4 ms·

He's basically explaining the snowflake method, right? Start with a most basic explanation of the plot, sometimes just a single sentence that people would use t

He's basically explaining the snowflake method, right? Start with a most basic explanation of the plot, sometimes just a single sentence that people would use to describe the book. Then slowly build out from there, adding more details in each iteration, until the plot is fully fleshed out. The creative process then switches from "What is this about?", to "How does this go about?".

kd5bjo 7y ago
There’s two plots in a mystery novel: what actually happened, and how the detective figures it out. My understanding is that the short story he describes is the former, and defines the puzzle part of the mystery: what clues are available, where are they, and what do they really mean? The actual novel, though, is the story of the investigation. It can be written in any way the author likes, so long as the detective only uncovers clues that the prewriting indicates should exist. One clear example of this distinction is the old Columbo TV series, where the murder happens onscreen at the beginning of each show. The bulk of the time is spent on the mental sparring match between the culprit and the detective.
fenomas 7y ago
Not at all. The author isn't talking about constructing the story per se, he's talking about constructing the underlying "problem of logic and deduction" (as Chandler called it) that's demanded by the mystery genre. That is, he means writing out just where the murderer was going when he dropped his left cuff-link, and whether it happened before or after the second gardener potted that prize-winning tea-rose begonia. Even if those scenes don't appear in the story's narrative, the clues related to them will need to be consistent and form a satisfying puzzle for the reader to pit themselves against (since mystery stories are usually expected to give the reader some kind of chance to guess whodunit). So the author's saying to work all that out in advance, before considering what scenes to write and what happens in them and so on.

kd5bjo 7y ago

There’s two plots in a mystery novel: what actually happened, and how the detective figures it out. My understanding is that the short story he describes is the former, and defines the puzzle part of the mystery: what clues are available, where are they, and what do they really mean? The actual novel, though, is the story of the investigation. It can be written in any way the author likes, so long as the detective only uncovers clues that the prewriting indicates should exist. One clear example of this distinction is the old Columbo TV series, where the murder happens onscreen at the beginning of each show. The bulk of the time is spent on the mental sparring match between the culprit and the detective.

fenomas 7y ago

Not at all. The author isn't talking about constructing the story per se, he's talking about constructing the underlying "problem of logic and deduction" (as Chandler called it) that's demanded by the mystery genre. That is, he means writing out just where the murderer was going when he dropped his left cuff-link, and whether it happened before or after the second gardener potted that prize-winning tea-rose begonia. Even if those scenes don't appear in the story's narrative, the clues related to them will need to be consistent and form a satisfying puzzle for the reader to pit themselves against (since mystery stories are usually expected to give the reader some kind of chance to guess whodunit). So the author's saying to work all that out in advance, before considering what scenes to write and what happens in them and so on.