Inspired by this thread about how long you give a book before you toss it.
There seems to be some controversy among mystery readers and writers about when is the proper time for the murder to occur. Some people want it very early. Others are willing to let it happen well into the book. What’s your preference.
It might be good to say what type of mystery you like, since I’ve heard that procedurals need the body early while cozies can have it later.
If the author is someone like Elizabeth George or P.D. James, I can wait for the corpse. I’ll enjoy the book nevertheless.
If it’s a well-written cozy, maybe within the first 50 pages or so; if not, drag out the body, and I’ll see if I like the rest of the cast to continue.
If it’s procedural/scientific, gimme the dead guy pronto.
If it’s more police procedural, I’m OK with a little delay, especially in the older style series like the 87th precinct books or the Luis Mendozas from the 1970s. All those peripheral crimes and character refreshments are part of the experience, so I would be OK with waiting. But if something doesn’t go down in the first thirty pages, off it goes.
Forgot to add: I like the more atmospheric British mysteries, with emphasis on the characters.
I was thinking of Raymond Chandler; in The Big Sleep we don’t find the body until the last chapter.
It doesn’t matter to me. whatever fits the story.
I’ve recently taken up the “Inspector Hanaud” mysteries by A.E.W. Mason…and I’m loving them! Mason has a very slow pace; he can take up half the book before telling you what the actual mystery is!
Now, my ordinary prejudice would be: as soon as possible. Open the book with the discovery of the corpse. The place for elevating the level of tension is when there are subsequent murders, but get the first murder out in the open right away.
But…for really good writers, there aren’t any rules.
Thanks. Some reviewers were really upset about the body not showing up quickly.
Glad to see a consensus, even if it is a small one.
Here’s my theory: “Classic” mystery novels are plot-driven, with the plot centering on the detective’s attempt to solve the crime. Until the inciting incident of the murder or its discovery, the plot hasn’t started yet. Everything up until then is exposition, setting the scene and introducing the characters, and to a reader who reads primarily for the plot, or from a writer whose strong point is plotting, this can be bo-ring.
But mystery novels aren’t the only ones where some readers might be put off by how long it takes the plot to get started. My brother the high-school English teacher was telling me that some of his students have a problem with To Kill a Mockingbird because it takes so long to get to the main trial plot; they don’t see the point of all the miscellaneous, episodic stuff that happens in the first part of the book.
In Dorothy L. Sayers’ Gaudy Night, the body never did show up!
You’re not always so prompt at producing a body yourself, Brother Cadfael!
I like it Agatha Christie style: start out with a murder of an Unpleasant Person after the characters have been established, than have well-timed sequential murders throughout the book to keep everyone on their toes.
I recall reading a Ruth Rendell “mystery” where no one ever actually got killed. Bit disappointing, even if the writing’s engaging.
Agree strongly. The whodunnit and its successor the cozy really have no point without a dead body to start the wheels grinding. The characters aren’t expected to behave realistically, so creating ordinary characterization is counterproductive.
Private eye books can start with lesser crimes because their whole point is to show the P.I. in a world of corruption, whether societally pervasive or the dark underbelly of families. They usually escalate to murder and the P.I. solves that but that’s mostly proof of the rot already indicated.
Police procedurals can deal with a variety of major crimes. Murder is the norm, but kidnapping, rape, armed robbery and other felonies will do because they get the bureaucratic machinery in motion.
Crime novels are a different subgenre because they do deal with characters and the effects that a major crime has on them. Those can afford to wait to introduce the crimes so that the reader gets immersed in the cross-currents. They’re the utter opposite of whodunnits in that way. Imagine living in Cabot Cove, Maine, where Jessica Fletcher solved 264* murders in 12 years. Who could live a normal life amid such constant tragedy?
I haven’t read a lot of cozys (my wife has) but the ones I read seem more character and situation based than detection based. There seems to be at least as much about the cheese shop, wine shop, doughnut shop, or crossword puzzle construction than the crime. And the detectives are fairly feeble.
There is also the point of getting to know the character before the murder versus getting to know the character murdered in the process of detection. Both work.
Done right cozy characters can behave realistically in their normal lives and unrealistically in their detecting life - but a lot of them are just plain unrealistic. That’s bad writing, along with the common theme that they support themselves on selling a dozen muffins a day if they’re lucky.