Mysteries Left Unsolved

I played around with this idea when I first started writing. I thought it was all novel and innovative and edgy and whatnot.

It didn't work, and I suspect it wouldn't work for you. (Actual results may vary) The reader's expectation in mystery is that the killer will be caught at the end of the book and brought to justice. If you could sell it to a publisher, I expect you'd have unhappy readers at the end.

I'm a voracious reader of MTS and I would hate you if you did that to me. I would feel so cheated that your book would go in the bin and I would never buy another one.

There is an unwritten contract between the reader and the writer and you break it at your peril.

Apparently it's common in other countries beside the US to have mysteries that aren't resolved at the end. I know of Italy in particular, not sure of others.

If this is for a U.S. market, though, you'd be skewered. Identifying (not necessarily catching and punishing, which can sometimes be worked around) the killer is expected in this market.

Personally, if I got that ambiguous ending, I would put your name on my "never even consider buying" list and wouldn't give your second book a chance. That's just me, of course. And mirandashell. I suspect, given the fact that ... well, I havne't done the numbers, but I think they'd turn out to be well in excess of 90% of the most popular mysteries and probably in excess of 98% of the big-name mysteries, so let's say an average of 95% of all mysteries published for an American audience end with the killer being identified unambiguously, it's pretty clear that that's what the audience expects.

That could be ok, depending on how well you do it. If the 'different solution' follows on from the clues in the first book, that's good. But you pull a different ending by revealing something you left out in the first book but shouldn't have, I will hate you.

Can I piggyback on this thread? I have a mss where it's only part mystery. A husband and wife were murdered. Would readers be upset if it's only hinted that their deaths were at the hands of a serial killer, but never confirmed in the book? So they kind of know "who" did it, but not the full identity (the police were unable to figure out who the serial killer is; this takes place in 1918).

It's not until the second book that the full identity is revealed (second book is from the POV of the killer; first book is from the POV of the victim).

That's also going to depend on how it's done. It's all about setting up the reader's expectations.

If your readers know early in the book that it's not your normal cozy set-up, you can do a lot more with it. Ruth Rendall for instance, she quite often tells you who the murderer is from the start but then the focus is on whydunnit rather than whodunnit.

Gone Girl is a interesting story, partly because of the way the tropes are turned on their heads and twisted into a new shape.

So... yeah. All depends on the execution.

This mss is definitely not a mystery. It's actually mainstream, but with an element of mystery in it. Not fully disclosing the identity, or even confirming if it was even a serial killer, worries me that it will piss off the reader. But whether the identity is known or not doesn't affect the story. It was just something the FMC was trying to find out (just out of curiosity, not like an amateur sleuth), and while searching for the answers she learns about stuff about her family that overshadows this search. So basically her trying to find the identity of the killer was an inciting event.

As long it's not marketed as a murder mystery, you should be fine.

mirandashell said:

That could be ok, depending on how well you do it. If the 'different solution' follows on from the clues in the first book, that's good. But you pull a different ending by revealing something you left out in the first book but shouldn't have, I will hate you.

Click to expand...

Oh god yes.

Following on from that, you'll have to be very good with the first book setup. Because if there's enough information in the first story to make the third one plausible, you'll have to hide it well. I wouldn't want to read a story that makes the sleuths look like idiots because they're not following an obvious line of inquiry.

ghagler said:

Let's say, by a miracle, I get a 2 or 3-part mystery series published. Do you think readers would be upset if you ended Book I well and fine - everything's solved - but then, in Book III, an additional fact's revealed that throws that theory off (but then it gets solved by the end of the book)? The reader would never end a book not knowing a solution; but they would end the series, knowing their assumed conclusion to Book I was false.

Click to expand...

I still think you'd run into problems. Having authored a series, I've realized that many readers feel they should be allowed to enter the series at any given book. While writing, it can be challenging to give them enough information to pick up where I left off without reviewing everything in a telly manner, or introducing "spoilers" to an earlier book. (Yes,I've seen flaming reviews when a mystery writer referenced the killer from an earlier book in the series, one this reader hadn't gotten to yet.)

Whether this is a part of the unwritten contract we have with readers is up for debate. But since you asked advice, I wouldn't do it. But like any other writing rule, if it works, that supersedes all rules. I suspect publishers wouldn't like it. They'll sell more books if your third book entices them to go back and read the first two. And it would be hard to read book one if they realized that everything they're learning is false.

ghagler said:

I've been playing around with an idea for a mystery novel where the mystery appears to be solved in the epilogue (though the villain escapes), but the final line states the solution is false. In another book with the same villain, they return to the first novel's mysteries because they're tied in with this one. So, I have two questions:

1. If you were a reader, and a book ended with a final line suggesting the 'epilogue solution' was wrong, would you enjoy the challenge & try to figure out a better solution? Would you be angry/displeased?

2. Assuming you read the first one: if you saw a sequel to the book which presented new mysteries but also addressed the old ones, would you be skeptical and not choose to read it? Or would you pick it up?

EDIT: A better restatement of the question: let's say, by a miracle, I get a 2 or 3-part mystery series published. Do you think readers would be upset if you ended Book I well and fine - everything's solved - but then, in Book III, an additional fact's revealed that throws that theory off (but then it gets solved by the end of the book)? The reader would never end a book not knowing a solution; but they would end the series, knowing their assumed conclusion to Book I was false.

Click to expand...

Done that way, I'd hate it more than eating a rat infected by teh bubonic plague.

I am a mystery reader and I would be very displeased to get to the third book and read "fooled ya'!"

imjustj said:

I am a mystery reader and I would be very displeased to get to the third book and read "fooled ya'!"

Click to expand...

You never ever, what to sucker punch your readers.

I'm another mystery reader who wouldn't want any part of this. Possibly not as much as Jamesaritchie, but close. Although, if it's not a labeled as a 'Mystery', but as suspense, or a mainstream novel that happens to be about a crime, maybe it will find an audience somewhere. Like people who would throw their hands up in horror at the thought of reading science-fiction, but who lapped up 'A Handmaid's Tale'.
What also might make it different is that it's apparently a series about this one crime. In most mystery series the books are linked by the setting, or the detective, not by having several books be about the same crime. It might be interesting, or it might be overkill. 'Rashomon' is all well and good, but does each POV deserve a book of it's own?

Put me on team "I'd be pissed."


I do like my mysteries wrapped up in tidy bows. Real life is frustrating enough!

imjustj said:

I am a mystery reader and I would be very displeased to get to the third book and read "fooled ya'!"

Click to expand...

Twas all a dream.

If this is a true Mystery, not a thriller with a mystery, then I must say you have to be really careful with this idea. But I can think of a few things that would help me accept it:

1) Book 1's clues, solving process, and final solution are NOT invalidated by Book 3

2) The information revealed in Book 3 is NOT something that the characters in Book 1 could have reasonably had access to (i.e. it's not something so obvious that they must be blithering idiots to not notice it or take it into account)

3) There are enough hints in Book 1 at the Book 3 reveal that attentive readers might suspect something is up and develop their own theories

4) Book 1 is satisfying both when read in isolation and on re-reading after Book 3 (perhaps even more so knowing what is really going on)



One thing that springs to mind is if the villain in Book 1 was acting on different motives than originally thought - perhaps they were coerced. But they still did it, and the solution to Book 1 is sound and unaltered.

I'd be really wary of unreliable narrators, though, as the idea that the narrator (= YOU as the writer in many readers' eyes) has been intentionally lying or withholding information would just plain piss me off.

I'm pretty sure I've read books that do this, although none come to mind right now. I know it happens in TV, and it happens all the time in comic books. For example, there are crime shows where it turns out that a character from a previous episode was actually being set up, and the real culprit is a recurring villain who finally gets caught at the end of the series. Of course, in TV it's more common to end on cliffhangers and stuff, so perhaps it's more "acceptable" to alter the pre-existing plot, but I guess it's a judgement call based on the style of fiction and what you know of your audience.

Personally, if I read a series that did this, once I found out the twist in the third book I'd want to go back and look at the first to see if the signs were there and it all meshes. If you can write the first book such that there's points where they might have discovered the truth, but didn't, and everything ties together, then on a second reading your audience can say "Aha! That's where so-and-so from book three was covering their tracks" and it comes across as clever. If the first book is too cut and dried, and you have to make some big stretches in book three to make the big twist plausible, then it comes across more like you were out of ideas for compelling plot and had to go retcon something to squeeze more mileage out of a previous plotline.

I think onesecondglance is spot on - the true perpetrator should be known in the first book, and events unfold in a way that seems to exonerate them, only for book three to reveal something that brings them back under suspicion. A smart reader might be able to spot the weaker points of the chain of evidence that leads to the believed perpetrator, and will remember them when the third book reveals that these points are where the protagonist(s) went wrong, and they'll get to feel smart that they called it. Readers who don't spot it might feel cheated, unless you can remind them that the setup was there, at which point they (hopefully) are impressed at how smart your villain is.

Those weak points are your big risk. It has to be totally plausible for the fall guy to be the real perp, and it has to be totally understandable for the protag to have reached the conclusion they did. If it stands out too obviously as a potential mistake, then the story of book one will suffer and it'll feel like a contrived setup for a sequel rather than a story that works by itself. It needs to be subtle enough to escape notice at first, but strong enough that it makes sense when the big reveal comes out, so that your readers react with "ooh!" and "aha!" rather than "huh?". That's quite a tightrope, so I'd recommend getting plenty of feedback on your drafts for the first book - you want most of your readers to miss it when they read it, but when you bring out the twist, most of them should remember what you're talking about with little or no prompting. You may end up in the tricky position of having to write all three books before publishing, just to make sure you can go back and edit the first one to work in the way the third book needs it to. If you manage to pull it off, though... well, your readers could be in for an awesome ride.

You could end the first book with the mystery solved, but make it part of a larger mystery that continues. Like:

--there's a larger villain who is somehow encouraging people to commit these crimes (could be cultish, like the Manson murders or TV show The Following; could be a family thing; could be politically or financially motivated--lots of possibilities)

or

--there's a group of people working together--brainstorming, collecting supplies (poisons, medicines, explosives, whatever) others don't have access to, even though each has a separate motive for their own crimes

Just something where you can legitimately solve the first crime, but still have more to investigate.

Marlys said:

You could end the first book with the mystery solved, but make it part of a larger mystery that continues. Like:

--there's a larger villain who is somehow encouraging people to commit these crimes (could be cultish, like the Manson murders or TV show The Following; could be a family thing; could be politically or financially motivated--lots of possibilities)

or

--there's a group of people working together--brainstorming, collecting supplies (poisons, medicines, explosives, whatever) others don't have access to, even though each has a separate motive for their own crimes

Just something where you can legitimately solve the first crime, but still have more to investigate.

Click to expand...

This. Others have also had good advice. It could work, depends on the execution. But if Book 1's mystery is unsolved or the ending negated by Book 3, then what James said:

Jamesaritchie said:

Done that way, I'd hate it more than eating a rat infected by the bubonic plague.

Click to expand...