re allowed to have dreams or visions or whatever.

Then there is the hard boiled mystery, which is NOT a  procedural.  These often billed themselves as realistic.  They’re not, of course.  They’re just mysteries for the people who want to be shocked by the descriptions/motives/etc of the crime and therefore think themselves tougher than those who read cozies.

These mysteries often use shock value/blood and gore to distract you from the obvious solution.

Since the ethos of the writing is “we’re all damned” often there is no punishment for the crime.

Next up: the peculiar structure of police procedurals.


Filed under Uncategorized

34 responses to “A Bagfull of Non-Police-Procedurals

  1. lpdbw

    Mr. & Mrs. North
    In fact, most anything by Richard and Frances Lockridge. They did relationships.

  2. I’d expand the relationship mystery category to include any mystery which spends time focusing on the relationships between the sleuths, whether it’s buddy-buddy, traditional boy-girl, or something else. My wife and I just finished watching Death in Paradise, and the romantic subplots over the seasons made the series much more interesting.

  3. Relationship mysteries… yeah, that’s pretty much where Scooby Doo falls, isn’t it? Whatever will those meddling kids get into next?

  4. Zsuzsa

    One thing I will dispute is that the romance mysteries can’t have their “happily ever after” in the first book. It seems to me that many of the romantic-types do end the first book with the hero and heroine getting married. Often complications arise in the sequel, but from the point of view of someone who just read the first one, there was a HEA.

    Example I would put here would be the Amelia Peabody mysteries. At the end of the first book, Amelia and Emerson propose to each other, they get married, and the ending shows them happily supervising an archaeological dig while expecting their first child. Then in the next book, it turns out that having a son wasn’t quite as compatible with their neat schedule as they thought…

  5. paladin3001


  6. “Supernatural mystery – instead of interviews, etc, you’re allowed to have dreams or visions or whatever.”

    Summoning up dead people can be fun too. Just be careful that you don’t get the wrong dead guy, or worse, the bonus demon. 😉

  7. You made the mistake of writing a somewhat-related post on a day when I am aggravated at one or more writing styles. ‘Aggravation’ is NOT a characteristic which is admirable in a reviewer, and so, the following.

    I like to know what is going on in a mystery. You mentioned Nero Wolfe; it’s been awhile since I last devoured one of those mysteries, but I am under the distinct impression that they play fair with the reader: the clues for the solution are there, and we still get the ‘aha!’ moment at the end.

    What I DON’T like are cryptic references, without coherent exposition, to something essential, either the nature of the criminal, or factor critical to the plot. As an example of this, in one of the Ringworld novels, the protagonist is behaving in unusual ways, and we don’t know why. It’s mentioned that he has bubbles in his urine, in a throw-away comment.

    That’s not playing fair. I don’t think it’s reasonable for the reader to know this means he has cancer of the whatever, and is going to die shortly. Without that information, his behavior makes no sense, and since this is a character we have some history with, it’s not fair.

    I REALLY want to talks about why I hate the collection of stories I’m reading now. However, even in my aggravated state, I can’t stretch the topic far enough to provide justification for doing so.

    • sam57l0

      Sure. Leave us hanging. See if I’ll read YOU again. OK, one more chance.

    • mrsizer

      Because no one here ever goes off topic 😉

    • mysteries should play fair. That said, I’ve also been accused of not playing fair, because people missed ALL THREE HINTS.

      • Christopher M. Chupik

        You forgot to add a *Note: HINT. 😉

      • That’s because your subtlety is as boundless as your evil. 😛

        • Which is why TELEVISION mysteries don’t work so well, compared to written mysteries. You HAVE to show the clue, to be fair; and, in television, anything that doesn’t directly contribute to the narrative doesn’t make it onscreen. So, if you are shown a desk with soft wood in the beginning of a show, somebody’s head is going to leave a dent in it, or NOT leave a dent in it, thus solving the murder.
          Nero Wolf, on the other hand, gets to eat whatever he wants, and it only makes us hungry.

          • mrsizer

            I have the opposite opinion: It’s easy for a visual clue to get lost in the clutter but if you write the word, I AM going to read it.

          • It varies. You can also have the red herring. Thus what seems significant may not be at all. That said, it must lead to a plausible dead end, just as the legitimate clues lead to a plausible solution.

      • I got this complaint with “Murder on the Aldrin Express”. “That’s not fair! You have to be a chemist to solve that mystery!” No, I was very careful to EXPLAIN the chemistry long before it was relevant. It’s not my fault if the reader skimmed over the chemistry. The story was in freakin’ Analog! THE SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO BE IMPORTANT IN AN ANALOG STORY!

        I took great pride in planting those clues…

  8. Jonathan Gash’s novels about antique dealer Lovejoy are probably the best ‘craft mysteries’ I’ve read. Even though Lovejoy is a cad and really not a very nice man, he’s an interesting character and seeing what he does is why I love those stories.

    There’s a series set in Rapid City, SD that I picked up the first one when it was free because 1) Free, 2) unusual setting that I’m at least somewhat familiar with. However, I’m not sure I’ll ever get around to reading anything else by that author let alone that series, even though I’ve got others I picked up for free as well. Because A) I wanted to strangle the ‘protagonist’, ‘hero’, or whatever you want to call her because she was so annoying and stupid B) the setting was almost completely ignored throughout the entire story. It could have been set in pretty much any big city rather than small town SD with a major nuclear Air Force Base on one side and the Black Hills (you know, Mount Rushmore!) on the other.

  9. I apologize in advance for the off topic link, but I think this is of great importance for everyone there in the US. I was told that this is something you all need to fight against, if you wish to retain the ability to have freedom of speech, especially online.