To have a murder mystery and not actually murder anyone ? I think it has been done before there might even be an Agatha Christie but not sure.
To me it sounds interesting, at least it's not the usual murder mystery... How did you think about it? let someone be supposed dead to later reveal that he wasn't? having someone thinking X killed someone (and he himlself too), but he didn't?
Right now I have four people missing (Two police officers, an Earl and his partner) I also have a mute woman covered in blood that my lead detective is trying to hide because he owes her father to protect her so forensics haven't been done on the blood. Oh and there is a maid missing as well. I now know I don't actually need to kill anyone but there can still be arrests for something horrible and a murder that happened about thirty years before - may even be potential for that to have been an accident.
That is part of the problem story doesn't care either way I can massacre the lot or keep them all alive. Or just kill some. The story leads to exactly the same place. Think it is because it is more about the MCs and how they become private detectives instead of police officers.
as long as you dont fall in the "Bobby-Ewing-wakes-up-from-a-long-sleep-finding-out-that-it-was-just-a-dream-trap you'll be fine
Well it could all be a nightmare of Joe's he wakes up and actually he is a florist in Acton married to Linda with two kids Would kind of mess up the sequel even more seriously than he and Tim moving in together
which would be the nightmare? the murders or waking up finding out he's married to Linda with two kids...? Anyway It still sounds interesting. I'll buy the book once it's ready.
Well that would raise an interesting question - did he dream about being in a cleaning cupboard with Tim because he is gay or was it his worst fear ...
Just write it, El. It'll be fine. Besides, I seem to remember a Monty Python sketch about a murder mystery in which no murder has actually been committed ...
lol Guess I will just go with it and see I am a little concerned it is going to turn into a farce. Typical I write a farce and end up with a dark tragedy - then I start writing two evil serial killers who morph into detectives and it turns into a farce I think this is the evolved form just never been in a position before where the story doesn't care - the main story is about the two men and this is the side story and all options give me the final goal - one of them inherits an undertakers.
if no one's murdered, then wouldn't it just be a 'missing person' mystery, with some of the characters only assuming the 'victim' was murdered?
Well at present I have six missing persons - and one dead person (I think). All are assumed to be at very least in trouble. It actually does involve a child prostitute ring so could still be crime/thriller. I am sure though Agatha Christie (at least someone other than Monty Python lol) Did something similar where the murder victim wasn't dead. I just can't remember it or if I am imagining it lol.
This, oh this this this. I believe that if you write the story as it is told that it'll all work out. From what I understand, you're writing a 'Jane's missing, but wait, nope, she was never missing after all!' storyline, only sub in murder. If it rounds out that said person who was 'murdered' was of a well-known position, you'll add sufficient tension. Everyone will start asking where the person is, others will get fishy, and the 'murderer' will start to sweat it off. Or does the murderer not know they 'killed' someone? There's tons of ways to wrap this. Explore them all and see what you like best!
Is it someone thought dead who turns out to be only kidnapped or missing or on a vacation in Hawaii? That's been done before, leaves room for surprise, and can turn out to be good. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
ok at present I have : One missing Earl and his partner Two missing police officers and their son one missing maid one character who has been dead/missing since one of my MCs was ten - I have one mute covered in blood - one box of dog bones - several drops of a blood by a vicious pot plant - two mobile phones found in mysterious places playing the JAWs ring tone. -stolen paperwork. I have no idea where any of the blood came from or where any of the missing people are (well I think I do) - I have a vague idea about how to put it back together without killing a single one of them. I now know why they are missing and what it needs to accomplish and I can kill all bar one of them or keep them all alive and still have the same end to the story.
Of course you don't need to kill someone to have a mystery. But I'm confused as to what role the missing persons play in your story. Do the detectives need to find out what happened to them at all to solve the case? What's the mystery really?
it is looking like the mystery is darker than murder and involves an undercurrent in the small market town that is driven by the headteacher at the primary school. They don't actually need to really find the people to solve the mystery. Which is why it doesn't matter if they live or die or we never know. Their disappearence is the important catalyst to finding the problem. The two main stories are finding out this undercurrent and my main two characters getting together. Neither are affected by the death toll in anyway.
Does it make sense for the main characters to be more interested in the undercurrents than the deaths/disappearances? Will the deaths/disappearances seem important to the reader?
