When I wrote OFFICIAL SECRETS, I had the whole story pretty well mapped out -- who'd done what; then how the protagonists Mike and Janice would solve it. My biggest problem came after they'd figured out who'd committed the crimes and discovered, to their chagrin, that knowing -- even having the evidence to prove it -- wasn't enough. Meanwhile, I'd been giving Janice and Mike bigger and progressively more difficult obstacles to hurdle and then -- having brought them to this point (where their knowledge and evidence were insufficient) I found that I'd painted them into a corner with no way out. Our minds are marvellous. Yeah, I know that's not exactly a profound statement, but it's so much fun when you see it happen. I'd been wrestling with this final hurdle for more than a week, occupying my time with polishing my earlier chapters, and then one night -- just as I was dozing off and NOT pondering that particular question -- the solution came to me. And it worked. So I guess that for me, anyway, the success of the story came from a combination of what others have said before -- early plotting and late-in-the-story inspiration. Writing stories is really fun. I recommend it to anyone.

This is a great discussion. I have been writing on and off for four years now, and have to say I prefer not to plan how my stories are going to develop. This means that I myself usually have no idea who did what where and why until I get to a critical point where that decision has to be made. I do, however, have a couple of people who I bounce ideas off, and of course once I get to the end of a story, I leave it alone for a while - being a student, I have plently of better things to be doing - and then go back to it to add in more clues, details, red herrings etc. Occasionally, though, I have a specific idea which leads me through a story. In this case, I plan certain things in detail, but leave the rest to my imagination.

Seems to me that just writing the story with no "solution" in mind 'til the author gets to the end has certain difficulties.

I'm a believer in the maxim that the very astute mystery reader should have sufficient clues by the 1/3 point in the story to deduce the solution; and that any reader should have enough info by the 2/3 point to "solve" the case.

Which would mean -- for those who subscibe to this "rule," -- that picking a solution while writing the latter chapters will require going back to insert vital clues for your readers.

agree with you jim that the reader should be able to solve the mystery if they are paying attention. at least those are my favorite kind of mysteries to read - except for donald westlake who is a dangerous man because it is so easy to curl up and read him anytime - responsibilities disappearing like chocolate chips from the trail mix.

my husband and i are amateur mystery writers and once we decide who did it and how we do a timeline rather than an outline just to make sure that we keep the story straight through all the devious twists and turns. it's always interesting when clever twists present themselves that we hadn't thought of and would have missed if we were without the timeline

Isn't it diificult to create the solution of your mystery later on? I'm in the process of writing a really simple mystery and find it extremely confusing--keeping track of suspects, other characters, clues, and tying everything together. I have a HUGE amount of respect for anyone who can do that with ease. :0)

This has been a really good discussion -- I'm so glad I found this place!

I agree that it would probably be fun to work my way through a mystery alongside my sleuth. I'd like to try that some time. But at this point in my writing , I need to know (at least) whodunit and why before I start. Otherwise, I can't create a believable villian.

What I'm learning is that, for me, I have to tighten up my outline once I'm into the story, so that it's pretty much bare bones at the beginning and pretty specific at the end.

And I definitely agree on the timeline. I started one when I started the book I just finished, but lost it somewhere. When I reconstructed a briefer version during my last chapter (because I needed to know the exact date of a pevious event), I discovered that a main character had lived in Highland City an entire year before she moved there! (Luckily, I was able to coincide the dates without disrupting the plot!) Oh well . . .

. . . . . . . .I have tried the concept of writing then working the ideas in as I go. It is not always pretty. In my last attempt, a story called Meteor Party, I started out with the title then worked in a story. An idea one of my colleagues suggested on another board. All but one of the characters died before I knew it. The vilan. It sorta worked out. Those who have read it have comments from "I don't understand it" to "Looks good", go figure. I prefer to work with an outline. Otherwise it almost feels as though one is working with out a net on a high wire act.