The Asey Mayo series (24 books, 1931-1951), by Phoebe Atwood Taylor, are my favourites.
Alafair Tucker (10 books, 2005-2018), by Donis Casey, is also very good.
Don’t know how reader-solvable they are, because as I said, I usually don’t try.
Often so, yes, but one recurring plot twist is also that the person who is working hard to get the killer/spy/traitor caught is, in fact, none other than the one himself.
The solution to a mystery book needs to make sense. The detective can’t just randomly say the gas station attendant killed Mrs Sloan.
I expect clues that point towards a motive and opportunity to commit the crime. Perhaps physical evidence points to the suspect. Otherwise I’m left very disappointed.
I should have been clearer: I was asking for recommendations for authors and mysteries where I could have the opportunity to figure it out before the end. 
P.T. Deutermann writes Mystery/suspense books. Similar to JAG or NCIS. They’ll keep you guessing but makes sense at the end.
My 4 favorites…
Official Privilege
Train Man
Sweepers
Hunting Season
Technically, the Mayo books are almost solvable. The clues are usually there but he often makes an intuitive leap because he knows the local people. They very tremendously in quality, with the earliest books not up to par and the last few on autopilot. Much more fun, and with sounder plots IMO, are the Leonidas Witherall books she wrote as Alice Tilton, all of them reprinted in paperback in Taylor’s name. They all start with a completely insane situation, which she explains logically halfway through before the mystery gets wrapped up. The mystery of the openings so overshadow the actual killing that it’s hard to say how fair play they are, but they are the best mystery farces of the era other than Craig Rice’s John Malone books.
I dare you to try the Newbery winner The Westing Game. Not a murder mystery, but an enormously engrossing puzzle. And every clue is there. Even extra hints. But also the world’s biggest, smelliest, red herring.
However, if you are not from the US, it might not “work” for you. It’s really written for US audiences-- albeit, a non-US reader might spot the real puzzle and overlook the red herring better than a US reader.
The main character is a 13-yr-old girl, and women might relate better than men, I don’t know for sure, though. There are two characters who are older teenagers, and the rest are all adults. I say the “main” character, because it’s pretty obvious that she is the one we are meant to identify with, but all of the characters are sympathetic, even a couple who are slow out of the gate. For a YA book, it’s really got an unusual number of adult characters whose POV we see.
One of my all-time favorite books and I don’t just mean mystery or young adult. A great book.
Mine too. I read it again a couple of years ago. I wish Ellen Raskin had not used the word “mongoloid” to refer to someone with trisomy 21-- the term “Down syndrome” was available to her. It was in the dialogue of an older character. It still ages the book, and when I recommend it to people who have kids who are 10-13, I feel that I have to warn them about it.
Other than that, it’s perfect.
I just read it with my kids during Christmas break and we loved it. I read it aloud and modified the language in that bit.
It’s not a good story, overall, if the ending doesn’t make
sense in retrospect. That doesn’t just apply to detective stories, but any story. Why did so-and-so decide to leave her husband? Ah, that’s because of that conversation with Jim back on page 23. It seemed unimportant at the time but now I realise it was why she decided to do whatever.
For detective stories it counts even more, but it’s really just an extrapolation of wanting a satisfying, rounded story.
Christie is actually pretty reliable for this. When Poirot tells Hastings or whoever his current sidekick is that all the facts are laid out, they actually are. At most there will be one trivial thing that is added later on to explain how they did it (and it is genuinely trivial), but the who did it always makes total sense.
I’ve read a few more recent novels where there’s a deus ex machina in the form of science. That would sort of be OK, except that, when you look back, it sometimes doesn’t really fit. Either there are a couple of facts out of place, or the character doesn’t make sense with that crime. They’d be hard to prove in court. And it’s an unsatisfying story.
(Can’t remember which ones specifically because I tend to remember books I enjoy better than ones I don’t.)
The Mr. and Mrs. North mysteries by Richard and Frances Lockridge. At least, most of them. Also unusual in that sometimes Pam North solves it, sometime their friend in the police force Bill Weigand does and sometimes both do.
Dare taken decades ago! Even checked out some of Raskin’s other books because of it!
If it’s presenting itself as a “fair play” type of mystery, it has to seem fair in retrospect. And that’s not just the text itself. I don’t like it when a movie has a stunt person creating the killer’s voice or acting out the killer’s actions, so that the voice type and body type are deceiving. If you’re going to show us the killer’s hands, they should be the hands of the person playing that role (unless it’s clearly the detective’s re-enactment in his head).
There is a recent Young Adult book that has been all the rage, and I personally think the marketing is unacceptably misleading. It really annoyed me when I found out whodunit.
I love The Westing Game, but I love her The Tattooed Potato and Other Clues even more. I’m not sure it’s in print but it’s well worth finding.
What is it?
The YA book is One of Us is Lying. I’m completely spoiling the book in the rest of this. In the book, five high school students are sent to detention, and one of them drops dead. The book’s title and marketing clearly imply that one of the four surviving students is the killer. They take turns narrating the book, even before the fifth student dies (he never narrates anything), and the implication is that the book’s title comes from the idea that one of the narrators is an unreliable narrator or lying in some way different from everyone else. Even though the supervising teacher is the person who actually had the most opportunity, he falls out of the story very quickly. And that’s okay, given the “fair play mystery” conventions. Agatha Christie basically tells us, “One of these four bridge players is the killer,” and in fact one of the four bridge players is the killer. The cover of the book shows four high school students corresponding to the four “suspects,” with the title, “One of Us is Lying,” emblazoned over their pictures. The jacket blurb is all about “Was the killer Suspect A? or Was it Suspect B/C/D?” So, as with Christie, we are being primed that the killer is one of those four students. It’s a great premise.
Except it isn’t one of them. The student killed himself, with the aid of another student who wasn’t one of the four and we don’t meet until much later. The solution is fine as far as the text goes, although I have an issue with the title. Who is the “One of Us” who is lying? None of the four ends up being an unreliable narrator, and none of the four is hiding a secret differently than anyone else. I don’t think the fifth student is “One of Us” – he dies on something like page 15 of a 350 page book, and he wasn’t close to the other four. The title is only there to mislead; it has no actual meaning other than to mislead. I think that’s questionable in terms of “fair play”; if a book was called, “I Killed My Family Member” and it turned out a passing stranger did it, that is NOT fair play in my book. I will concede that the title is misleading as opposed to a falsehood, because “us” and “lying” could refer to lots of different things. But what really bothers me is the book jacket design and blurb, which I think take the misleading title and cross the line into indicating that the killer is one of the four. While reading the book, I was dissecting each person’s narrative to figure out which one has holes in it, and I couldn’t find it because None of Us Is Lying!
Actually, me too, but I haven’t read it recently enough to say that all the clues are there. I think they are, but I’m not sure.
I do remember figuring out an important chunk of it the first time through, when I was only 10, and the hair on my arms stood up.
ONLY FOR PEOPLE WHO KNOW THE BOOK! When Garson described the blind man as wearing an earring, then told Dickory the blind man didn’t wear an earring, Dickory realized it had been the tattooed sailor who’d had an earring, and she’d transpositioned the memory. I thought “How did Garson know she’d seen a man with an earring?” It was 1977-- not common to see a man with an earring. And I realized Garson knew she’d seen the sailor-- because he was the sailor. Wow. I’m getting chills just remembering it.
Ye, in the Nero Wolfe Mysteries we get all the clues Achie gets, but sometimes Wolfe gets one that Archie doesnt know about, so we cant solve it. But it is clear and obvious once Wolfe explains it, and the suspects arent hidden or minor characters.
That’s fine.
I disliked the format change from brilliant detective with a quirk solves interesting mysteries to a man with quicks who happens to be a detective solves some mysteries which had idiot police stymied just to show how funny the quirks are.
The Constable Evans series set in Wales.