Lessons From Nancy Drew

Don't laugh.

Okay, fine, laugh if you must. As a newbie suspense writer in search of insights into creating a good mystery, I've pulled out all my old Nancy Drew books (the 1929-1936 editions!) and studied them. For all their simplicty and charm, the Nancy Drew books actually are proving quite a fantastic help for writing mysteries.

Here's some principles I've gathered, in relation to Paramnesia.

There seem to be two situations Nancy gets into when she takes on a case:

A. Nancy knows who the villain is but can't figure out a motive.
B. Nancy knows the motive, but not the villlain's identity.

Of course, there are variations in detail. Sometimes Nancy's original theories are disproved. And sometimes there's more than one suspect, all with very unclear motives. In one of the best books, "Mystery at Lilac Inn," Nancy could name at least six people that she suspected were involved in the crime, but she had no substantial evidence of anyone's guilt. She only found the true villain after she temporarily suspended logic and trusted her intuition. I think that that was really a growing process for her, as a private investigator. In later books, she was more willing to follow hunches and do unexpected, even rash things - much to the enjoyment of this reader.

But I digress. What I wanted to draw attention to were the two basic situations. Now, Paramnesia doesn't fit either of those situations. Not that it has to, but still....The villain and the motive are both unknown. (Of course, I know them, but Gavin doesn't, and the FBI doesn't.) So should I fix that? Is that okay or would it be easier to write (and follow) if I at least give some clues?

Another point: Though the cases Nancy took on were always on the behalf of somebody else, there was something at stake for her, too. It could be a friendship, her credibility as a P.I., her self-esteem, her sense of duty and/or justice, even her life.

Gavin and Mara are the main investigators of the ACC murders (Mara officially, Gavin privately.) And of course there's something at stake for Gavin - he's trying to crack the case to protect his reputation, his self-esteem, and his life. Not unlike Nancy Drew. What about Mara? What's at stake for her?

Well, obviously, her career. She's failed to solve a number of cases, and this is her unofficial last chance to redeem herself. As an FBI agent, her main strength is establishing rapport with victims or suspects. That's why she is often assigned to work undercover. But her investigational skills aren't what they could be. She's doing this to save her career.

Also, she feels somehow responsible for Gavin. After her first experience with him, she can't shake the feeling that somehow, his well being depends on her ability to solve this case. I know, this doesn't sound terribly plausible. Gotta work on it.

And of course her life is on the line. Clear enough, I suppose, after the "drop the investigation or you will die" message.

But is this not enough? Should there be more on the line, something more personal? Even if I just borrow Nancy's fundamental sense of justice?

Of course, one weakness I have noticed, (because every great masterpiece has one,) is the quite frequent and irritating use of the deus ex machina, which in Nancy-Drew-ese is "most unkind tricks played upon Nancy by fate" or "the smiling of Providence upon Nancy." No matter what you call it, it's still a deus ex machina. And it will stay out of my story.

I'd love to keep talking, but I've got to go to sleep. Nighty-night!