i've done it watson i've put the pieces
together at last this video was
sponsored by campfire blaze
you know most of the time when i read
books or watch shows i kind of can't
stop myself from overthinking them i
think it's just a side effect of the
critical analysis stuff plus approaching
art and media from my weird
pseudo-professional angle i usually
can't really engage with a story without
trying to pick it apart and see how it
works you know like i'll listen for how
an actor is doing their performance or
clock what trope we're doing and judge
the plot from there stuff like that the
one genre that breaks this rule for me
funnily enough is mysteries the one
story format the audience is supposed to
critically engage with i don't more
accurately i can't it might just be that
i'm really bad at noticing stuff in
general so i skim over the sneaky clues
it might be that i'm really bad with
names so i can't keep the suspect
straight anyway but honestly even the
really well-written mysteries that
differentiate the characters and give
the audience enough clues to
theoretically crack the case don't
really grab me i have a higher success
rate just guessing from the tropes like
if it's an agatha christie number even
odds the killer's going to be the most
eligible bachelor in the cast i'll still
read him and enjoy him but most of the
time the ending will totally blindside
me i'm not good at putting the pieces
together for myself which is why i love
and appreciate the character archetype
central and foundational to the mystery
format the detective the one character
tasked with putting all the pieces
together and revealing to the audience
what the actual plot is without the
detective people like me the watsons of
the world wouldn't get anything out of
mystery stories now detectives aren't
exclusively found in mystery stories but
they are pretty inextricably linked with
the genre detectives investigate
situations and solve puzzles mysteries
are centered on the process of solving
that puzzle but mysteries and mystery
adjacent plots are present in stories of
all stripes which means the detective
archetype can be organically integrated
into almost any genre and narrative
structure if there's a puzzle of any
kind happening in the plot you can have
a detective in the plot too now
detective is a job and a narrative role
not a character type so theoretically
any character archetype can fill the
role of a detective but there are some
majorly popular subtypes that are
essentially stock characters the
hard-boiled noir detective type is
typically a tortured alcoholic or
general addict with a constantly running
inner monologue a jaded and world weary
perspective on life and a
disproportionate number of morally
questionable dames slinking into their
office for shenanigans which is funny
because while this archetype is very
well known classic noir detectives have
almost nothing in common with the tropes
they spawned sam spade the detective in
the maltese falcon the most iconic noir
ever has almost no personality no tragic
or tortured tendencies and he doesn't
even react to the death of his partner
with much more than mild frustration the
hardboiled noir detective archetype has
more in common with dick tracy than any
proper noir protagonist then there's the
gentleman detective almost the polar
opposite of the hard-boiled detective a
classy and frequently aristocratic
adventurer type unilaterally
well-educated and almost always british
frequently butting heads with a bumbling
police department coincidentally full of
lower class people sherlock holmes the
most popular detective ever written kind
of spawned off a whole set of
sherlock-a-likes all eccentric brilliant
usually mostly focused on a forensic
investigative approach and generally
accompanied by a long-suffering guy
friend who narrates the actual
adventures that third person narration
angle isn't a home's exclusive in fact
it's one of only a few ways to present a
mystery to an audience see the problem
with the mystery is the audience isn't
really allowed to know everything that's
happening in the plot until the end
there always has to be something hidden
for the reveal this means the audience
can't have a third person omniscient
perspective but they also usually can't
have a full first person perspective on
the detective because almost all
mysteries have a dainum at the end where
the big twist is revealed and everything
falls into place this denomos starts
when the detective reveals what's going
on not when the detective figures out
what's going on so if the audience is
already in the detective's head we get
that information too early some stories
will kind of fudge this by giving us the
detective's perspective and having them
think stuff like of course that must be
it everything makes sense now and then
reveal the actual information they
figured out during the dynamo proper
failing that most detective stories will
take a third person perspective either
from a less-than-omniscient vague
third-person narrator or from the
perspective of another character who
isn't the detective and serves as an
audience surrogate this isn't a hard and
fast rule though there's kind of a
gradient here that sort of determines
what kind of story and what kind of
detective we're going to get on the high
end of the scale some mysteries show the
audience almost everything this is
pretty rare and it's arguable that
stories of this type aren't exactly
mysteries at all probably the most
iconic example of this format is columbo
a very popular detective show from the
70s where every episode begins with a
full comprehensive view of the murder we
know who did it how they did it how they
covered it up and usually even why they
did it the mystery element is not who
did the crime but how is lieutenant
colombo going to catch them in true
mystery form the episodes all have an
ending reveal of various kinds but
they're usually revealing something
colombo did or discovered off-screen the
twist isn't in the crime but in the
solving of the crime this is also not
uncommon in stories where the detective
character is technically the antagonist
and the protagonist whose pov we're
following is the actual criminal they're
trying to catch these stories will often
turn into battles of wits where the
audience has more knowledge than any of
the individual characters even some
sherlock holmes stories technically fall
into this category there's no mystery in
a scandal in bohemia the surprise reveal
at the end is that arena adler fully saw
through sherlock holmes's sneaky
disguise and totally outmaneuvered him
to leave the country with her new
husband and the photo he wanted it's
more common for a mystery to give the
audience something like 70 to 80 of the
relevant information we typically don't
know who did it and we don't necessarily
know the motive so in order to keep
those vague during the investigative
process the suspect's character
backstories will usually be somewhat
muddled or obscured since otherwise it'd
be kind of too easy to eliminate people
and narrow it down these mysteries will
usually focus on giving us the method
like if someone was poisoned a forensic
report will say what the poison was and
a large pool of suspects to identify the
criminal from the reveal of the criminal
almost always involves a reveal of some
hitherto unknown element of their
backstory or characterization that the
detective has worked out without the
audience's knowledge in these stories
the detective character is usually
digging up clues about the crime to
piece together an empty profile of who
the criminal is and then finding out who
in the cast fits that profile how they
do that depends on the individual
detective and their personality but
before we get into that i kind of want
to touch on the last category because
some mysteries give the audience very
little information and this is usually
bad like actually bad writing and i
don't say that lightly hiding too much
information from the audience can be
seen as a sign of bad faith on the part
of the author if the audience couldn't
reasonably guess the solution from the
information given it's a violation of
mystery convention for instance if the
killer is a hitherto unmentioned
character who just happened to be in the
area that's completely plausible and it
might even make more sense in context
than any of the main cast doing it but
it's not a fair conclusion to a mystery
that's supposed to be fair to the
audience all these things serve to
undercut the integrity of the mystery
plot these stories usually feel worse
for the audience to engage with they
also sometimes don't make much sense in
hindsight since without enough
information in the story to piece it
together it might not actually hold
together writing a mystery is hard you
usually have to do it backwards from the
way it's presented in the plot starting
from the crime and working through what
clues and hints that crime would leave
rather than starting from mystery and
figuring out who would make the best
criminal as you go if the writer sets up
a mystery without actually knowing the
solution beforehand the story is not
going to hold together as well and if
the writer does know the mystery going
into it but drops like tiny tiny clues
that don't actually combine to form the
bigger picture that kind of has the same
problem where the audience can't really
engage with the mystery because they
don't have enough information this
brushes up against the same problem i
talked about in the plot twists video
twists for the sake of shocking and
surprising your audience are good if you
the writer like feeling smart but bad if
you the writer want your audience to
actually critically engage with your
work the audience needs to be able to
follow along and since the audience
can't know more than the author at the
bare minimum the author needs to know
the solution before they start
constructing what clues the audience
gets and ideally they also need to give
the audience enough clues that they
could theoretically extrapolate the
actual solution in kind of the same way
the detective is theoretically supposed
to in the ideal mystery format the
audience is only missing one key piece
of information by the end of the story
so when the detective does the reveal of
that one key piece it makes everything
else fall into place but frankly it's
easier to write a mystery where the
crime leaves almost no clues and the
detective figures out the solution by
knowing what the author needs them to
know and being right because the author
said they were that way there is no
chance of the audience figuring it out
before your detective does and thus
undercutting your detective's incredible
super geniusness for instance while
original sherlock holmes definitely had
some pretty outrageous deductive leaps
extrapolating whole character
backstories from ink stains and muddy
boots some of the adaptions take this a
step further like when bbc's sherlock
adapted a scandal in bohemia into a
scandal in belgravia it added in this
little background mystery because the
closest thing the main plot of that
episode has to a mystery is what is
irene adler's phone password which isn't
you know interesting and it's the first
half of sherlock's name because she's in
love with him now and that's the kind of
basic ass romantic subplot nonsense the
audience could see coming a mile away so
that doesn't really scratch the my
detective needs to be smarter than the
audience itch but the mystery side plot
centers on the unexplained death of a
tourist by blunt force trauma to the
back of the head with no apparent weapon
and no sign of the killer in the middle
of an empty field sherlock brushes this
off immediately claiming that he's
figured out the answer just from the
position of a car that backfired
relative to the tourist and from the
fact that the tourist was killed by a
blow to the back of the head this is the
last we really hear of it for a while
until adler reveals to sherlock that she
has also solved this mystery and
explains that the tourist was killed
accidentally by his own boomerang does
this make sense from the information
given
kinda theoretically fits the lack of any
killer or murder weapon since the
boomerang flew merrily away after
clocking the dude although it is a
little questionable if the boomerang
could have done that kind of killing
impact and then flown like a hundred
feet away and landed in the nearby creek
but that's okay is that something that
the audience could have been expected to
guess from the position of the car
relative to the hiker at the time of the
backfire and a single blow to the back
of the head absolutely the [ __ ] not come
on it'd be just as valid to assume and
probably easier to believe that he just
got hit by a very small meteor what were
the odds i don't know this mystery isn't
fun to solve or see solved because the
audience doesn't even get a chance to
think about it when a mystery gives the
audience too much information there's
not much of a mystery since there's
nothing to figure out but if a mystery
gives the audience too little to go on
it's not going to keep them guessing
it's going to lose their engagement it's
like you need to give them enough pieces
of the puzzle that they can guess what
the final picture is going to look like
not all of them or they'd know for sure
and not just a few edge pieces or the
monochrome sky background because that's
not interesting for the audience to
engage with at its worst it actively
discourages the audience from trying to
solve the mystery it's a tricky balance
to strike but at the heart of the
mystery story is the detective as the
character at the center of unravelling
the mystery or more broadly revealing
the plot the detective is in some ways
the center of the mystery and the
narrative overall and how they navigate
that mystery depends a lot on their
individual character the first place we
tend to look to understand a character
is their character motive most
characters have a clear reason for doing
what they do but that's not always true
for detectives while some are motivated
by a general goodness or a sense of duty
or a general intellectual curiosity some
detectives have next to no personal
investment in solving crimes or
mysteries it's just their job the more
jaded ones might even complain about it
ironically for a detective motive is one
of the least important facets of their
character instead there are three
important aspects to the detective's
character and they mirror the narrative
structure of the mystery first there's
their investigative method how a
detective gathers clues and information
depends almost entirely on their
character personality and skill set for
instance sherlock holmes takes a
forensic focus observing and gathering
trace physical evidence to paint a
picture of the crime then he often does
more on the scene investigating
frequently and increasingly ridiculous
disguises to gather information without
putting people on edge in contrast we
get detective characters like miss
marple who is a purposeful trope
subversion she looks like a totally
different stock character a pleasant but
slightly vague gossipy old lady who also
happens to have an encyclopedic
understanding of the human psyche and
solves the crime she investigates
through nothing but psychological
profiling and her general understanding
of how people work relying on other
people to do the actual clue gathering
legwork in a similar vein agatha
christie's other detective hero hercule
poirot also focuses more on the
psychological angle though he does more
in-person investigating and clue
gathering instead of broad psychological
profiles prairie focuses more on
understanding the motive behind the
crime and deducing the criminal from
there colombo is another deliberate
subversion he's a proper police
detective but he comes across as a
befuddled and disorganized dude dresses
pretty sloppily and drives a car so old
he's frequently asked if he's undercover
he tends to do a first pass spotting
physical evidence the forensics guys
don't always catch because they don't
realize what they're looking for but the
bulk of his investigative method relies
on interviewing slash pestering the
killer about the problems he's noticed
in their story in such a good-natured
and innocent way that they get so
rattled they end up incidentally
revealing the truth other detectives
have other methods the grittier more
hard-boiled ones will sometimes threaten
or even torture people for information
the more gentlemanly ones usually rely
on their book learning and scientific
knowledge to piece things together etc
etc since this clue gathering usually
takes up the bulk of the mystery in one
way or another this is the side of the
detective that usually reveals the most
about their fundamental character the
second aspect of the detective's
character is how they put it all
together this is much subtler than the
clue gathering because most of the time
we don't actually see how this works
it's an internal process when the
detective figures out what exactly has
been going on and if the audience gets
too clear a look at it they're going to
find out the big reveal too early but
even if it's largely invisible it's
still a fundamental facet of the
detective's character maybe they put
things together in sudden bursts of
clarity and inspiration and run off
without explaining anything first maybe
they take careful and methodical notes
and connect the dots more slowly maybe
they chase down a hunch or two before
they hit on the right angle if the
audience has a more omniscient
perspective and already knows what the
detective has to figure out we'll
sometimes see the detective putting the
pieces together mostly for the
audience's benefit spotting a clue we've
already seen noticing a discrepancy
we've already realized doesn't work
looking befuddled for a moment before
silently realizing something or in
contrast kindly and immediately figuring
out the information the criminal has
tried very very hard to hide and
explaining how they came to that
conclusion so we the audience know they
weren't cheating there's all sorts of
ways to play this depending on the
detective's character and finally the
third aspect of the detective's
character is how they handle the big
reveal when they finally put the pieces
together and lay it all out for the
audience so we get the full story for
the first time how the detective handles
that says a lot about them some are very
flamboyant and bombastic hitting on the
right answer with a big speech in a room
full of odd listeners and one
not-so-secret criminal in the throes of
a third act breakdown some are the
complete opposite entirely subdued and
maybe even sad at the whole tragic
picture some might be businesslike or
methodical with only the barest hint of
an emotional response speaking through
sometimes there is no triumph and no
victory this is more common with the
hard-boiled detectives who tend to be
broadly pretty jaded and depressing even
on their best day but you can also get
this with the more emotionally sensitive
detectives when a particularly
depressing case rolls around like if the
criminal was a victim of circumstance or
a lovable innocent bystander got hurt or
the situation is generally kind of
[ __ ] some detectives will in rare
circumstances actually let the criminal
off the hook which can say a lot about
the detective and how much they might be
willing to bend the rules in rare
circumstances but that said the greatest
asset of the detective character is also
their greatest narrative weakness
they're inextricable from the context of
the mystery narrative some detectives do
have rich personal lives on the side for
instance dorothy l sayers detective
character lord peter wimsey has a rich
inner life and eventually makes the slow
shift from gentleman playboy detective
to love interest for the author
self-insert it's really good i promise
it's just so funny to me that that's
very obviously what happened but most
detectives are kind of non-entities
outside the context of the case sherlock
holmes is ferociously bored whenever
he's not on a case and frequently
self-medicates with technically legal
drugs and that's almost become narrative
tradition with the grittier detectives
who will often be addicts struggling
with current or former dependencies with
very depressing non-lives outside of
work sherlock holmes and his various
homes alikes also usually have next to
no social life for friends and they're
often framed as being consumed by their
work and the thrill of the case that's
not to say it's impossible to write a
detective character with more to their
life than just the mystery but it's
really not necessary most of the time so
a lot of writers avoid it since the only
part of the detective's character that
come up during the mystery solving
process are the parts that tied to their
role as detective not the rest of their
life circling back to colombo again we
know that he's got a life and a pretty
good one by all estimates from his
various charming quirks and anecdotes we
know that he's got a dog he never names
a loving wife and a massive nebulous
extended family he's on good terms with
but for instance we never learn his
first name and it's a running gag that
his wife never appears on screen he has
a life outside of work that we catch a
blurry glimpses of but it never matters
to the story so glimpses are all we get
you know it's funny when i uh originally
sat down to write this script i was
trying to focus entirely on detectives
and not go off on mysteries too much but
it wasn't until i was halfway through
that i realized you really can't
separate them the detective is
fundamental to the mystery and the
mysteries fundamental to the detective
even if the audience perspective changes
that mutual structure stays constant the
nature of the detective is to engage
with the mystery they can have basically
any character outside of that but how
they engage with a mystery is really
what defines them as a detective so yeah
and thanks again to campfire blaze for
sponsoring this video as you may know
campfire blaze is a browser-based tool
suite designed to help writers write and
world build their stories it's got all
the classics like real-time
collaboration with other writers a
manuscript module that lets you write in
browser and saves your work in the cloud
and an auto tagging feature so you can
easily reference your own world building
details without digging through your
notes campfire blaze also has tools for
maps locations cultures species magic
systems and more for an overall
well-rounded world building experience
but beyond those old favorites
campfire's got big news they're going to
be releasing the official campfire
desktop and mobile app for ios and
android the desktop app's coming this
fall and the mobile app is coming
sometime this winter the desktop app
will be available on both windows and
mac and will let users access campfire's
tool suite offline you just gotta pop
online once a month to make sure the
subscription is still active and the
campfire mobile app is gonna be
completely free users can use all the
features they want as much as they want
on mobile for no cost so if you feel
like writing a novel on your phone now
you can so look forward to those
dropping later this year in the meantime
you can check out campfire blaze's free
version or if you want more you can
build your own tool suite and only pay
for the modules you need which run as
low as 50 cents each you can also unlock
everything for just a few dollars a
month with a 30-day return policy if you
change your mind check out the link in
the description and make sure to use the
promo code osp21 for 20 off a lifetime
purchase of campfire blaze
[Music]
you