|
|
Post by markesq on Nov 13, 2018 14:34:46 GMT -5
(I suppose I should stick in here a spoiler alert but, as you'll see, that's sort of the problem... however, if you're into crime and mystery podcasts and writings and don't care if there's no resolution, do not read on....!)
So.
I love true crime books and shows, and adore stories of ghosts haunting old houses. But I've noticed a trend, or I think I have: these types of stories are being told wonderfully well in podcasts and long articles... but they have no conclusion. There's no reveal, or solution, and whatever happened remains a mystery.
The best example for me was the podcast Trace, which I listened to with my wife on a long drive from Texas to Colorado. Fascinating, and we were rapt for hours, but at the end of it... still don't know who the killer was! Likewise, some writing friends are linking to this article... which takes many minutes to read, and has no conclusion!
I think a story should have a beginning, a middle, and an end. And that end shouldn't be... "Well, we still don't know who did it." Just my opinion, of course, but be curious to get yours.
(Also, I'm posting it here because I have a feeling I'd get SLAMMED if I FB-ed or Tweeted it!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2018 18:47:29 GMT -5
Oh, I absolutely want a conclusion.
I could live with the characters in the story not knowing whodunnit, but I'd better know. Books that don't tell me get thrown against the wall and their authors banished from my reading list.
|
|
|
|
Post by gaild on Nov 14, 2018 3:45:15 GMT -5
Mark, I couldn't agree with you more. I can't see the point in writing a whodunnit and not revealing who dunnit. As a reader, more than half the fun is spotting the clues and speculating, ahead of the detective, who the possible perpetrator is. If you're right, there's yes moment. If you're wrong, there's that ah, so that was a real clue moment. But to leave it hanging? That's just sloppy writing. When authors say, 'I leave the conclusion up to the reader' I want to smack them. It's their story. They should tell it. All of it. Not leave me, the reader, to create a conclusion for them.
In fiction, the 'we still don't know who did it' just doesn't work. What? Are we supposed to worry that a fictional killer is still out there? Fffft. That's different for true crime, though. Plenty of real killers still out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 14, 2018 13:03:13 GMT -5
Sometimes, real crimes never end with a who dunnit moment, because nobody can figure it out. You can't probably do a podcast or book about a murder and say John Doe is the killer if you can't really be sure. I think the solution is not to do the podcast if you have no closure.
|
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Nov 14, 2018 13:07:33 GMT -5
Sometimes, real crimes never end with a who dunnit moment, because nobody can figure it out. You can't probably do a podcast or book about a murder and say John Doe is the killer if you can't really be sure. I think the solution is not to do the podcast if you have no closure. I agree, if you don't know the answer to the mystery, don't spend two hours telling me the story of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 14, 2018 19:34:06 GMT -5
Yup.
Let me put it another way.
Knock, knock.
Who's there?
Who done it.
Who done it who?
......
|
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 26, 2018 15:58:11 GMT -5
Sometimes, real crimes never end with a who dunnit moment, because nobody can figure it out. You can't probably do a podcast or book about a murder and say John Doe is the killer if you can't really be sure. I think the solution is not to do the podcast if you have no closure. Sometimes, real crimes never end with a who dunnit moment, because nobody can figure it out. You can't probably do a podcast or book about a murder and say John Doe is the killer if you can't really be sure. I think the solution is not to do the podcast if you have no closure. I agree, if you don't know the answer to the mystery, don't spend two hours telling me the story of it. Ummm....y'know, that is not how true crime stories work, right? I mean this ain't Perry Mason where the murderer stands up in a courtroom and admits he/she did it. This isn't Dragnet where everything is tied up in a tidy little package within 30 minutes. This sure ain't Murder, She Wrote where Sheriff Tom Bosley shows up to save Angela Lansbury's nosy-ass Mrs. Fletcher just before the killer busts a cap on her nosy-ass. There has been "no closure" to who killed Jon Benet Ramsey. Or who Jack the Ripper or The Zodiac Killer really were. Or who dismembered The Black Dahlia. Who put bullets in Tupac Shakur and the Notorious B.I.G. and Jam Master Jay of Run-DMC. History is full of cold cases where the killer got away with it. Knowing the who and why of an infamous crime is sometimes the least interesting thing about it. Sometimes it's just the circumstances that make it a brain teaser and catnip for amateur and professional sleuths. They give you the clues and leave it to you to figure whodunnit. I also enjoy true crime podcasts and depending on the presentation, they can be ear candy, but a part of their allure is there isn't always a satisfying resolution in the last 10 minutes where justice is served and criminals get what's coming to them. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 26, 2018 17:15:55 GMT -5
I've been watching old Perry Masons lately. They're really great, but they're also hysterically contrived. Perry Mason's clients are always innocent, and he gleans this from them the moment he meets them, then proceeds to screw with the cops so he can set up the actual murderer down the road (because he somehow knows how exactly the story will play out, including who the killer must be, even though he hasn't even met most of the suspects).
And I think open-ended tales are fine, if they're interesting. An ending where the guilty party is not fully determined is still an ending.
|
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 26, 2018 19:17:17 GMT -5
My wife is a Perry Mason fan. So much so that when we bought our first DVD player, I threw away all the VHS tapes of Perry Mason episodes the same time I threw away the VCR.
I fucking HATE Perry Mason...
...but damn if it wasn't so far over the top with all the scenery-chewing. Straight up Bad Acting 101.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 26, 2018 19:32:05 GMT -5
Perry Mason was horrible.
And I like true crime stories, even the ones where we never find out whodunnit, because a lot of true crime stories have no tidy answers. No one ever confessed, no one ever cracked on the witness stand, no one ever gave the answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 27, 2018 8:03:57 GMT -5
My favorite part of Perry Mason is identifying guest stars. Just the other night, a young James Hong was on (Lo Pan from Big Trouble in Little China). And before that, I espied Arlene Martel (from Star Trek's Amok Time).
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 27, 2018 13:03:06 GMT -5
Sometimes, real crimes never end with a who dunnit moment, because nobody can figure it out. You can't probably do a podcast or book about a murder and say John Doe is the killer if you can't really be sure. I think the solution is not to do the podcast if you have no closure. I agree, if you don't know the answer to the mystery, don't spend two hours telling me the story of it. Ummm....y'know, that is not how true crime stories work, right? I mean this ain't Perry Mason where the murderer stands up in a courtroom and admits he/she did it. This isn't Dragnet where everything is tied up in a tidy little package within 30 minutes. This sure ain't Murder, She Wrote where Sheriff Tom Bosley shows up to save Angela Lansbury's nosy-ass Mrs. Fletcher just before the killer busts a cap on her nosy-ass. There has been "no closure" to who killed Jon Benet Ramsey. Or who Jack the Ripper or The Zodiac Killer really were. Or who dismembered The Black Dahlia. Who put bullets in Tupac Shakur and the Notorious B.I.G. and Jam Master Jay of Run-DMC. History is full of cold cases where the killer got away with it. Knowing the who and why of an infamous crime is sometimes the least interesting thing about it. Sometimes it's just the circumstances that make it a brain teaser and catnip for amateur and professional sleuths. They give you the clues and leave it to you to figure whodunnit. I also enjoy true crime podcasts and depending on the presentation, they can be ear candy, but a part of their allure is there isn't always a satisfying resolution in the last 10 minutes where justice is served and criminals get what's coming to them. True, and look how long the mystery of Jack the Ripper kept the legend going, but I want a theory. |
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Nov 27, 2018 14:57:39 GMT -5
Lol, you people asking me if I know how true crime stories work. It's my job AND I wrote a true-crime book, so yes I do.  I appreciate your perspectives on not needing an end, a solution to the mystery, and am just here to let you know you're all wrong. But that's OK, too.  Come to think of it, I wonder if my day job and novel writing have something to do with my take on this. I mean, I don't get a case unless there's a solution, and I (obviously) can't write a mystery novel without the good guy catching the bad guy/gal. I shall ponder on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 27, 2018 16:32:14 GMT -5
Let's just settle it all right now.
It was Mrs. Peacock.
In the library.
With the candlestick.
All unsolved murders are now officially closed.
Boom.
|
|
