I've read some contemporary mystery novels in recent weeks., in large part to reassure myself that writing about mysterious crimes is still possible. And there's something I've noticed in regards to their narration.
There are two big types of third party narration. One is third person omniscient, in which the narrator seems to have a godlike perspective on all events, statements, thoughts, etc. The other is third person limited, where the narrator is separate from any character but limited to describing things through their perspective.
A popular way of writing murder mysteries now―possibly the default―is to use third person limited, but rotate it. That is, the perspective switches from character to character with each chapter.
This seems to me a counterproductive way to write a whodunit. Say you just killed someone. You'd probably be thinking about it quite a lot, right? But in order to not give away the solution, a writer using this model will have to make sure their killer doesn't think anything in the privacy of their own head that wouldn't give everything away if they said it out loud. I'm not sure that works.
2 comments:
Although I've enjoyed the books I've read, thinking back I have to admit to not having read any what you'd call contemporary mysteries. I've long preferred the older ones where there are no computers or smartphones.
Third person omniscient seems to be the standard for most mystery novels; describing how each character reacts and what they say and feel is fairly standard. The narrator knows everything about every character and it's the least restrictive since you get a general overview of the circumstances that drive the story. You can even drop in on the characters to learn what they thinking.
Third person limited story telling in a mystery book sounds much trickier for the reasons you mention, but I can see how it could be done even if the criminal was one of the voices. Perhaps you could arrange the plot so that when he or she was remembering or thinking about the crime you wouldn't know which person it was.
One of my favorites was Michael Innes's novel Lament for a Maker, written in 1938 it definitely fit my preference for a settng long before most modern conveniences had been imagined. Told from multiple points of view each narrator adds something to the overall plot.
I'm sure you can come up with a unique and fascinating story.
It may be that it just takes time for what is truly great to make itself known. It may also be that current trends in publishing tend to smother anything interesting, although I hope not. I also prefer mysteries without computers and smartphones, since they have a tendency to take over.
A lot of authors have settled on third person omniscient, much for the reasons you elucidate. It's flexible for revealing or withholding. And realistically the author will need to do some of both at various points.
I'm sure your right that it can be done. In special circumstances that is. It's good to play around and try a different form now and again. Orhan Pamuk wrote My Name Is Red, a literary novel that also revolved around a crime, and some chapters were actually a first person account of committing the murder, but they didn't identify the killer by name. It's just an issue, I think, where something that might be good here and there becomes what everybody does.
I like the sound of Lament for a Maker. The review you link to compares it to the Gormenghast books, which I greatly enjoyed. (The first two, at least. The third was hurt by Mervyn Peake dying while he was still writing it.) He may have just been a special talent with a great idea.
Thank you for the vote of confidence. I'm trying.
Post a Comment